From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Subject: Re: AL Rookie of Year Award?
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:52:29 GMT
Organization: Boo!  

In <1992Sep30.052108.4215@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>In <1992Sep30.024740.13320@panix.com> spira@panix.com (Greg Spira) writes:
>>In article <steph.717806198@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu> steph@cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson) writes:
>>>In <1992Sep29.043819.9110@panix.com> Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira:

>>Okay, but forget offensive value.  Neither of us is interested in that
>>right now.  What we're interested in is whether Jeff Blauser's defense
>>is more valuable than Devon White's because of the extra difficulty of
>>the shortstop position.  Now, I think we both agree that Devon White
>>is a much, much, much better centerfielder than Blauser is a shortstop.
>>Yes, any other shortstop the Braves would put out there would be more
>>valuable defensively.  But I don't think that means Blauser has negative
>>defensive value, because you can't compare him just to other shortstops.
>>You have to measure his defense in terms of all fielders.

>True, but on the other hand, you could argue the exact opposite.
>Because a shortstop is more important than a centerfielder, a poor
>shortstop hurts the team *more* than a poor centerfielder.

In terms of value relative to an average player at that position, of
course.  But I don't really believe comparing players to average is 
the right way to measure value - I don't really believe that half of
major leaguers have "negative" value.

>You seem to be arguing that: 
>	defensive value = (defensive ability) * (positional value)
>There's nothing wrong with that.  But if that defensive ability is
>negative, then the defensive value is negative, too.

Yes, but I don't consider defensive ability to be negative unless the
player is below replacement value.  And I think the positional value
number is quite high.

>Don't get me started on TAG ratings.  Barry Bonds somehow manages to
>miss the top *10* in the league in value, while Eddie "ANY cleanup hitter can 
>get 90 RBIs" Murray is FOURTH (!).  Don Mattingly is 6th, while Mark McGwire
>isn't on the list.

It's amazing how anybody could look at the results and say "This is worthwhile
to compute."  TAG is worse than RBIs, etc.

>>To move to an easier example, would you agree that the worst shortstop
>>is worth more than the best first baseman? Or a DH?

>No.  Just as a player can have a negative value on offense, they can
>also have a negative value on defense.  If your scenario *were* true,
>then no team would ever put a light-hitting middle infielder on the team.
>Because ANYONE could be "the worst shortstop," including Frank Thomas.

But I'm talking about real shortstops.  And the fact is that real shortstops
- even bad ones - can get away with worse offensive numbers than the best
defensive first baseman and the shortstops in question would keep their jobs
while the first baseman, if they had as bad numbers as the shortstop, would
lose his job. ( A terribly written sentence, but I think the point is clear).
For this to be true, the shortstop has to have more defensive value than the
first baseman.

>>What I'm saying, obviously, is that the ability to play shortstop for a
>>major league team has a value in and of itself.  Only after you establish
>>that value do you add on more value based on exactly how good at that
>>position he is.

>Only if you play it well.  Otherwise this makes no more sense than
>saying the ability to get plate appearances has offensive value in and of 
>itself.

Well, I'm translating the ability to play shortstop as the ability to play
it with competence, not the ability to stand at shortstop and smile for 9
innings.

>>Well, we should normalize defensive numbers by position.  That's precisely
>>what I'm arguing for.  A bad effort at shortstop should be normalized to
>>make it worth more than a good effort in centerfield.

>Why would you possibly want to rank things this way?  While an average
>shortstop might be worth more than a good centerfielder, why would a bad
>shortstop be?

I'm not completely sure he would be, but he might be if the ability to
play replacement level shortstop is that much harder to find than the
ability to play great centerfield.

Greg