My biggest overall beef with win shares, the more think about it, are the defensive adjustments.
I think defensive win shares are absolutely amazing at showing who is the best player. But I'm not sure I agree that it shows who contributed more.
For instance, let's say you have Steve Garvey at first on one team and Bill Buckner on another. Ok, we know Garvey is a better first baseman, altho Buckner is still good. However, if the conditions they're playing under cause the first baseman of Bucnker's team to have a lot more chances than Garvey, shouldn't Buckner get more Win Shares? I mean, you can have a defensive wizard playing shortstop for instance, but on a flyball team maybe he isn't contributing as much as your so-so center fielder.
It's weird. I almost think that defensive win shares are great for evaluating a player's talent, but that the total baseball-style linear weights (for defense) are almost better at gauging actual win contribution...
Am I messing something up logically here? If I were on the SABR list I'd ask them.
Jason
__________________
"I pretty much popped everything cold turkey. We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses."
-- Tom House
"In 1973, the year I first ran for Congress, the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce concluded a year-long investigation that found--and I quote--'drug use exists...in all sports and levels of competition...In some instances, the danger of improper drug use--primarily amphetamines and anabolic steroids--can only be described as alarming'"
-- Henry Waxman
|