- View Source--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
> --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada" <tamada@o...>You are certainly thanked for putting out lists that people hammer on.
> > ...DeanO's
> > chapter on Cummings, Kemp, and Sikma was one I couldn't resist
> > (I think it's fair to say the chapter was very much inspired by our
> > APBR discussions of these players, especially Cummings)...
> Well, I hope he dedicated the chapter to moi !
>You should probably read it. It's a lot easier to see where my take
> Sikma hasn't been hammered (as a subject) like the other 2. Maybe
> he's due.
> Without the book, I can only guess DeanO doesn't like Kemp's
> turnovers nor Cummings' so-so shooting %. Hey, Kemp got plenty of
> MVP votes in spite of his middling minutes.
comes from with the full context. At least add it to you Christmas
>In the book, you'll see why I looked at these players. Specifically,
> My own efforts have been to give credit where it's due, and
> popularity be damned. It's more gratifying to recognize and
> acknowledge, than to join a chorus of yeas or nays.
> It's worth noting that in a couple of years, DeanO may have come to
> recognize that backward-looking analysis is actually fun and
> interesting to many people. It doesn't predict anything useful,
> perhaps. Maybe it helps sell books.
I looked at different classes of players to understand how large a
contribution they could make to teams. I _know_ that Kalb's book on
the 50 Greatest is going to sell a helluva lot more than mine because
his focus is on who is better than who (pub debate material), whereas
mine is how to build a better team (front office debate material).
When I look back, I do so to understand how best to go forward, not
just to discuss who's better. In doing that, identifying the types of
players that add wins and losses in various amounts is quite useful.
But rank 'em? I provide wins and losses (which I think is better than
Bill James' win shares), you can rank how you like.