You use their numbers in relation to replacement level regarding their offensive contributions, but use their numbers in relation to average regarding their defense. The final outcome would still show them as equal, but it would be 30 – 10 = 10 + 10, and they would each be worth 20 runs above average, instead of 30 runs above some conglomoration of average and replacement.

While there’s something to be said in favor of seeing this kind of discussion in the mainstream media — specifically, that it would be nice to see players whose sum contribution on offense and defense is equal get the same kind of treatment, particularly when something like the HoF is at stake — I’d like to see absolutely *none* of that, and for the Mariners to exploit that inefficiency in the market.

I’ve often wondered how much of the “defense doesn’t matter” mantra that was attributed to Oakland in the years prior to and during the “Moneyball” era was purposeful. Perhaps Beane was simply lowering the price on his next chosen commodity.

Dial has Ramirez at -4 RS per 150 games. While everyone swears by UZRs, Lichtman posted how much in line Dial’s ratings were with his UZRs. So, its quite conceivable that Ramirez improved this year to the point of merely being below average. If so, I’m not so sure that the defensive gap is enough to make up for the offensive gap in 2006.

Some people agreed with Dave’s methods while others did not. I think the consensus was that the fielding statistics are less reliable than the offensive statistics. I would agree with that sentiment. I don’t think you can just add/subtract runs saved in this manner and say with certainty that Beltre = Aramis. We had a similar discussion regarding Mike Lowell VS ARod VS Aramis FWIW.

I’m just wondering why you wrote this post defending Beltre’s contract. I’m hoping you are not doing this because you know something the public at large doesn’t know — like a decision by the Ms to shop Beltre rather than Sexson.

Pardon my paranoia if it is unwarranted, but shopping Beltre would be completely in character for an organization that focuses on what players can’t do rather than what they can.

I’m at least a more recent convert and certainly am still on the linear portion of the learning curve. But I can’t help but think that if Dewan would include a rigorous runs conversion metric with his plus/minus system and updated data was in the market place every season in a readily accessible form like his fielding bible, I think Dave’s sentiment would rule the day. Actually, I’m not sure what is stopping Dewan and Co. The run expectancy data is out there, Chris Dial appears to have done all of the hard brainwork (at least enough to form a foundation)….