From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Cecil signs :-( :-( :-(
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 21:46:19 GMT

In article <GRABINER.93Jan20140019@kovalevskaia.harvard.edu> grabiner@math.harvard.edu (David Grabiner) writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.125019@IASTATE.EDU>, Thomas M Loughin writes:

>> But is a firstbaseman who slugs 50 points above average more or less
>> valuable than a shortstop who does the same (everything else held at
>> average)?  What about 50 below.  

>Offensively, the difference is the same; if your shortstop slugs 50
>points below league average for a shortstop, while your first baseman is
>50 points above, your team offensive totals will be the same as if both
>players were league average.  One extra hit provides the same number of
>runs, no matter who gets it.

Right -- but your offense is tempered by the fact that you *have* to 
bat a shortstop and a first baseman in every game.  If your SS hits
well, you get a bonus that you don't get from having a 1B who hits that 
well; after all, it's not hard to find a 1B like that.

>> My view of these distributions is
>> that a firstbaseman with an SLG of .365 is either jobless or gets
>> traded from California to Montreal, while I can think of quite a few
>> who come in at .465 or better.  It appears to be a highly skew
>> distribution (in _my_ imagination, anyway).  

>This is correct, because talent is normally distributed, but then
>baseball selects from the far right end of the distribution.  There are

Why is talent normally distributed?  We know that baseball selects from
the right-hand tail, but we don't know anything about the distribution
at large. 

I expect it's skewed at the right end.

>only a few people who play first base and can slug .530; there are
>hundreds who can play first base and slug .300, but none of them have
>jobs.

Indeed.  Why does this demand a normal distribution?

>> On the other hand, a
>> .400-slugger at short is a definite keeper, while a .300 slugger at
>> short is called "gloveman."

>This is why it is more likely that a .300-slugger at short can stay
>around, because he can be a good glove man for a shortstop and thus save
>a lot of runs.  If he isn't, he won't keep his job.  A poor offensive
>player for his position at first base cannot be valuable enough
>defensively to be a good player.

Exactly.  So we agree -- defensive value (and scarcity of fielding and 
hitting talent located in the same person) must be balanced against 
offense.

>For the record, the five regulas shortstops (300 AB) with SLG near or
>below .300 are Candaele (.266), Schofield (.286), DiSarcina (.301), Lee
>(.316), and Weiss (.241).  Schofield and Weiss are good defensive
>shortstops; I don't know about DiSarcina.  Candaele is a useful utility
>player.  Lee is a decent offensive shortstop because his OBP is .343.

>At first base, near or below .365, I find only Milligan (.361), O'Brien
>(.371), and Stevens (.349), and two (Cooper and Larkin) whose natural
>defensive position is not first base.  Milligan has a .383 OBP, so he
>isn't actually a poor offensive player.

Not to mention his bad year all around this year.

>So that leaves two players at each position who are poor offensively and
>don't have a defensive justification.  That's always going to happen,
>because talent judgement isn;t perfect, and teams such as the Angels
>have too many holes to fill.

Roger