</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Jason Moyer:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by OldGiants:
<strong>Can there be negative win shares? If not, I'd have to question the validity of the analysis.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Team's can't win negative games, so no you can't.
Jason</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Wrong. A negative win is a loss. I had to cut my post short, or I would have given this example:
Sosa hits a 3-run homer in the top of the ninth to put the Cubs up 5-4. Alfonseca walks a man, then allows a 2-run homer.
IMO, Sosa earns a win share, Alfonseca a loss share. Coming away from this game with a 'zero' for both players because the Cubs lost the game is flat-out wrong.
Forcing 'win shares' to equal the team's win total can never be a valid determination of a player's value. It favors players on better teams far too much, even with the tripling idea.
And it overlooks the way the game is really played, as my simple example points out.
I like James and applaud his body of work, but this idea is too far from the truth to be useful.
<small>[ 06-06-2002, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: OldGiants ]</small>