Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houem.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!vax135!houxz!houxm!houem!jhr2 From: jhr2@houem.UUCP (J.ROSENBLUTH) Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball Subject: Re: All-Star Selection Message-ID: <265@houem.UUCP> Date: Thu, 21-Jun-84 08:31:15 EDT Article-I.D.: houem.265 Posted: Thu Jun 21 08:31:15 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 22-Jun-84 05:59:57 EDT References: <263@houem.UUCP>, <509@drutx.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ Lines: 25 I stated that the best player at each position should be named to the all-star team. I also said that past performance should be weighted. I also said that recent performance should be weighted more heavily. Why should past performance be given any weight? Because it *is* an indication of how good a player is. In particular, I refuse to believe, based on this year alone, that Claudell Washington is one of the best hitters in the National League (which he has been this year). Also, Jerry Koosman's performance in 1969 should be given weight zero. It is *not* an indication of his ability today. The same applies to Garvey's 1974 performance and Parker's 1979 performance. They are too far in the past and those players have proved they are not of that ability anymore. However, it does not make sense to argue that Toby Harrah deserved the all-star selection over George Brett in 1982 because he had a better first half beacause Brett's *recent* past performance clearly showed he was the better player.