However, if you are trying to “describe” something, you want the positional adjustment, since the reader will be thinking it anyway. Jeter’s offense is highly regarded because he is a SS, and wouldn’t be so highly regarded if he was a LF.

In any case, you want all three components (offense, defense, position). Part of the confusion seems to be that Dave only presented two of the three here.

“normalizing to the position-specific or group-specific averages themselves should be okay”… as long as you don’t just use a 1-yr average. It’s nonsensical to think that the average RF = average DH, if we know that the RF hit better and fields better. Same with saying SS = 2B. (Over the long haul, the average 2B will hit better than the average SS.)

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/replacement_level_fielding/

As well, if you only look at the top 8 DH in playing time, you need to look at the top 8 at each position to make the comparison fair.

That’s pretty easily done. Cumulative line for all DHs this year who qualified for the batting title: .285/.390/.487.

That group includes Ortiz, Vidro, Thomas, Thome, Hafner, Sheffield, Cust, and Huff. I included the latter two because they played DH more frequently than they played any position in the field, and consistent with the interpretation, they drag the averages down. Notable full-time DHs who did not qualify: Piazza (injury, shared time with Cust) and Sosa.

(It comes out to -15 instead of -20, because it’s harder to DH. You give them a +5 more “hitting off the bench” runs, so that the overall penalty is -15.)

***

If this was high school, your best fielders are at SS, CF, maybe 3B and LF. Now, if you were to compare to the average player at each position, the average SS = average 2B = average DH. But, that’s ludicrous isn’t it? If every team’s best player is at SS or CF, how can you then rate the average SS as being equal to the average CF?

The average QB is not equal to the average OT is he?

That’s the point. You have to approach this from reality. And the reality is that not every position is necessarily equal, even if you need to have someone man each position.

Did you know that in the early50s that the offensive output of the CF was HIGHER than 1B? Would any sane person conclude that the average 1B at that time was equal to the average CF? Clearly the average CF is a better fielder than the average 1B. If he’s also a better hitter, then the average CF at that time must have been better than the average 1B.

Approach this from a reality perspective, not from a “let me fit everything into a nice matrix” perspective. Mathematical gymnastics we don’t need.

I think the devil is in the details here. As I mentioned, a lot of teams just don’t even attempt to fill the DH spot with one player, instead using it for other purposes. If we looked at only full-time designated hitters, we’d see that they are, indeed, the best hitters of any position.

Because the position offers unique advantages in terms of creativity, adjusting back to a league average of players chosen by the teams won’t give us a realistic assessment of the available options. Remember, Reggie Willits DH’d 14 times this year.

As for the -15 run number, there’s no rock solid math behind it, so you can move it to -13 or -14 if you want. But, there’s no way to argue that it can be higher than -11, as the penalty has to be higher than that of playing first base, and I’d argue that a 1 or 2 run penalty isn’t stiff enough. If you think its 3 or 4 runs, thats fine – you may be right, and I’m okay with it being -13 or -14 or -15. The idea is still the same.

As you’ve probably noticed, I’m not trying to do super precise work here. I’m not handing out MVPs based on the differences between fractions of a run with this tool. For the purposes we’re using it for, the conclusions we’re drawing won’t change.