From: kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt Bose "of Biscayzee")
Subject: Re: RC/27 for 1Bs (with a new twist)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 19:18:02 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <5683@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
>Thus spake claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu):
>
>>The "replacement level" (1 RC/27 below average) will be deducted from the
>>player's RC/27, and then it will be multiplied by (games started at position)/
>>(games played by the team) to estimate the value *at the position only*.  I
>>don't think this is perfect, but I don't want to spend 24 hours on this.
>>Comments are welcome.
>
>I'm having a hard time figuring out what this is supposed to tell you.  RC is
>a hypothetical: "How many runs would 9 clones of this guy score?"  Normalized
>in RC/27, it's "How many runs would 9 clones of this guy score per game?",
>more or less.  I disagree with Bill James that you can assess a player's
>actual value using RC/27, precisely because you can't really play 9 clones
>of Player X.  This was the whole motivation behind marginal lineup values;
>they demonstrate that two players with identical RC/27 can have very different
>values in the middle of an average lineup.
>
Well, I was torn between thinking that this was a reaction to the Cecil Fielder
threads or the ROY debate Nelson and I were having, but Nelson's comments are
pretty telling.  Basically, the change stems from an attempt to correct for a)
the fallacy of comparing players not against some mythical "average", but by
the actual measure of what a replacement would do.  Originally, Nelson's been
saying thatKarros should be replaced with an "average" first baseman to increase
production from that spot, since he's a below average player.  Either I've 
convinced him, or he's just trying to shut me up (which I suspect is far more
likely  :) ) , by providing this "replacement" value.  The second reason (and I
think I've managed to destroy grammar here...) is to compensate for the fact
that Alou has played about 30-40% less than Karros. 

>I have no problem with using RC as a sort of "Who are the best offensive
>players, in the abstract?" measure.  I *don't* think you can talk coherently
>about a "replacement level RC/27", though. 
>
>As an aside, this same criticism applies to the Brock2 projection method, 
>which makes the doubly-problematical suggestion that playing time is decided
>by a player's current RC/27 (or, actually, RC/25).  Not only is RC/25 the wrong
>measure to use in deciding a player's actual contribution to the team, but no
>manager in baseball is sophisticated enough to decide who plays and who doesn't
>play on that basis.  Aging superstars like Pete Rose play long after their RC
>numbers have fallen into AA level, and might-have-beens like Warren Newsome
>ride the bench for years when they could be putting up great numbers.

Personally, I agree, but Nelson, as you know, puts a great deal of stock in 
RC/27.  While this correction may or may not be helpful, Nelson is just trying
to fit his analysis to the matter at hand.  (There, was that neutral enough,
Nelson?  I didn't want to drag this into another thread; as long as you'd vote
for Sanders over Alou, I don't care whether or not you disagree.  I'm voting
for Karros because of (gasp) "intangibles".  Translation:  He's impressed me,
but that's as much because I know his history...)

I do have one comment to make on the "value" column, though.  Alou's numbers by
that method, which you said were 3x Karros's, were ~2x Karro's "value".  Then
you compromised that by saying that the NL LFs may be "overvalued".  Kinda
throws the whole thing into a wash, by my POV.

-- 
Kurt Bose (as in Daisy, not Rose) *  kbos@carina.unm.edu * Make outs, not walks!
Keeper of the R.S.BB FAQ, and Junior Stathead {tm} * OK, so I AM the AntiChrist.
Be kind...don't disillusion the RBI-lovers. * Net.Agent, "Doublin" David Rossing
Less widely published as Noel Steere; less likely to rampage than Gary Huckabay.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball