From: 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard)
Subject: Re: Defensive Positions and Offensive Contribution.
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:56:31 GMT

In <16874@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> zuhars@madrone.eecs.ucdavis.edu (Joel Zu harclub president) writes:

>Mike Fester writes:
>>I'll say this slowly; NOBODY HITS AS A SHORTSTOP. You get NO extra credit for 
>>your OFFENSE as a SHORTSTOP. NONE. A hit is a hit whether it comes from a 
>>firstbaseman, a DH, or a right fielder. Period. In evaluating an offense,
>>you use OFFENSIVE statistics, NOT a players' DEFENSIVE position.

>What about when evaluating a PLAYER, which is what you've been doing
>here?  

>Are you going to tell me that if you have two players with identical
>offensive stats and ages, say .300/.400/.500, and one is a SS while
>one is a LF, it doesn't matter which one you take?

The arguments I have seen state that Whitaker and Tettleton have contrib-
uted more to the tiger offense than Cecil has.  Nothing to do with the
positions they play.  But this is SO OBVIOUS that even you, Mr. Huckabay,
must be able to grasp this.  I might add:

>...Your propensity for arguing is fine.  You really seem to enjoy
>it, and I think that's great.  But do you REALLY believe this, or are
>you simply trying to eliminate any remaining credibility?

>My premise is simple: A shortstop who produces 100 runs in a season is
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
goes without saying...

>a HELL of a lot more valuable than a LF who does.  Why?  Because it's
>easier to find quality replacement for the left fielder.

The relative offensive contribution each player makes and that player's
over-all value to the team are two separate issues.  Whether or not Cecil's
RBI totals are a misleading indicator of his talent (and that IS the original 
issue) has nothing whatsoever to do with his defensive position.  In fact the
only person who might disagree that a player playing the key defensive position 
is the more valuable player (all things being equal) is perhaps yourself
because: 

>...Your propensity for arguing is fine.  You really seem to enjoy
>it, and I think that's great.  But do you REALLY believe this, or are
>you simply trying to eliminate any remaining credibility?

>>And next time, please read more carefully; I pretty clearly wrote this in 
>>regard to the Tiger offense, as seen by "How did a guy with lower OBP *AND* 
>>lower SLG contribute MORE to his team's offense?" Clearer now?

>Allow ME to answer this, then.  Joe Shmoe, noted Shortstop, is about
>2.5 runs per 27 outs better than a league average SS.  Fatt Butt,
>noted RBI monger and first baseman, is 2.0 runs better per 27 outs
>than a league average 1B.  If Shmoe is out for the season, the
>offense, relative to league average, will suffer more of a drop than
>if Butt were out.

Assuming of course that the replacement players are league average.  And
that is a big "if" isn't it?  Since approximately half of the STARTERS are
at or below league average.  You are making a prediction and unless you 
can tell us just who the replacement players are and what their respective 
abilities are then your prediction is merely idle speculation.  I guess
you must be getting real tired of the word "merely" eh?

rm

>*   Gary Huckabay   * 'And I remember the day when I saw the mask on my *
>* "Favorite Player: *  face.  And I knew that it was time to put the    *
>*     Gord 'OBP'    *  thing in its place.' - S. Alderson.              *
>*      Niguma."     * 'This is WORSE than acquiring Lansford.' - GH.    *
-- 
roger maynard                    
91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca