From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: joe carter and others
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: rec
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 17:23:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.161023.24184@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>In <5d_rmt=@lynx.unm.edu> kbos@lacerta.unm.edu (K. Mitchell Bose) writes:

>>'Sfunny, we can model the sum of those component parts pretty damned 
>>effectively.  But then, I forgot, you're "not entirely familiar" with RC/27,

>Why has it never occurred to you that what you are modelling is not baseball
>but an incomplete perception of what baseball really is? 

Because when we see how much our model is missing -- i.e., when we do
the thing you accuse us of not doing -- we findthat we're not missing all that
much.

> 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?

>>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."

>>A reporter wrote that, on December 24, 1990.  I give that the same amount of
>>credibility I give the reports of Henderson's "moodiness".

>Reporter?  Is Marty York of the Globe and Mail actually a reporter?  I have
>heard him called lots of other names but never that.  This is the only instance
>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.

>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?  

>>That's okay; all this talk I hear about Roberto Alomar being a great second
>>baseman appears dubious when he ranks in the middle of the pack for second
>>basemen...

>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.  

One more time: where is that residual contribution to winning?  

>>What about paying another 750,000 and getting Barry Bonds?  Oh, sorry, he's 
>>"not a team player".  

>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?>

>>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.

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?

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

OK: WHY does Barfield suck?  (Can't be his fielding...)  And, yes, his line
*is* worse than Carter's, too.  We know that.  And he's a little older, too.  
You didn't even read what you were criticizing (it's easier when you open
you eyes) -- but Barfield would *not* likely damage the Jays very much as
a replacement for Carter, not in the short run.

>>have the money to make an offer to Maddux instead of Stewart.  As much as
>>Maddux liked Atlanta, I'm sure that he would also like being the ace of the
>>World Champion staff.  

>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?

>>Hell, protect Nigel Wilson instead of Turner Ward, sign Joe Orsulak for a 
>>year or two, and in two years, you've got a player who's going to do the exact
>>same damn thing as Carter, but is a decade younger, and five or six million
>>dollars a year cheaper.
>>Then again, there's always this thing called a "trade".

>Sure.  Let's dismantle a World Series winning team and gamble that in a few
>years some of our youngsters can duplicate what we already have right now. 

The dismantling is already taking place either way.  Between free agency,
age, and so on, the team is unlikely to repeat either way.

>Never mind the fact that some fans actually *enjoy* watching Carter and
>White and their teammates perform.  The fans, that is, who enjoy watching the
>game more than they enjoy tabulating statistics.

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

The 62 Mets were enjoyable to watch, too, they say.

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.

Roger

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball