The Red Sox and J.D. Martinez Still Need Each Other

J.D. Martinez would represent a competitive advantage among a group of historically weak DHs.
(Photo: Keith Allison)

Jeff Sullivan wrote last week that the DH just had its worst season. That was the main point of his piece. Along the way, though, Jeff also did some myth-busting with regard to how the DH spot is being utilized these days. There’s an emergent belief that the DH has become a revolving door on many clubs, used more often to keep players fresh and create roster flexibility, and less often to simply give a lone, defensively challenged hitter a full complement of at-bats.

What Jeff found contradicts this belief, however. Last season, the top-15 designated hitters in the AL accounted for 64% of plate appearance. Since 1973, though, the average for primary DHs is just 56%.

From Sullivan’s piece:

So designated hitters are hitting worse than ever not because of a transformation of the role itself but just because they’re hitting worse than ever.

While the collective production of DHs might improve in 2018, it’s still a bleak landscape, with only seven AL teams projected to produce a win or better from the position. The Mariners (3.0 WAR), Yankees (2.6), Indians (2.4), Athletics (1.8), and Rangers (1.2) account for the top-five DH teams. Their respective depth charts at the position are led by Nelson Cruz, Brett Gardner, Khris Davis, Edwin Encarnacion, and Shin-Soo Choo. The average age of those players is 34.2 years. While the DH position often allows for aging bats with diminishing defense to find their way into the lineup, there is hardly a youth movement occurring at the position. It’s possible the position is even weaker than in 2017.

While teams are still employing regular designated hitters, they rarely invest in such players. The two largest contracts awarded to current designated hitters were the four-year, $68-million pact received by Victor Martinez from the Tigers leading into the 2015 season and the three-year, $60-million deal the Indians gave to Encarnacion. While the Angels should have perhaps anticipated that Albert Pujols would require a move DH, he was nevertheless signed as a first baseman.

So with the DH looking to be historically weak and few teams willing to pay a premium for the position, this might be a point in time when it makes sense for the right club to invest in the DH and gain a competitive advantage in the process.

The Red Sox jump out as an obvious candidate. That’s why they’ve been connected to J.D. Martinez all winter and reportedly have a standing five-year offer out to the Boras client. An agreement has seemed inevitable, but pitchers and catchers are scheduled to report tomorrow and nothing has yet occurred. Boston ought not to let this opportunity slide away.

The DH position was a great strength for the Red Sox during the David Ortiz era, of course. From 2003 to -16, the club only once posted a wRC+ worse than 118 at the position. Last season, meanwhile, Red Sox DHs produced a 90 wRC+, the sixth-worst mark in franchise history.

During the Ortiz era, the Red Sox had a competitive advantage at DH. They posted 48.2 WAR from the DH spot from 2003 to -16. The next nearest AL club, the Yankees, produced 30.2 WAR. Only six AL clubs in that 13-year span produced 20 or more wins from their DH spot.

The Red Sox could purchase another similar advantage in the short- to mid-term.

Since 2015, Martinez has posted the seventh-best wRC+ in the game (147). Last season, amongst hitters who made at least 400 plate appearances, Martinez’s 166 wRC+ trailed only that of Mike Trout and Aaron Judge.

Yes, we have to worry about how Martinez will age. Yes, he could fall off a cliff. Yes, there is risk. But there appears to be little immediate or short-term concern. They’ve already traded a lot of tomorrow for right now. And Martinez is not yet ancient. He’s entering his age-30 season.

In an examination of how comparable hitters have aged from ages 30 to 36, our own excellent Craig Edwards found earlier this offseason that Martinez could “still return a $150 million investment” even if paired with below-average baserunning and defense. The latter is a concern for NL clubs, of course. Martinez recorded a -14.8 UZR/150 and -5 DRS last season. His defense was even worse in 2016 (-22 DRS and -21.5 UZR/150). In the AL, that wouldn’t have to be a problem.

While the end of the contract could be ugly, the totality of the contract might not be so unpalatable. And while there are cheaper hitters like Carlos Gonzalez and Logan Morrison available, Martinez has an elite-level bat. He would give the Red Sox a sizable competitive advantage in one lineup spot.

Environment and context are important, too.

The Red Sox hold a one-game edge over the Yankees in FanGraphs’ projections. The next-closest projected division race? The NL Central, where the Cubs hold a six-game lead over the Cardinals. And one can argue the Yankees have a far better long-term outlook than Boston, ranked No. 2 in Baseball America’s farm system rankings. The Red Sox rank No. 24 in that same list. The Yankees are determined to get under the luxury threshold and be key players in next year’s free agent shopping, while the Red Sox already have $204 million committed to 2018 salaries, according to Cot’s Baseball Contracts. It appears as though the Red Sox are not concerned with getting below the tax threshold. So this might not only be a time to invest in the DH and a rare bat for the position, but the Red Sox have a division title to worry about and perhaps a shorter window.

We also don’t know for how long Chris Sale and Craig Kimbrel will remain healthy and elite. Boston traded considerable prospect wealth to acquire them. The Red Sox ought to be in win-now mode. A player like Martinez, could, in theory, tip the divisional balance in their favor. That’s incredibly valuable.

While it’s prudent to remember the Albert Pujols contract this time of year, Pujols’s first year in Los Angeles was in his age-32 season. Martinez is 30. He’s at the height of his powers, having ranked second in Statcast’s barrels-per-batted-ball metric both last season and 2015. Dave Dombrowski has been criticized, and rightfully so in some cases, for his big-game hunting, for trading too much of tomorrow for today. But this is an instance when the Red Sox ought to ensure that they get their target, which is the best bat available — one of the great offensive sources in the game.

We hoped you liked reading The Red Sox and J.D. Martinez Still Need Each Other by Travis Sawchik!

Please support FanGraphs by becoming a member. We publish thousands of articles a year, host multiple podcasts, and have an ever growing database of baseball stats.

FanGraphs does not have a paywall. With your membership, we can continue to offer the content you've come to rely on and add to our unique baseball coverage.

Support FanGraphs




A Cleveland native, FanGraphs writer Travis Sawchik is the author of the New York Times bestselling book, Big Data Baseball. He also contributes to The Athletic Cleveland, and has written for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, among other outlets. Follow him on Twitter @Travis_Sawchik.

newest oldest most voted
sadtrombone
Member
sadtrombone

I don’t disagree with the author’s main point (JD Martinez can help them and the Red Sox should sign him, the Red Sox are in the right context to add more value, etc). But since the point is to gain an overall advantage in value and not an advantage at any single position, it would be more convincing to discuss how much of an advantage he would provide over Hanley Ramirez (or Moreland, if Ramirez is going to mostly play first base).

I also think the real reason the Red Sox aren’t going to six years is because they have no interest in bidding against themselves. They’ll probably have to make some kind of token face-saving concession to seal the deal, but it isn’t necessary to just tack on another year at the end with a similar AAV.

Anonymous
Member
Anonymous

Maybe they can do the Jose Bautista “mutual option” for a 6th year.

pepper69fun
Member
pepper69fun

Correct me if I am wrong, but I did not see a specific contract length or price recommended by Travis for JDM. I like analysis as much as the next guy, but isn’t it self evident that JDM provides material improvement over Moreland/Hanley? Do we really need several paragraphs of analysis that amount to “yes, the sun is hot”? Article references one game gap between Boston and NYY. A couple of wins here added by JDM could be big. You reference a face-saving gesture to get it done. My reading of article was Travis recommended doing that now and get JDM on board. If Boston goes from 5/$100mm to 5/$120mm, then that’s fine for Boston. I didn’t see him advocating total surrender or 6/$150mm or more deals.

sadtrombone
Member
sadtrombone

I just did a search and it came up empty on the 6 year recommendation. I think it was in the little one-sentence blurb that shows up for “Latest” stories and then disappears–something like “Why the Red Sox Should Go To 6 Years” or something like that (which is why you see commenters talking about six years).

With regards to Moreland/Hanley, maybe most of us don’t need to hear it, but it is an argument that makes sense. Using league-wide DH trends in WAR doesn’t tell us anything about why the Red Sox (as opposed to the Yankees, or Cleveland, or the Twins, any AL team with designs on contending this year) should sign Martinez.

(actually, that might be an interesting article, along the lines of the Ohtani one earlier–which team would benefit the most from signing Martinez? The Red Sox likely come up first, but we don’t know that for sure, and examining Moreland/Hanley vs other replaced players would be interesting)

There’s also the fact that gaining an advantage in a single position is helpful to gaining an overall team advantage, but not the same. It’s just an odd way to say it…it isn’t like anyone is claiming the Reds are contenders this year because they have a massive advantage over the rest of the league at first base. I just don’t know what the league-wide DH trends tell us.

There is a more charitable way to read it, and to say that because teams aren’t “investing” in a full time DH then someone should be able to snag Martinez on a really good deal. But since the Red Sox are literally following that plan right now, the “The Red Sox shouldn’t let them get away” story that Travis concludes with actually is the opposite of that recommendation.

So yeah, I don’t get this one.

pepper69fun
Member
pepper69fun

Honestly, I concur with much of what you say. He did take an odd route (DH advantage) to basically say Boston really needs JDM and maybe should bump their offer. I know you are not saying that Boston should abjectly surrender and make a silly contract to just win this year. Others are looking at his article as a general fangraphs trend and I can somewhat get where they are coming from. There is a style/depth/format that many of us enjoy greatly. I do think this specific article is better if he had given better info on where negotiations are at and what he really thinks should be the compromise. I just don’t need a lot of data on Hanley/Moreland or guys like Lomo to understand that JDM is better, the importance of that edge is important/relevant for 2018, and that Boston can afford a small loss on this negotiation in order to better win on the field. Long term roster management is important, but there is a such a thing as winning now so long as you don’t devastate your future.

sadtrombone
Member
sadtrombone

I think that there’s a lot of frustration on this article in particular, but that’s related to (a) mistaken analysis that gets repeated over and over again, and (b) making assertions about the market and spending when the data is clearly lacking.

However, this article is neither of those as much as it is just…not that convincing. Which is weird to say, since I already agree with the author’s main point.

Dave T
Member
Dave T

If reporting is accurate, Boston has already gone to an offer of 5/$125 million that’s been on the table for about two months.

Paul22
Member
Paul22

New reports out of Boston say thats no higher than 5/100

highfivescorpion
Member
highfivescorpion

The actual report says “closer to 5/100 than 5/125,” so at this point it’s most likely the 5/110 offer that was floating around twitter.

rounders
Member
rounders

It’s as if Dombroski has already matched Boston’s greaer need and Martinez’s actual value to make a best offer above market.

pepper69fun
Member
pepper69fun

No one knows what precisely is on the table. if 5/125 is there, then my personal opinion is JDM needs to jump on that. if it’s 5/100, then I think Boston ought to come up a bit to get this deal done.

ThomServo
Member
ThomServo

He cited Craig’s absurd $150m 6-year valuation.

To make this valuation, Craig manipulated the data by arbitrarily throwing the catchers out of the sample.

“I then narrowed the list by removing catchers and looking at players who played mostly full seasons at 29 years old, putting up at least a 140 wRC+ during that year. The list yielded 10 names.”

He used a 10-man sample where the best performers were caught-PED users David Ortiz and Jason Giambi. He then projected RC+ only – but converted it to a fake WAR by ignoring defense and baserunning entirely. This was easily the worst player valuation I’ve ever seen on fangraphs- but Travis has cited it approvingly several times.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/j-d-martinezs-potential-for-falling-off-a-cliff/

By using such poor methodology, Craig concluded that Martinez was “something like a four-win player-” despite every serious projection method having him at least 1.3 WAR less.

Craig also didn’t incorporate retirement into his projection at all- so while his 10-man sample quickly dwindled to just Ortiz and Giambi, he simply ignored the survivors bias and used the WAR from players still playing instead of acknowledging that the players who had retired had declined to the point of being unproductive.

Boston certainly does not need Martinez, it is easier to argue that they need to avoid him. He is less than a 2 WAR upgrade, and signing him would put Boston well into the luxury tax- costing them $30+ for a <2 WAR upgrade this season, with a far worse $/WAR ratio going forward.

Travis, Craig and Rian would be the worst GMs in baseball, fangraphs sadly appears to be post-peak. Worst fangraphs writers ever, well beyond parody.

david k
Member
david k

Wow, a bit over the top with the criticism, in my opinion. Did LaVar Ball write this post?

John
Member
Member
John

Seriously, though, Thom, why be aggressive and condescending about this? I’ve said this elsewhere, that you’re right to ask for more numbers based analysis when it’s lacking, but you seem to be really pissed about a transition to a new kind of website and your making it personal.

You’re also ignoring what seems to be the writing on the wall. It’s been widely speculated that you can’t get traffic anymore just by crunching numbers and looking for inefficiencies. Baseball journalism has changed now that analytics is not only mainstream but often proprietary and secret, right? Didn’t Dave Cameron on the podcast last year use the reemergence of the Yankees and Dodgers to ask what the point of Fangraphs would be in the future? He wondered if the goals of citizen-journalist-analysts had been finally accomplished when the richest teams in baseball started playing smarter. This is a paraphrase, but wasn’t that the gist?

So now many of the sites best number crunchers are working in front offices because of this. Hell yeah! Celebrate them and read with an open mind while the new writers and community here help redefine each other. Because baseball is in a weird spot right now. There’s much work left to be done if we want the best and most baseball there is. I’m sorry that there is hardly anyone left to talk to anymore about how players should be valued, how bullpens should work. Those wer really exciting storylines to follow over the last years, and breathtaking to see them picked up by teams at the highest level. You may not like that, and you may not like the direction the site is going, but please, stop crapping on the new writers while they figure this out.

Hopefully someone on staff can account for the new look in a post so readers will be less grouchy. Think of us as a group of players having trouble buying in with the new ways.

ThomServo
Member
ThomServo

It’s not aggressive.

When fangraphs writers say that Pujols is the worst contract in baseball and the worst player in baseball- that’s not aggressive, its a valuation.

Following Craig & Travis’ suggestions would make a GM the very worst in the sport. These suggestions are among the very worst in all of baseball media. No one on ESPN or bleacher report or any other lowest-common-denominator publication is recommending worse moves- they are instead recommending these same “Boras terms” moves.

Further, Craig’s Martinez valuation is right about the worst I’ve seen on any medium, let alone fangraphs. Throwing out data, using a 10-man sample, ignoring defense and baserunning- so as to produce a WAR estimate that is twice as large as any serious projection- is about as bad as it gets. Promoting a $150m valuation for Martinez- when serious projection models including fangraphs contract estimator says half of that- is about as bad as it gets. There isn’t a worse baseball journalist making more inaccurate valuations or using worse methodology.

It’s not aggressive to say so. No GMs in baseball are operating as illogically as Craig, Travis and Rian are urging them to.

John
Member
Member
John

Nasty, then? I don’t know, I’m not really a grammarian. You have good points. You’re also being confrontational and calling names.

And as I say above, I’m not sure if the role of Fangraph’s writers in the future will continue you be writing and thinking as GMs would. I’m not saying that’s good or bad, just asking you to be civil about it.

tb.25
Member
tb.25

It’s emotional, aggressive and a source of pride for someone who is looking to feel good through shutting down others.

Like you point out, he does have good points. But he isn’t stable enough to illustrate them in a normalized manner.

ThomServo
Member
ThomServo

Ok perhaps, I apologize for sharp adjectives and being repetitive- I’m sure these authors can provide great content. I feel let down by the misleading style and the agenda- that type of writing feels hostile and manipulative so it offends me. But I agree that there is no need to be extra sharp.

Dan B
Member
Dan B

Were you honestly inspired by Cameron’s last year of writing? ‘This is a fair contract if you use $9m per WAR and a slight overpay if you use $8.5m per WAR. So all parties should be relatively nonplussed.’

Convergence is here. Front offices are smart. A great number of us who have been part of this journey for a long time see the old style as like turning up to the office every day. I honestly wish the quality of analysis was better but the pivot towards labour economics and dare I say the ethics of analytics is welcome.

ThomServo
Member
ThomServo

Agreed on your main points thought about ‘the writing on the wall’ and commercial viability.

What bothers me beyond the poor content is the slipperiness of the new ‘up-is-down’ speak. The new pivot towards broad ‘every club must go for broke’ has been pseudo-explained by Rian- he wrote that he saw the light and is now convinced that planning for the future, making sound business decisions, and other SABR-oriented roster-planning is bad. His argument is that ‘real’ baseball is about Aaron Judge smashing homers, green grass, summer nights, and every team competing.

It bothers me how disingenuous this pivot, series, and salesmanship is. Fangraphs has provided great content for free/low cost, with readers only paying moderate subscriptions, seeing some ads, and providing some clicks- it has been and continues to be a great site. This is the first truly disingenuous pivot I’ve seen at fangraphs- though admittedly some started to creep in ever since the ESPN deal. I completely agree that I’m ignoring commercial realities and the norm of modern sport media content- fangraphs did make its way by being different, but might not have the incentives or energies for that anymore- the niche appeal may have run its course.

Even so, the tone deaf, anti-fact, insistent nature of this most recent series makes the articles worse than puff-pieces. There is an agenda, it’s repeated every day, it dovetails perfectly with ESPN/Boras/CAA agenda, it attacks the Head of the Players’ union constantly under the false guise of being “pro-labor” when it is not. There is an unwillingness to admit that this coordinated series is a talking point, which is why I find Rian’s tale about “seeing the light” is so vapid and labored.

The circular patting-on-the-back with these self-referenced articles is also bizarre and low quality. Why isn’t Travis linking to Jeff’s chat where he says that the 2018 won’t be unique other than being slow, and that the tanking narrative is agent spin? These new writers link to themselves so frequently that it creates an echo chamber- falsely giving the impression of consensus when even Jeff Sullivan disagrees with this tired PR campaign.

Adding Jeff Jaffe should be a huge boost, so that is a very welcome development. Hopefully Carson and Jeff Sullivan stay, and fangraphs will still produce top stuff- but who honestly looks forward to the next Travis/Craig/Nathaniel/Rian (and hopefully not also Meg) article about ‘why the ______ need to sign Boras Client _____.?’ I literally don’t think that a single fangraphs reader wants any further articles in this series unless the quality greatly improves as discussed in the comments.

tb.25
Member
tb.25

there’s a community writing portion of this website. write some if you want better content.

John
Member
Member
John

Thanks for taking the time to reply. This is well said, and I share many of these concerns. Hopefully someone on staff is reading and is considering them too. But I think the only way they will is if we turn down the volume and stay focused on baseball, though. So thank you.

Anyway, I for one welcome the “pivot” to labor issues (others man not, which is fine), but I agree that the recent articles have just not been up to the levels that we’re used to. But I think it’s too soon to panic. Let’s just get through the off season, and give the new folks a second to settle.

ItsPoPtime
Member
ItsPoPtime

When has David Ortiz been proven to have used anything named specifically? I mean we know that if it had been roids he popped for, those NY writers DEFINITELY would have leaked that.

ThomServo
Member
ThomServo
martyvan90
Member
martyvan90

Really? The great senator from Maine (and Red Sox Director) Senator Mitchell led the 2003 steriod investigation and low and behold there were leaks about the Indian players (info was supposed to be sealed…) just prior to the 2007 ALCS amid conflict of interest allegations. Did you really want to replay all this steroid nonsense? David Ortiz (a great player) was purported to be one of the sealed names- unlike AROD whose name was also leaked. Take the snarky comments and move on.

Paul22
Member
Paul22

Absurd to call the 3rd best hitter in the game the last 4 years a 1.3 WAR player

ThomServo
Member
ThomServo

@Paul22

I didn’t say he was a 1.3 WAR hitter:

“Craig concluded that Martinez was “something like a four-win player-” despite every serious projection method having him at least 1.3 WAR less.”

Martinez is projected around 2.5 WAR, Craig projected him at 3.8 by taking a small sample, throwing out the catchers and ignoring defense, baserunning, and retirement.

pepper69fun
Member
pepper69fun

Travis did not cite 6/150 in this article. I am assuming that the 5/100 is more what’s on the table and I think Boston can come up from that to get a piece that is uniquely satisfying to their personal team needs. if it is a slight overpay, then so be it. Boston can afford it and a slight overpay doesn’t materially injure Boston’s ability to compete in the future.

david k
Member
david k

One thing you may be missing is that he’s not JUST an upgrade over Moreland/Ramirez, he’s also an upgrade over the last player booted off the roster. The team will have more quality depth in case of injury. Although he’s a pretty bad OF, he can still play the position if necessary.

RoyalsFan#14321
Member
RoyalsFan#14321

He’s more valuable than the last player booted off the roster entirely because he (we) would expect him to reach 650ish PAs. Martinez wouldn’t be all that much more valuable when receiving 300ish PAs.

tb.25
Member
tb.25

“it would be more convincing to discuss how much of an advantage he would provide over Hanley Ramirez”

He did…

“Last season, meanwhile, Red Sox DHs produced a 90 wRC+, the sixth-worst mark in franchise history.”

sadtrombone
Member
sadtrombone

Point noted.

I think the reason I must have missed that was because it was sandwiched by the “competitive advantage at DH” business which I thought was confusing.

tb.25
Member
tb.25

Makes sense. I think Travis went that way to try to use terminology we’ve been using, in how teams search for that competitive edge other teams haven’t begun to utilize et.

ThomServo
Member
ThomServo

The 30-36 year old, $150m DH “competitive advantage.”

Who is using that terminology? Travis’s ‘zig while others are zagging’ mantra doesn’t make sense- teams shouldn’t try to strike out all the time just because no one else is, nor should they try to walk every batter faced simply because others are doing the opposite. Neither should they sign a 2.7 WAR 30 year old to a 5/6 year deal around $25m AAV- saying they “need” to (repeatedly) is wrong.

tb.25
Member
tb.25

Eh nobody cares Thom. Nobody here cares as long as you’re too emotional to discuss things properly.

If you tone down your obsession and harshness, let’s talk.

Paul22
Member
Paul22

WAR understates the value of dH, 1B and corner OFers. The positional adjustments are way too large and teams have always paid them more per WAR than those who get a WAR bias from overly generous positional adjustments

Every position must be filled on the field and hitting is the scarcest commodity in baseball among position players.

ThomServo
Member
ThomServo

Ramirez projects to post a 112 RC+.

The advantage of adding Martinez would be relative to what the BoSox expect to get out of their current DH options, not the difference between what Martinez projects to provide and what BoSox DHs actually hit last season.

So the author didn’t really do what the poster said would be convincing, but instead used poor methodology making an irrelevant comparison.

LMOTFOTE
Member
LMOTFOTE

I’ll take the “under” on that projection.

Dave T
Member
Dave T

I’d like for teams to get creative on token face-saving concessions to seal free agent deals, throwing in some local flavor. For example, the Red Sox could sweeten their 5/$125 million offer by offering Martinez:

– his very own Boston Duck Tour DUKW (driver not included)
– a copy of the original Sweet Caroline single, autographed by Neil Diamond
– $1000 Dunkin’ gift card each year
– 4 VIP tickets to a Dropkick Murphys show of his choice each year

sadtrombone
Member
sadtrombone

I am pretty sure that the Dropkick Murphys would be willing to hang out with JD Martinez backstage, and he could use that gift card on about 65% of blocks in Boston.

johansantana17
Member
johansantana17

– A written contract signed by Kirk Minihane, Nick Cafardo, and Peter Gammons promising not to criticize Martinez in the media in any way until after August 1, 2018

CC AFC
Member
Member
CC AFC

So many more people would need to sign onto that. But it would be fun to imagine that happening just for the comedy of it driving David Price to Norman Bates-level madness

ThomServo
Member
ThomServo

Boston has a number of roughly 1 WAR options at DH- Hanley Ramirez, Michael Chavez, Aneury Tavarez or whomever else.

Martinez projects for 2.7 WAR this season: so he projects to be a 1.7 WAR improvement over in-house options for 2018, a 1.2 WAR improvement for 2019, a 0.7 WAR improvement for 2020, then a 0.2 WAR improvement for 2021. After 2021, he projects (0.7 WAR) to be worse than 1WAR.

So that’s about a 3.8 WAR improvement better than inhouse options, spread over 4 years. $100m+ (plus luxury tax) for a 4 WAR improvement (which would be reduced by years 5 and 6) would be just about the worst business in baseball.

There are almost zero 3 WAR DHs in MLB, plus there are almost zero teams that lack internal 1 WAR options. Accordingly, typical (i.e. <3 WAR) free agent DHs should pretty much never make big money on a 5/6 year contract, since any elder 3 WAR DH will only be better than a 1 WAR alternative for 4 years.

Concluding that the Red Sox "need" to spend $100m+ on a 2.7 WAR DH is simply poor analysis.

tb.25
Member
tb.25

Your analysis is pretty poor… It’s almost as if you don’t look at anything besides the few data points that support your opinion. And then ignore when they’re wrong.

As mentioned multiple times by multiple people, tone it down and we can actually have discussions.

Or, you know, do your own analysis in the community section.

WellIDoubtThat
Member
WellIDoubtThat

He’s abrasive, but he has something to offer. By comparison, following him around to add “nuh uh” seems completely useless.

ThomServo
Member
ThomServo

My mention Chavis or Tavaras was pretty poor- they obviously don’t have bats for DH so aren’t good examples of internal candidates. Ramirez is the relevant inhouse option.

10 of 15 AL teams have players currently projected at DH for 1 WAR. Additionally, with ~50 AL players projecting near 110 RC+ (for roughly 1 WAR at DH), nearly every AL team has one or several poor fielder hitters who are currently projected at a position in the field but could prove 1+ WAR production at DH.

Perhaps I have been too sharp and apologize. It is hard, though, to pin down exactly what phrasing I’ve used that is clearly unsuitable. Is to too far to say ‘worst’ ‘absurd’ ‘wrong’ ‘poor’ etc? It’s not like I’ve sworn at them or really engaged in ad hominums. Technically, the ’emotional balance’ critique you’ve offered is probably harsher language than I’ve offered- though maybe your complaint is with my tone or criticism: and I’ll admit fault on being repetitive.

I can’t remember this much objection to any fangraphs content to be honest- so I do think that, despite a sharper than needed tone, it is probably helpful to raise the issue that this pivot runs contrary to what so many readers love about fangraphs.

ItsPoPtime
Member
ItsPoPtime

Id just like to point out, you’re including into a DH evaluation Michael Chavis (I think you are), who has never played a full season over AA, as well as Anwuery Tavarez. Neither are even on the 40 man. They are NRIs, and if they had any chance of making the roster it would be from a calvalcade of injuries to corner infield and outfield spots, not at DH. While I agree with you on almost every point…kinda took a simple trip there