Right, but not all discussions take place here. It’s overly complicated to explain replacement level the way it’s defined to someone who isn’t aware. I’m not saying that the wheel is broken and won’t turn, I’m just saying we can/should do better. A replacement level player shouldn’t be defined as someone who hits at the level of freely available talent and is an average fielder, but rather as a player whose overall value is equivalent to that of freely available talent. It’s a simpler, shorter definition that conveys more precisely what we mean intuitively by replacement level.

If we had accurate defensive evaluations all along, replacement level would’ve been defined w/r/t overall value in the first place. The main reason it’s defined the way it is now is convenience: we’re better at measuring offense than we are at measuring defense. So when Dave mentioned potential advances in defensive metrics, I thought of this.

I agree with you completely from a roster construction standpoint. The team could have been much more creative with Sexson’s roster spot, and almost certainly would have come out better for it.

But, it’s about time for the season to start, and the way I was looking at it was how many runs the Ms will get out of their 1B position relative to how many runs every other AL team will get out of theirs. From a general baseball standpoint, I agree with you 100%, but I think Sexson will help the Ms more this year by being significantly better than the average AL first baseman. With Giambi moving to DH (not sure how I forgot about that but included the Minky/Phelps platoon), a healthy, non-declining Sexson is at least the 4th best first baseman in the AL this year with the bat.

If you expanded your search to all the players currently in MLB “capable” of playing 1st base Richie drops even further down on the list.

I bet Richie wouldn’t drop that far using that standard…he might even improve a bit percentile wise…. A strict application of the defensive spectrum suggests just about any major leaguer could play first base. Richie would be compared with shortstops/catchers etc by that standard.

I think you have to draw the line somewhere if you’re going use a positional yardstick.

That’s one of the mindset thinking problems w/ MLB GM’s. They limit their searches to the current set of players instead of expanding it to all potential players.

VORP doesn’t consider defense. It’s unfortunate that systems like winshares and WARP that attempt to sum a player’s value relative to a similar standard (i.e. average or replacement level etc.) drop the ball pretty badly on the defensive side of things. As has been pointed out in the evaluating defense thread, there are much superior ways to measure defense than offered by BP or Bill James.

Sure the minors are full of average defenders — but they can’t hit, which is why they’re in the minors.

I assume the intent of setting the bar at replacement level hitters at 85% of league average or whatever is that those are guys who play passable defense — or better — as well. But if you’re going to look at replacement level defense you ought to make the same assumption — that they can hit a little bit.

The point of replacement level is that such a player represents freely available talent. Players who can hit but can’t field that well tend to make the majors despite their defensive deficiencies. They become DHs or first baseman or position players for the Reds. However, players who can play competent defense but have trouble hitting don’t get the promotion unless they are truly exceptional with the glove. Hence, it’s much easier to find a competent defender who can’t hit in the freely available pool than it is to find a quality hitter who can’t defend well. Given the dynamics of the talent pool, I don’t think it necessarily follows that a replacement level defender should be assumed to have the ability to hit.

Pretty much a replacement level player is defined as a league average or slightly better defender who hits somewhere between 75% to 85% of league average depending upon the position they play. Probably the offensive level is somewhat arbitrary and more arguable but the defensive side to me seems pretty intuitive.

Just because it is strictly defined doesn’t mean that it makes perfect sense. Juan Uribe’s VORP last year was -0.6 over 495 PA. That makes him, according to standard terminology, a “replacement level hitter.” But you can’t just go replacing his bat without taking his plus glove away. That is, you can’t replace hitters, you can only replace whole players.

The way it would make sense to me is to take each player’s offensive value and defensive value and add them together. Then, after you have a sense of each player’s total value, look at the talent distribution, and see where the freely available talent lies.

By and large, it might not make a huge difference in player evaluation, but tweaking the terminology could get rid of some silly arguments where the two sides don’t really disagree. As it stands, it’s still a very useful concept, but it just rubs me the wrong way a little bit.

I assume the intent of setting the bar at replacement level hitters at 85% of league average or whatever is that those are guys who play passable defense — or better — as well. But if you’re going to look at replacement level defense you ought to make the same assumption — that they can hit a little bit.