</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Jason Moyer:
<strong>A shortstop or modern second baseman (post-1930) has a much larger effect on the offense that is being generated against his team than James gives credit for, IMHO. I don't think catchers deserve much more of a share than first basemen do. Aside from a marginal effect on the team ERA, because of the way they handle a pitching staff, they're basically useless.
Jason</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Here's where the problem with Bill James concepts, such as Win Shares: there are just too many factors to consider. On a team composed of entirely of right-handed flyball pitchers, a shortstop's value would be less than on team of all left-handed groundball pitchers. Also, how good are a team's pitchers at holding runners? That would affect a catcher's ability to prevent steal attempts and throw out basestealers. Also, a good defensive catcher not only throws runners out, he prevents them from running in the first place. What's the value of that, and how does it relate to the frequency of steal attempts if that team had an average catcher or if the pitchers were terrible at holding runners? Also a good defensive catcher can prevent wild pitches and passed balls. What's the value of these "non-events" and how much less valuable is a catcher, if at all, if the pitchers have great control? What value on an OF throw to the right base, or hitting the cutoff man, to prevent runners from advancing?
How much impact do these "non-stats" have on a game's outcome?
Can Bill James tell me?
