From: maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard)
Subject: Re: joe carter and others
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON
Distribution: rec
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 19:14:46 GMT

In <1992Dec13.172315.19846@Princeton.EDU> roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>In article <1992Dec13.161023.24184@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:

>> If you really truly
>>think you have figured it out why aren't you down in Vegas making yourself
>>a rich man?

>Because the bookmakers do it, too.  Any other questions, Brighteyes?

The bookies set the spread initially but the odds shift according to the 
action.  I doubt very much that most of the people that bet on baseball 
games are statheads. (Brighteyes?!?)

>>>As one AL executive said, "Toronto got rid of some problem players, but they
>>>picked up Joe Carter and Devon White, who are two of the most selfish players
>>>in the game."

>>I have ever seen where White and Carter have been described as selfish. 

>Then you haven't read a.s.b much, which, given your postings, is not
>surprising.  On the other hand, you haven't read Bill James and lots of
>other writers, either.

I have been reading James since he talked about "some guy named Johnson".
Unlike yourself, however, I don't necessarily believe everything that I 
read... 

>>Henderson has been described as such time and time again.  (maybe you could
>>compile statistics on who is reportedly the most selfish player in the game.)

>Gee, and then we could compile stats on which writers borrow the most from 
>other writers.  

>Now, make up your mind.  Do reports count, or don't they?  

You have to consider the source.  This could be tough for someone like you
who believes all that he reads...

>>That is because you cannot understand what you see with your own eyes.  You
>>have abstracted yourself right out of reality pal.  If you cannot tell 
>>whether a player is any good without consulting statistics (that only 
>>measure part of a players contribution to winning) I don't see how you
>>could possibly enjoy watching a game at any but the most simplistic rah-
>>rah level.

>Well, what are the parts of Alomar's game that YOU see with your own eyes,
>that don't show up in the stats, but that contribute to winning?  I have
>news for you: an ugly DP pivot contributes just as much as a pretty one,
>assuming the play gets made both times.  

Telling John Olerud where to position himself for one thing.  Having the 
smarts to know where to throw the ball.  Lots of stuff.

>>Bond's contract was what?  43 million?  Carter's was around 20.

>For six years????????  Before you post anymore, how about a short course
>in long division?>

Blue Jay policy is not to go beyond 3 years in their contracts with players.
Because of this policy it really doesn't matter how much they pay the player
a year because players these days look at the size of the total package.
 
>>>Jesse Barfield is out there, and if he passes a team physical, could probably
>>>be had for one eighth of Carter's salary.  At most.  Even if he posts a line
>>>like .235/.290/.400, that's not much worse than Carter, and they would still

>>You are assuming that "the line" measures a player's contribution.  It doesn't.

>He assumes no such thing.  He assumes that it *indicates* it.

You mean that the line doesn't measure the performance?  Are there perhaps other
factors to consider?  Factors that can't be measured?

>It does.  And always has.  Replace a player with a bad line with a player
>with a good line, and your team will improve far more often than not.
>Now, who's shutting his eyes to reality here?

You can only prove that if all things are equal.  And of course all things
never are.  How can you prove to me that replacing Candy Maldonado with
"I'm just as good as Willie Mays" will produce a better club?  In fact,
can you prove that the Jays would have won last year with Bonds in left
instead of Maldonado?  No you can't - but we do know for sure that with
Maldonado in left that Toronto won.  Who would you have rather had on your
team last year?

>>Barfield sucks bigtime.  Comparing him to Carter shows us all just how flawed
>>your system is.

>>I don't think there is any doubt that next year Maddux will be the ace of the
>>WS winning staff.

>Why don't you go to Vegas, then, and get rich?

Never gambled much have you?  Betting on Atlanta to win next year ain't
gonna make you rich...

>Well, some of us enjoy the game more when the team wins.  And Carter was
>*not* the big reason that team won.  

Well if you can say this then I guess you are prepared to say just how 
important Carter was to winning the WS.  How important was he?

>And, once again, your stupid, snotty remarks about "tabulating statistics"
>miss the point entirely: baseball executives make their decisions based 
>on such data, too, not on how you get off in the stands.  Unfortunately
>they make a very bad job of it, partly due to prejudices about what makes
>a good ballplayer.  Too bad that so few of them had the insight of Branch
>Rickey.

Ah, the legend of Branch Rickey...one of these days I just might research
some of Mr. Rickeys trades...

Statistics are good second-hand "indicators" of performance for those of us
who are not close enough to the action to see just what the hell is going 
on.

>Roger

always a pleasure Rog,

Roger

-- 
roger maynard
maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball