From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: Grebeck, Guillen, Beltre, Knee Injuries...
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:08:40 GMT

In article <6421@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
>Thus spake jds23971@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Neff):

>>Third, you missed my point completely.  Everybody on a team has a role.

>You hear this a lot, but I don't buy it.  What is Rickey Henderson's "role"?
>Stealing bases?  If so, does that mean that his home runs don't have any 
>value?  That he'd be just as good if he didn't hit them.  That he *shouldn't*
>worry about them, and should be content to just steal bases?  Conversely, if
>Henderson's role *isn't* "stealing bases", then why should he bother?

>This bizarre notion of "role" is an afterthought; it's a rationalization of
>a player's shortcomings.  I can't hear a mediot say "Joe's job is to _____"
>without automatically translating that in my mind as "Joe stinks at everything
>except _____".  No great player has ever had a "role"; only bad ones, one-
>dimensional ones, and part-timers.  "Rance's role is to get the big pinch-hit
>against right-handed pitching" is another way of saying "Rance can't hit
>lefties, and isn't good enough in the field to justify playing him full-time."

It seems that you're arguing semantic, more than real issues on this. And it
*IS* because of the limitations of real human beings on real teams that people
are assigned "roles", or, as you state later, 'have their abilities sorted
out in a manner most beneficial to the team'. Apart from fielding, which is 
assuredly a role, almost every player is assigned a role, great or no. Yogi
Berra, Cal Ripken (in his prime), Ernis Banks, etc, had 'roles'; they did not
have the necessary OBP to become truely good leadoff hitters. They had
tremendous SLG, though, and so their 'role' was in the number 3 or 4 slot 
where their SLG would help put runners across the plate (us., those hi-OBP,
low-SLG types). 

Yes, there are players who no doubt could fulfill the requirements of 
leadoff, #3, #4, etc, hitters, as well as field their postion well enough 
to come in as a late inning defensive replacement, fast enough to be used
as a pinch-runner late in a close game, etc. In reality, though, the Joe 
Morgans, Mickey Mantles, Mike Schmidts, Ryne Sandbergs, Barry Bondses, etc, 
of the world are rare enough that players are by default assigned roles.

There are also great players who could fulfill more than one "role"; T Williams
probably would not have been a bad leadoff man (in his day, speed wasn't a 
factor), Henderson has the ability to hit almost anywhere in the lineup, etc.
Neither of them are great defensive players, though. Doesn't make them any
less valuable, so far as I can see. Yet you might certainly put in a Devon
White in left field in the 9th if you had a 1 run lead to protect, and sit 
those guys down.

>What everybody on a team has is a duty to help the team win in every way
>possible.  It's up to the manager to then sort out who has which abilities,
>and best to group, place, and sequence these abilities in order to win games.
>"George's job is to drive in runs" is a kind way of saying "George's massive
>shortcomings as hitter hurt us the least when he gets lots of at bats with
>men in scoring position, and doesn't have any good hitters behind him.  His
>slugging average is high enough that he'll drive in quite a few even while
>having a bad year.  Of course, the offense then stops with him."

Take out the word "massive" (or don't, doesn't matter); he is assigned a role 
on the basis of a) his strengths b) his weaknesses c) no one better to do the 
job and d) he has no abilities that would match another role better that isn't
already adequately filled.

>Similarly, when somebody says "Jose Lind's job is to play great defense", 
>they really mean "We knew when we put Lind in the lineup that he was going
>to be putrid offensively, but we figured it was worth it anyway to get his
>great defense.  We're willing to live with that tradeoff."  Whether the
>Pirates *should*, in fact, be willing to live with that tradeoff is another
>question, and open to debate.  Just by claiming that offense isn't Lind's 
>"job" doesn't reduce by an iota the number of runs that he costs you on
>offense.  Ditto for George Bell; just claiming that avoiding outs isn't
>his job doesn't reduce the cost of those outs that he makes, any more than
>claiming "being tall isn't my job" makes me a better volleyball player.

In short, by your own words, you are saying that most players have roles. This
is not, IMO, necessarily such a negative thing. Now, some roles are more 
important than others, or are harder to fill. And some players can fulfill more
limited roles than others, eg, Henderson's "role" is offense; Pettis' role
is late-inning defense. Someone with a huge OBP and low SLG might have a
role of "leadoff hitter" (Raines). Nothing wrong with that at all, is it?

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - I'm only doing what the little voices tell me to do.