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.