It’s just a subjective dispute then. I am certainly not saying Galvis is a subjectively good player. We know he has strengths and weaknesses in his game. Strong power, strong defense, weak OBP, weak baserunning. Instead of arguing which is more important, we have this metric ‘WAR” that tries to incorporate all this to give us a general idea of the overall value. In this case WAR says that even with his serious deficiencies, he is above replacement level, and by a non-trivial amount. So it’s just a subjective thing, now. Are all +1 WAR players “overall bad?” The author says yes, I disagree. There’s no way to argue that I guess.