Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan T
One more illustration on my point.. back in those days I used to present a yearly "Win Shares" list for each team. I think i never really brought that back because it didn't seem like many people were that interested in it. Win Shares has its flaws, but for the sake of my argument, I think it serves its point here..
Picking just one year out of the middle of Long Island's run, here are two players that got paid roughly the same amount for that team:
| first_name | last_name | HittingWinShares | PitchingWinShares | FieldingWinShares | TotalWinShares |
|---|
| "Luke" | "Crawford" | 25.8731255025031 | 0 | 6.45581879639076 | 32.3289442988939 | | "John" | "Hunt" | 12.963149216274 | 0 | 2.36902869970318 | 15.3321779159772 |
For the same amount of money in 1980, Luke Crawford contributed twice as much as John Hunt (the middle of their lineup) did. Just for reference, how important was Crawford's 32 Win shares for his team that year?
In 2032 FOOL, only 3 players in FOOL had that many win shares for their own team. (Run-ming Zhui, Ramon Santos and Jesus Estrada). That many win shares means that Crawford deserved that much money honestly it equaled roughly $1 mil per win that Crawford was responsible for that team that season.
I don't have the 2033 Win shares for FOOL computed yet (I do it after the playoffs usually), so can't really give a comparison just yet on how it compares to today's time. Anyways, I agree.. I love fun conversations like this. I find them very interesting personally  The only thing better would be if we were in a bar with a beer for the discussion! |
Im glad you brought up the wins shares, and since your in one of your moods (per your other post in the offseason thread) im going to continue this
So your right Crawford contributed most to HA'S wins on that team, but my point was that 11 mil could have been spent on someone else that would actually help them climb out of his 4th place finishes.
Wouldnt you expect the guy that you pay the most, contribute the most? I would, so sure Crawford was tops on his team for win shares. But if he is dumping 11 mil into Crawford and loosing how is that a good investment?
Alan you mind posting Hartfords win shares for that season (if you even still have them)? Im curious about some stuff.
The argument essentially boils down not to Luke Crawford, but that HA had no idea how to build a team, and giving guys like Crawford that contract helped ME, and whoever else was in his division win more by eating up money that could have been used to make the rest of his team better. So whoever said that earlier DC or Alan or Tim or maybe all 3 were dead on.
Could you imagine Crawford on another team? What kind of beast would he have been at the top of a lineup that actually had some meat behind it? Kind of a scary thought now that I think about it.