Best News I Heard All Day: Let it Snow!

COST = (A-B) + (C - D)

A = Replacement level hitting 1B
B = Replacement level 3B
C = Value of Villanona's defense at 3B
D = Value of Villanona's defense at 1B

Note that:

1. A is always > B, 2007 was about 5 runs or 1/2 a  win.
   
2. C is possibly negative, decreasing COST
   
3. the absolute value of D [ abs(D)] is almost certainly less than abs(C).

And different "tools" clearly divide players into different positions.  There is a reason that tall quick speedy guys get sent to the outfield.  Tall powerfully built slow runners, who maybe quite agile for their size (Big Cat, JT pre-2000), get shuffled to the corner IF.  But I think its clear that each position has a skill and ability set and players can't automatically move down the "spectrum."

My basic thesis is that the positions rank across the defensive spectrum, from most difficult to easiest, and the biggest piece of evidence for that is that players move, from more skill-based positions to easier positions, down the spectrum, the older they got.  Nothing you have said in this thread contradicts that statement, either generally, or about first base being the end-of-the line on the spectrum, in specific.

> But despite the fact that this whole thing could be blown out of the water

Which you have tried - and failed - to do.

> now that I know you're also talking about college
> and the minors (ask Kevin Frandsen, the college third baseman
> who is now gathering the majority of his playing time at
> second and short)....

Right.  Occasionally, a team will realize that someone has a pretty slick fielding skill set for their position, and that their bat would carry more weight at a position up the spectrum, so they move them up.  Usually, as you say, the player is pretty young, and goes from being a standout at the old position to middle-of-the-pack at the new position (or below average, as in "Fransden the shortstop").  And it doesn't happen often.

I fail to see how that contracts the defensive spectrum.

> or that I could point out that you praise people who
> 'know more than you and I ever well' but then blast
> them about playing Darin Erstad.

Generally, I find MLB decision making to be sane and rational.  Occasionally, they their decision-making is dumb, like playing Erstad, or Sabean's hard on for slick-field no-hit first baseman (Jose Vizcaino, anyone?).  

I fail to see how that contracts the defensive spectrum.

> The bottom line is, you're wrong.

I eagerly await your impassioned essays about how astrology is the best way to make life decisions, how the dinosaurs actually died out not from a natural disaster 65 million years ago but instead 5,000 years ago because of Noah's flood, and how airplanes fly not because of aerodynamics but because of properly appeased "flight spirits".

> Not about the spectrum stuff, but about my argument.

Which is ...?

> You are right: the defensive spectrum is a theory that's out
> there.  You are right that some teams go by it.  You are right
> that it's one way of looking at things, and that there are players
> that have moved down it, and it does happen more often than not.

It's not a "theory".  It's like gravity - it's just the way that things are - Bill James' writings merely described it.  Again - how many fat aging first basemen move to shortstop or center field from one season to the next?  Do any teams do that?

It's true - some teams seem to understand the defensive spectrum better than others, and make more rational decisions based on it.  Sabean hasn't seemed to penetrate the mystery yet, which is why we have had Jose Vizcaino slugging .300 at first base, rather than a cheap pickup like Jack Cust, Carlos Pena, Hee Sop Choi, or Tony Clark slugging .500 and actually providing Bonds some protection.

> What you're wrong about is saying that I never knew about this.  
> I'm not saying it doesn't exist, or that there aren't any teams
> who go by it, to whatever degree.  

I don't know whether you knew about this, and I don't actually care.  You asserted, however, in response to my posted comment, that you "disagree ... completely" with Bill James' writings, implicitly specifically the defensive spectrum.  So, you are I are discussing the defensive spectrum.  And the only way that you will win this argument is if I get tired of replying to you.  The facts are on my side.  Again, name a single fat aging first baseman who moved to shortstop or center field from one season to the next.

> I'm saying that:
>  * It's not the only way to value positions (kinda ironic, considering your accusation)

Sure.  Not saying it is.

> * That it's not the only way teams in the majors do it.

Sure.  Not saying it is.

> * Sometimes, a player's value isn't dropped because he's moved...sometimes
> he's moved because his value has dropped.

It's the same thing.

>
> Other ideas exist.  For the better part of a decade, the Giants sure succeeded
> with having an offensive oriented middle infield in Kent and Aurilia, a gold
> glove winner in left (albeit of decreasing defensive value later in the period),
> and a defensive minded first baseman.  They won division titles, the NL, and
> nearly won a World Series with the plan.

Right.  And, re: first base, it was a stupid plan.  Sometimes, you learn more from failure than from success.  So, Sabean lucked out, and Bonds, Kent, and Schmidt were all balls-out better aquisitions than he ever had a right to expect.  And the Giants steamrolled.  Great.  That doesn't mean that every single thing Sabean did those years was an act of genius.  And how well has his thinking held up the past three craptastic years (and the next few, as well)?

Look, Jate seems like a nice guy, handsome, team player, saved Dusty Baker's son, etc.  Good guy, great to have around the clubhouse.  But, that said, if Sabean had prioritized getting 300 TB out of 1B (not that hard to do, a lot harder than getting 300 TB each year from shortstop or center field) from 2000 onwards, we would have won maybe three more games each year except 2004, increased offense making up for decreased defense (which is not that important at 1B, Snow's flashy stops notwithstanding).  And, with all those second-place finishes, who would say "no" to a few more wins each year?  (Sabean, apparently)

> The 'alternative theory' is that there is no one end-all scale for
> valuations on anything, no matter how some perceive it.  It's
> that a theory works based on the players available and used.  
> It's not about making each piece have the most or least individual
> value, it's making sure all the pieces fit into a team that's well-
> rounded.  

Everything you're saying seems pretty obvious to me.  We agree.  But I fail to see how that contracts the defensive spectrum.

> The defensive spectrum was inspired by players who move
> to maximize offensive value...and teams that have lived by it
> are not well-rounded.

Is that some sort of sideways dig at the A's, Red Sox, and the rest of the Moneyball/Sabermetric crew?  

Anyway, every team lives the defensive spectrum, the "well-rounded" and the "not well-rounded".  Again, the basic thesis is that [players move down the spectrum the older they got, from more skill-based positions to easier positions].  Yes there are factors that complicate that simple equation.  But not by much.  Generally, a mountain of evidence support that simple hypothesis, and not much (and nothing that you say here) contradicts it.  Again, please name a single fat aging first baseman who moved to shortstop or center field from one season to the next.

Darrell Evans - the older he got, generally, the more 1B (and DH) he played an the less 3B he played.  It's not a firm rule, like every single frikkin year he played less 3B and more 1B than the year before.  But, in general, you look at his career, and the trend is clear - he moved down the spectrum, from 3B to 1B, as he got older (and as his range at 3B diminished).

And yes sure there are often other factors involved.  I agree.  Sure it looks like the Twinkies thought that Bob Randall looked like a better bet than Kusick.  But they didn't move Carew to catcher or shortstop - they moved him down the spectrum, from 2B to 1B.

The basic thesis is that [players move down the spectrum the older they got, from more skill-based positions to easier positions].  Yes there are factors that complicate that simple equation.  But not by much.  Generally, a mountain of evidence support that simple hypothesis, and not much (and nothing that you say here) contradicts it.