From: msw10@nepenthe.as (Michael S. Wong)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Base-ball Dream Team
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:09:11 GMT
Reply-To: msw10@nepenthe.as
Organization: Sun Microsystems


In article 20290@bunker.shel.isc-br.com, jerry@bunker.shel.isc-br.com (Gerald J. Lanza) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.214446.18268@novell.com> larrow@novell.com (Les Arrow) writes:
>>>I'd take Barry Bonds before I'd take *any* of these three guys, easy.  
>>
>>I'm with Sherri. In fact I'll raise the ante to I'd take Bonds before
>>any non-pitcher in baseball. I think he is far and away the best player
>>in baseball. He's going to be a rich man.
>>
>
>	Let me play the devil's advocate with this one. 
>	The standards by which a non-pitchers have been traditionally
>	measured are five, if I remember correctly, namely:
>	Hits, hits with power, runs, throws, fields.
>
>	Let's forget Frank Thomas for a moment if we can, and consider
>	Willy Mays against this standard. By most followers of the game
>	he rated A1 in all five categories. If we accept this as a true
>	test, then I find Bonds slightly lacking in the throwing category.
>	The left field position only ranks ahead of first base in importance
>	to a team's defense. 

[description of different positions defensive importance deleted]

>	Does this mean that Bonds is not the best player in the majors ?
>	I'm not sure, but I do think the defensive contributions should
>	be considered in equal measure with the offense. Stating that, I
>	would consider Barry Larkin, Cal Ripkin, and Kirby Puckett to be
>	at least at the level of Bonds because of their defensive ability.
>

I think it's more than just defense, it's defense *and* offense in the context
of the player's position that are important when considering a player's value, 
as you began to allude to. Bonds is probably as good or better on defense than 
Larkin, Ripken or Puckett but he plays a defensively less important position.
An extreme example: if you could choose one player on your team to have as 
a Gold Glover, would it be the shortstop or the first baseman? The same principle
comes into play when discussing offense. Frank Thomas, along with Puckett and Bonds 
are arguably the most potent offensive players in the game. However, look how
many excellent offensive (and defensive) exist as 1st baseman: Thomas, Will Clark, 
John Kruk, Mark McGwire, Cecil Fielder, Fred McGriff, Mark Grace, Eddie Murray, etc.
But a powerhouse at 1st base is never as valuable as similar hitting outfielder.
But in addition to than importance of position, one must consider how the 
average player at a position performs. Considering this, the difference between
Larkin's and Ripken's hitting and the average shortstop's hitting is much
greater than McGriff and the average 1st baseman or Bonds and the average
outfielder. Using these principles, I'd contend Bonds is more valuable than
Thomas, Puckett than Bonds, and Ripken and Larkin than any of the above.

>	Other opinions are welcome; I'm sure many on this net would consider
>	Frank Thomas to be the best in the majors, just as Williams had his
>	supporters in the 40's and 50's, or just as Mantle was considered
>	in the same breath with Mays. I lived and died for the Mick, but I
>	never, ever, considered him to be as good as Mays.
>
>
>						jerry

Michael Wong.
msw10@ras.amdahl.com
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball