david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (03/13/85)
Dear Dan, As you suggested, I posted my reply for the general benefit and entertainment of the group. To bring them up to date, allow me an aside... [Dan took some exception to my posted predictions, which selected Boston for third and the Yankees for fifth. Since then, we've been exchanging letters regarding the relative merits of each team, including such issues as: (1) Is the Boston outfield in decline? (2) Will the Boston pitchers develop? (3) Is Armas a help or hinderence? (4) Would Howell have been more useful than Henderson? (5) Do post-All-Star break records tell us anything? etc. This is my third reply to him, and I've not edited out the previous stuff so you can see as much as possible. >> = my second reply, > = his third letter, " " = my third reply. Hope you enjoy it.] >> There are many "convenient" divisions of the season. We often hear >> about the player of the week, or the hottest team in the month of >> August. However, unless I am presented with a persuasive model for >> explaining the differnces on either side of the divide (and why >> THAT divide is the most reasonable one), I will usually dismiss >> them as randomness. The best predictor of performance over a >> 162-game season is, to my mind, a 162-game season. I am aware that >> you did not personally pick the All-Star break as the divide; >> however, you likely picked it up from a sports reporter whose job >> creates pressure to find anything interesting to say, whether it is >> actually revealing or not. >I'm afraid I don't have a persuasive model, but I don't think it is a >necessity here. If one is going to subdivide a season to try to develop >a hypothesis you should not dismiss ALL subdivisions as irrelevant. There >usually exists extraneous actions which cause the choice, such as an injury >to a key player, a player called up from the minors, etc. Such subdivisions >are therefore relevant and of course not exhaustive. Yet in comparing two >or more teams a different method must be chosen, and it is without bias >or unconscious influence felt from sportswriters that anyone (not just >someone seeking to compare the Yankees and the Red Sox) would first come >to the divide offered by the All-Star game. It neatly splits the season >in half, offers everyone needed rest, and allows managers time to rethink >their overall stratagies. Three days is not forever, but a longer break >for the majors does not exist. I cannot offer conclusive evidence of the >relevance of pre- and post- statistics, but in comparing two clubs, one should >use such convenient information, and not just dismiss it as irrelevant. Injury to a key player or the addition of a top-flight rookie are, in my view, legitimate reasons to consider the two "parts" of a season separately. "Neatness" and "Reflection" are unpersuasive. And there IS bias in the selection of season breaks on the part of sports reporters; no difference means nothing to say (or write), so sports reporters will search for the statistic which is most dramatic. >>3- I disagree with the "best athelete" available philosophy you >> express. It may make sense for a weaker team to just grab the best >> they can get, whatever he is. However, baseball is a game as much of >> skill as athletics. Once a team is competitive (at or near .500, >> which the Yankees easily satisfy), the transistion to CONTENTION >> requires the acquisition of certain players who can provide the >> skills the team needs. For that reason, I view the Carter trade as >> a big plus for the Mets, as Carter possesses the skills (right-handed >> power, rifle arm, battery experience) that the Mets were in the >> most need of. Henderson's skills (great eye, great speed, >> defensive range), while they are things the Yankees could certainly >> use, are not the ones (abilities to get batters out) they most >> needed. >I am of the opinion that it makes sense for stronger teams to grab the >best athlete available too, and I can offer a few examples. My argument >may not be any more conclusive than yours, but I do have the benefit of >having the past to point to. Consider where I first heard such an argument: >The Dallas Cowboys. Now I won't go into detail, and I believe there are many >reasons for their continued success, but the least of which is not their >taking the best player available, no matter what his position. My other >example is the Yankees, themselves. Three times they dipped into the Free >Agent pool and caught inarguably the "best available" ballplayer - Reggie, >Gossage and Winfield. None was a necessity to fill a void, and all replaced >able, successful players on winning teams, yet each payed huge dividends >and noone would question the tactic of having these players. This argument >does not mean to exclude other methods of building winners but it does >imply the axiom: if a way exists for surely improving your team, don't >miss it. Teams which listen to this are usually winners. (Just if your >interested this argument is parallel to the Pareto Optimum theory in >Economics. Yours is one more defined by Pareto Nuetral.) First, the Cowboy analogy is invalid; football is more dependent on athletic ability than baseball is. Second, the analogy to the Yankees' free agent success is also invalid; there, the Yankees did not give up anything (other than $$$), so it is inconceivable that it could have hurt their play. What I was suggesting is that, even if a team gains overall talent in a trade, it may lose out if the talent lost was scarcer or more critical than the talent gained. >>4- I think you must have Armas-phobia. First, his defense is not >> based entirely on his arm; he covers Fenway's centerfield more than >> adequately (though it must be admitted that Evans's range makes >> Armas a better outfielder than he otherwise would be). Second, Fenway >> is NOT the best park for right-handed power hitters, as it kills >> the ones who tend to hit line drives. Fact is, the Red Sox haven't >> had many people recently who could hit 40 homers. Third, his >> average isn't THAT bad. He had one year where he hit around .210, >> but his lifetime average hovers around .250, and last year he hit >> over .260. And yes, Armas hits into lots of double plays, but >> that's the price Boston must pay for having Rice and Armas batting >> consecutively---Rice is as guilty for not having the speed to break >> up the double play as Armas is for not having the speed to leg out >> the fielder's choice. >Armas reminds of Reggie Jackson, with inferior offensive skills, but more >consistent defensively (than Reggie's Yankee years). I have watched him >for the last two years and in the outfield the similarities are there. >Both have a great arm and often either throw to the wrong base or miss the >cut-off, and both let their fielding go when the offensive game requires >more concentration. Your characterization of "more than adequate" is >an overstatement. Adequate would be more accurate. Listen to the Boston >fans for more. As far as offense goes Fenway Park does not deprive Armas >in any way whatsoever: if two linedrives would have gone for homeruns >and instead went for doubles off-the-wall, ten HRs would have been outs in >the average park. Check out Bill James' "Baseball Abstract" if you want >to know about the advantages hitters have in Fenway; I'm sure you've been >underestimating them. This is a player with good power who has few other >skills above those of the average player, and is missing a few to boot. We differ on Armas' defensive virtues; I will defer. As far as Fenway and hitters, I did NOT say that Armas wasn't helped by the "Monster", just that there are some right-handed hitters who would be hurt by it. Fenway punishes line-drive power. By the way, have you seen the 1985 edition of "Baseball Abstract"? I haven't been able to find it yet. >>5- If all Boston pitchers are to finish below .500, you must be >> expecting Boston to finish below .500, too. It is probably too >> much to expect to go three-for-three, but Boston will be much >> stronger than the Yankees if they go two-for-three (which is what I >> better off if they go two-for-three (the event I consider most >> likely; I like Boyd as well as Clemens), and will suffer no >> disadvantage vis-a-vis Yankee pitching if they go one-for-three. >I never said (or meant) that all Boston pitchers will be below .500; I >believe what you are referring to is when I characterized their staff >as being composed of one 15 game winner and the rest having between >8 and 12 wins (I guess you assumed I meant they would go 8 and 12; >I hope this is better worded.) History is on my side. Boston has >a poor record for converting young pitchers into winners and much of >the blame can be placed on Fenway, although that is irrelevant. If Boyd >and Clemens are to elevate themselves (alone) over the 12 win mark it >will truly be an exceptional year in Red Sox history. I weigh history lightly; we shall see. >And just a note on the Yankees loss of Howell. He turned in a great second >half (precisely: he started the last game of Lou Pinella's career in late >June or early July) and we both know how important the "table setter" has >become since Ron Davis brought it to glory a few years ago. To think of him >as irreplacable is to forget that the Yankees have the old table setter >for the reliever whom I consider the best today - Dan Quisenberry - in >Mike Armstrong. He was injured much of last year, but he should not be >forgotten. He's done the job in the past quite well, and he's still young. Armstrong's return is problematic, and he was never as good a "table setter" as Howell was and will be. Moreover, Howell has the ability to be a "stopper" as well, raising the possibility of returning Righetti to the rotation. I just doubt Armstrong can do the job. >I've heard much better reports than what you had to say about Henry Cotto. >Then again, I only saw him play in the playoffs last year and a couple of >games against the Mets, and he looked very good. He had an excellent >winter season by all reports. I'm still optimistic. Cotto's defense is undisputed; his power non-existant; his speed excellent; his offense hypothetical. I suspect he would be better off hitting on artificial turf. >> Dale Berra does not hit well enough to play third. Foli, while not >> outstanding, was competant defensively, hit well enough for a >> shortstop, and can play other infield positions. He's probably a >> good utility man at this point in his career. >I don't mind the platoon of Pagliurulo and Berra; neither will be an All-Star >but I can expect some production from both. Both, particularly Berra, >are markedly stronger from one side than the other. Pags was one of the >real pleasant surprises of last year. Foli has had the talents of a >utility man his entire career. At best he's "pesky", probably he won't >hit his weight. If he hadn't hooked on with the '79 Pirates his career >would be over for a few years already. I doubt he would make it north >if the Yankees hadn't traded him. I know he's an ex-Met, but try and >understand. He should probably retire with dignity, because he'll probably >be sent on waivers before the season's over. The Yankees will get below average production from the third base position, nevertheless. However, production is not their problem. Say, do you have Foli-phobia, too? "Pesky" is an uncomplimentary synonym of "Determined"; Foli gets good use of what skills he has. >Perhaps it's time to post this discussion (your reply if you want). >After all spring training as sprung and baseball nuts will need more >than trivia to subsist. >Dan Schneider Ok. David Rubin