From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Subject: Re: Base-ball Dream Team
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:53:01 GMT
Organization: Boo!  

In <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.

I understand what you are getting at.  But the question really isn't what
are his skills, but how much does he bring to his team in terms of
offense and defense.  If you start rating him at how good he is at
certain tasks, you fall into the trap of rating him as an athlete, and
not by how much he contributes to his baseball team.  Also, its pretty
clear that all 5 categories are not equal or close to equal in importance.

In other words, I think its a silly way to try and rate major leaguers.
Its fine for scouts who are trying to determine a kid's potential, but
that's about it.

>	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. The centerfielder must cover the most ground,
>	and the right fielder must make the long throw to third to keep
>	runners on second on base hits to right field. I have to believe
>	that if Bond's had an above average right arm, he would be in
>	right field. This discussion was played over and over again when
>	Williams in left was compared to DiMaggio in center. The consensus
>	was that DiMaggio was the superior player, of course not the better
>	offensive player.

Well, I don't really think Dimaggio was nearly the player Ted Williams was.
Sure, he was defensively more valuable, but its not like he was a shortstop 
or anything.  I happen not to believe that DiMaggio was a great             
centerfielder - I'm sure he looked damn good, but I'm skeptical of those
kind of observations - but even if DiMaggio was the best centerfielder
in the league and Williams the worst leftfielder, I think the offensive 
difference between them would still be too great for DiMaggio to make up
the gap. 

Also, I think its pretty clear that Bonds is quite capable of playing
centerfield; I would guess that he'd do a better job of it range-wise
than Van Slyke.  His team may wish to preserve him by not putting him in
center (not that that's the Pirates rationale; it's not), but that doesn't
mean he's not capable of playing it.  Using GABSB RF, Bonds made more catches
per 9 than Van Slyke last year, by the way.  Also, Bonds has a great arm -
he lead NL leftfielders in assists last year, and a smaller percentage of
baserunners took an extra base against Bonds than any other outfielder in
the majors last year.

Bonds isn't Roberto Clemente, but I doubt there are more than 5 major
league outfielders who have better (not stronger) arms.

>	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.

Well, Puckett is, at this point, a bad centerfielder, so Barry's defensive
value is a lot higher than his.  Larkin and Ripken are more interesting
questions.  Both are very good defensive shortstops.  If Ripken regularly
hit like he did last year, he would obviously be better than Bonds.  But
its pretty clear that last year was a fluke, and at this point I don't think
the Ripken package really contributes as much as the Bonds package.  Larkin
is a more interesting possibility, as perhaps is Roberto Alomar.
 
>	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.

Well, there's no real question in my mind that Thomas is the best hitter, and
probably the best offensive player, in baseball.  His defensive value, though,
is seemingly quite small, and I'm not sure whether even the large gap between
him and everyone else in offense is large enough to make him the best player.

I'm not sure what Mays or Mantle has to do with this discussion - both were
great, Mays a little better.

Greg 
-- 
  spira@panix.com       "The one-O delivery to Fisk.  He swings.  Long drive,  
 cmcl2!panix!spira      left field!  If it stays fair, it's gone!  Home Run!"  
158-17 Riverside Dr.                     Ned Martin, 10/22/75   
Whitestone NY 11357          (Insert your favorite baseball moment here)