Tiger337

Absolutely, He is probably worth 20 extra wins compared to an average manager.

I'm thinking they will be bad, but very interesting in terms of preparing for the future.

Pitchers have always been disproportionately White. I am not sure why. I used to think it was racial profiling (like black QBs), but you would think that would have been alleviated with the modern scientific approach in baseball.

Maton at second where he belongs (if not shortstop).

And only one African American - Baddoo. Are they the whitest team in the league?

Good, I don't want them going 35-5. I love that the Tigers hold that record.

Who is going to be first to call him Del Bozo when he blows a lead?

I couldn't watch them when they played the Red Sox. Now I can't watch them because of Apple TV, whatever that is. I think TV viewing reached it's peak a few years ago when I could almost always watch them on MLB Extra Innings. Back to the radio while I surf my fantasy team on other channels.

Why are the Tigers not on TV?

I think it's to early to make comparisons. Some of it could be adjusting to new rules. However, I do expect offense to be up this year. Another thing that is happening is more base stealing. That might actually pick up even more because the success rate is also up.

I sometimes get caught up in feeding trolls, but some people are easy to ignore. No creativity, no new content, no reason to respond.

There isn't anyone on the team worth following. If someone performs, he'll lead by example.

Durability is important. If you have a player that is frequently injured. he is usually replaced by somebody a lot worse (like Zach Short) and that hurts the team. That is the reason why replacement level is used. If you don't think it's important though, you can use Wins Above Average instead. In Hall of Fame consideration, WAA might be better than WAR. Baserunning is a small part of WAR and not really controverisial. I don't know why it would be considered overrated.

Different sites have their own metrics which they insert into the framework. FanGraphs and Baseball-reference are pretty close on everything except the fielding. So, if you see discrepancies between the two, it's usually because of fielding. Fielding is still hard to evaluate and is the biggest challenge in evalauting a player's overall contribution. The first thing I look at when a WAR seems too high or too low is fielding. If one stat says player A is a +10 fielder and another stat says he is a -5 fielder, that's a pretty big discrepancy (about 1.5 WAR difference). In that case, you have to decide for yourself whether or not you think he's a good fielder and choose the WAR that makes the most sense.

I actually do expect a complete shift in performance at some point. It probably won't be enough, but he's not going to bat .100 all year. I'm not trying to be a Baez apologist. I don't even like him much. I just don't think he's goig to be this bad all year. There will probably be a one or two month period where he is the best player on the team (for what that's worth)

I wanted Buddha to explain it since he is an expert on why it doesn't work! Honestly, it is pretty complicated and gets overused. A player gets points for: hitting performance (let's say OPS) playing time (Think about games played so a players doesn't get too many points for a high OPS in few games played) fielding (runs saved based on one of the advanced fielding measures like UZR at Fangraphs) position (extra points for playing a difficult position like shortstop) baserunning(SB, CS, taking extra bases, etc) Add it all together and you arrive at the numbers of wins a player is worth compared to a AAAA player playing in his place. A scrub is 0-1 WAR Average player 2 WAR Good player 3-4 WAR allstar 4-5 WAR MVP 6+

It says more about the Tigers than about Baez, but I think WAR captured his performance well enough. What part of WAR do you think didn't work for him?

Baez led the team in WAR last year and could very well do so this year.

I think that Maton and Viering are major leaguers. Whether or not they will be starters on a contending team is the question. It's a good trade if you think they have a better chance of being building blocks on a contender than Soto. I think they do.

It was a good trade. I don't think Maton and Vierling have a high probability of becoming starters on a contending team, but they have a better chance of contributing to a contending team (starting or otherwise) in the future than what they gave up.

The first two better be building blocks or we are going to have a really long wait for our next contender. I think Maton is more like the others than he is like the first two.

You could make an argument for all of them. At the very least, they all could have some trade value with some success in the next year or two.

"****ty golf motel". Is that a Trump hotel?

I vaguely remember he was being pumped up as a smart future manager even back then.

And most other managers.