From: demers@cs.ucsd.edu (David DeMers)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Base-ball Dream Team
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:18:05 GMT
Organization: =CSE Dept., U.C. San Diego

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.

Er, ok, but they don't have equal value!

>	... 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,

Bonds is a fine CF, he just holds down the LF job while Van Slyke
is around...  I really can't believe that Bonds' arm can possibly
cost the Pirates more than a couple of runs a season.  I don't see
many baserunners challenging him like they do Polonia or Jerald Clark.

>... I have to believe that if Bond's had an above average right arm, 
>he would be in right field. 

That's not his decision, either...  I suspect he can play RF just fine,
but he's not given the opportunity.  And he's doing well as a LF.

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.

But Bonds is a *great* defensive LF!  Williams was not a good defensive
player - see Historical Abstract discussion on LF, for example, where
Bill James picks Musial over Williams as a player.

>	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. 

Well, they should be considered.  But "equal measure"?  I think you need
to look at the contribution to winning & losing, and to do that, look
at the contribution to run scoring and prevention.  I find it hard to
believe that Bonds is negative defensively.  Sure, LF is not a "major"
position, and a great SS with good offense is pretty valuable, due to
shortage at the position.  That's why Larkin gets picked so high in 
Stratomatic leagues...  

however, looking at total contribution, Bonds rates really high.  It's
going to take a tremendous amount of defense at a key position to
offset his offensive lead on the rest of the world (minus FT, who
might be a touch better offensively, but is not a defensive player...).

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 bet Bonds defense in LF is pretty comparable to Kirby's CF.

>	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.

Not many did, but sabermetric revisionism rates #7 a bit better than
Mays, mostly on OBP advantages.  If they were on the same team, and
Mantle was in LF, would you downgrade his defense because he wasn't 
as good as Mays?  Even though in his prime he was a great defensive CF?



-- 
Dave DeMers			 ddemers@UCSD   demers@cs.ucsd.edu
Computer Science & Engineering	C-014		demers%cs@ucsd.bitnet
UC San Diego					...!ucsd!cs!demers
La Jolla, CA 92093-0114	(619) 534-0688, or -8187, FAX: (619) 534-7029