i had submitted a long post on this. it seems to have disappeared (arrgh), so i’ll sum up the major points.

one, using pythagoras calculations, a run saved does equal a run scored. this varies slightly the further from average a team is. comparing runs scored and runs allowed, for a team with around a +75 run differential, run saved have a 10% bonus. for a team with around a +175 differential, runs saved have a 20% bonus. for a team with a +300 differential, runs saved have a 30% bonus. conversely, for teams that give up more runs than they score, runs scored are worth slightly more, at similar rates.
i want to emphasize – since this is a common misconception – for a team that scores and allows about the same number of runs, a run scored = a run saved. it doesnt matter if the team scores and allows 600 runs, or scores and allows 1000 runs.

two, the actual (defensive) impact of a player for your team is hard to tell. a first baseman who is good at scooping throws is valuable if your infielders are wild throwers, but not if they arent. so without play-by-play analysis, you probably have to take the known defensive value then make an educated adjustment.

First of all, proper defensive positioning justifies one of Dave’s main arguments. Dave claimed (obvious paraphrasing) that the number of extreme, high-impact plays that can be handled by more than one defender are very rare. I agree, because teams position their players expressly to avoid such overlapping coverage.

Positioning allows the addition of a good defender to not take away high-impact opportunities from neighboring players by adding range on the other side of the neighboring positions. Examples from obvious to less so:
(a) SS and 2B with extreme range allow 1B and 3B to shade towards the lines and take away doubles and triples. The inverse is also true.
(b) Infielders with extremely good range into the outfield on flyballs allow outfielders to play deeper and take away additional doubles and triples.
(c) CF with huge range allows LF and RF to take away flyballs down the line and extend their range into foul territory.
(d) 3B with extremely good bunt-charging skills (Beltre anyone?) allow C and P to ignore the 3B side on bunts and take away the first side. Perhaps 1B don’t need to charge at all in some circumstances.
(e) Slick SS and 2B encourage P to ignore all grounders except those hit pretty much at him.
(f) Extreme range 2B reduces the positioning “penalty” paid by holding runners at 1B.

In short, if clubs make adjustments to all defenders as better individuals are added to the defense, the added range shouldn’t take away from neighboring players. The biggest impact is reduction of extra-base hits along the lines and to the wall. Otherwise ignored opportunities are added, such as more range in foul territory.

I’m not trying to say that it is easy to win a championship without a great offense, just that it is entirely necessary to have a great defense in order to win

Huh? Since when? I will grant you that it is certainly easier to win when you have decent defense, but this years Yanks were not a particularly stunning model of defense. Even using the stats supposing to show the importance of defense, UZR, the Yanks were at -18 according to Fangraph, and as I recall, they won a little something called the World Series.

If you want to see a whole 25-man roster go to Hawaii first class, root for the Yankees.

Unfortunately my friend, you may have been sold a plane ticket to Hawaii, but you are in fact on a slow bus to the bottom of the division.

One does not have to be in first class to compete and perhaps to win, but you do need to climb out of the luggage bins and stop digging around for quarters in the upholstery.

Milton Bradley.

Insert mandatory “games” joke here. But seriously, anything one can buy with the coin of Carlos Silva is a win.

I will, however, hold out hope that Jack Z can dig us up a real crown jewel: some undervalued offensive prowess. Ooooh, aaaah…

Milton Bradley.