From: jlundy@bilbo.encore.com (Joe Lundy)
Subject: Re: Value of Stats
Organization: Encore Computer Corp.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:18:39 GMT

In article <5153@transfer.stratus.com>, jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul27.162336.17085@encore.com> jlundy@bilbo.encore.com  
|> (Joe Lundy) writes:
|> > In article <1992Jul27.153614.27645@adobe.com>, snichols@adobe.com  
|> (Sherri Nichols) writes:
|> 
|> > |> Why do you think that number of World Series rings is a useful  
|> determiner
|> > |> of value? 
|> > 
|> > Better yet, is George Zeber a better player than Roger Clemens?  Must  
|> be...
|> > How about Fred Stanley?  George Frazier?  Have to be better than Tony  
|> Gwynn and
|> > Dave Winfield.  In the case of Mickey Hatcher, doesn't he have *two*  
|> rings?
|> > That makes him better than a lot of guys	:-)
|> > 
|> 
|> Both you and Sheri seemed to have missed several points in Roger's
|> statement.  He never said "more rings" equals "better player."

Sure I missed the point!  The smiley indicates that I can't possibly mean what
I said.  However, Sherri has a valid point that I wanted to (over) emphasize.

|> What he said was more like: Take two players who are comprabable
|> (in fact, in another post, he admitted that he'd even give Bonds
|> the edge here).  One plays on a very good team.  The other plays
|> on a better-than-average team, but one whose overall talent is
|> less than the first team.   Yet the better-than-average team
|> wins two titles, while the very good team wins none.  Given this,
|> who would you take for your team?" (Note: NOT who is better)

Roger could have used a better example to make his point 
(See Bell, George: "Tigers Take Seven From Jays", 1987) but this is still a
good one.  I personally would prefer Puckett on my team, but do not base that
on the fact that he's got two rings.  There are far too many other factors
here that are much more important.

When measuring the greatness of a Bruce Hurst or Roger Clemens, lets say,
you must take into the fact that circumstances beyond their control prevented
them to win "the big one" for their team.  If MacNamara weren't such a bonehead
and Gedman hadn't been asleep behind the plate, well, would we have to measure
their careers differently?

Bonds' case is similar.  Yes, he was a key element in the two N.L. East titles
and sure he slumped in the NLCS both years, but he really was a key in getting
them there.  Take a look at Canseco.  He stinks up the joint every year he's
in the World Series and he's got a ring.
 
|> 
|> Granted, you can't blame what happened to Pittsburgh the past couple
|> of years on Bonds. However, on the other side of the coin, I think
|> you CAN give a bit of extra credit for the Twins overachieving
|> to Puckett. 

Puckett alone didn't get the two rings.  What about the timely pitching and
Kelly's genius?  There are plenty of other factors there as well.  I just think
this basis for comparison is irrelevant.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Joe Lundy           Encore Computer Corporation, 6901 W. Sunrise Blvd.    |
| jlundy@encore.com   Mail Stop 811, Ft. Lauderdale, FL  33313-4499         |
| "Wake up and smell the peanuts" - Hy Oxman, Ft. Lauderdale Yanks vendor   |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball