Quote:
Originally Posted by Syd Thrift
That's all well and good but the numbers we have indicate that the difference between a great LF and a bad one, in the OOTP engine, is about one win. You can argue all you want that the study is incorrect but in order to be convincing you'd actually have to bring numbers to your argument or at least be able to point out exactly what's flawed in the study ("they use different players" is not a flaw, not when things are averaged out over a hundred seasons).
|
I'm not saying the study is wrong I'm saying you're misunderstanding what the argument is. The study shows that LF isn't an important defensive position. That doesn't mean on an individual level that you ignore a player who runs a -15 UZR because he plays LF because that player isn't necessarily providing more value than a guy with slightly lesser offence and better defence in LF.
What you're arguing is you would take a 2 WAR LF over a 3 WAR LF if the 3 war guy has good defence and the 2 WAR guy has poor defence. I'm saying I would take the 3 WAR LF even knowing the relationship of the study isn't that strong.
That's the argument we're essentially having. I'm not dismissing the study I'm saying you shouldn't outright ignore defence even for LF.