From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Mattingly, what a fine fielder (was: Hardly not etc.)
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:38:46 GMT

In article <1dgu0oINN82n@mozz.unh.edu> ggg@kepler.unh.edu (Gregory G Greene) writes:
>'>No one would *ever* judge a hitter mainly by his stance and swing --
>'>that would be foolish.  David Segui looks really great at the plate, but
>'>he can't hit.  Meanwhile, Dave Winfield has never looked very good at
>'>the plate (to me) and yet he's an excellent hitter.

>'>Who got more hits last year -- Willie McGee, with his awful looking
>'>swing, or John Olerud, with his great swing?  Surprise!  It was Willie
>'>McGee.  Who was better at basestealing -- Mike Devereaux, one of the
>'>fastest guys in the league, or Ron Karkovice, a catcher?  Surprise!  Ron
>'>Karkovice stole as many bases, and much more successfully.

>'>But watching them certainly wouldn't have told you that, while the stats DO.

>	So if you are suddenly put in the position of being a major league
>   manager, you would evaluate talent in spring training by sitting in the
>   clubhouse waiting for someone to hand you each games stats, without
>   ever having to bother watching a game. 

Of course not.  But I wouldn't put all my trust in what I saw, either.
I'd *also* look at the players' stats from the year before in whatever
leauge they played in.  Adjusting for the quality of the league, I'd
get a good idea of the players' skills, and would know a lot more about,
say, Player A's ability to draw a walk, player B's power, etc. than watching
a few games would tell me.  Players have streaks and slumps, and that's true in
spring training, too; only a fool would watch a player in 10 or 15 games 
and judge them on those grounds only.  

And since the Gold Glove voters never see a player more than 18 times in 
a season (same division, NL) and usually only 12 or 13 times, and since
most positions don't present more than one or two tough chances per game,
and since most major league fielders can handle even those chances most
of the time, watching any player except your own for a dozen games in 
the field will tell you effectively NOTHING about their ability to do
their job as fielder, which is to convert batted balls into outs, for the
most part.

Speaking of first basemen, who's the greatest ever?  Lou Gehrig, of 
course.  Secondbest?  Foxx, probably.  Now, how much better was Gehrig
than Foxx?  Hitting, a little.  Both played in parks that helped them
at least some, both had awesome power and OBA.  Fielding?  Foxx was FAR
better by any measure we know.  Those who saw them over many years (NY
and Boston writers, say, who got 22 games/ yr for several years) were
unanimous in saying that Foxx was simply the best, and that Gehrig was
a bit clumsy, in fact.  

There you have it: the difference between a so-so fielder and a great 
fielder at first base is not nearly enough to make up a difference with
the bat as small as the one between Gehrig and Foxx.  

(For the record, Gehrig averaged 78 Assists/154 games, Foxx 98.  That's
a good first approximation to range, imho.  Gehrig had only one 90-assist
season -- his last, oddly enough; Foxx had five, three of them over 100.
Among their contemporaries, Greenberg had 98, Terry 108, Mize 95.)

Roger