</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Hoosier Red:
<strong>All right D-man, you made a big mistake here. You've gotten me to the blissful point of interest and confusion.

"A player will get the same number of wins shares if he is on a bad team as he would on a good team, but his teammates would get fewer on a bad team."

How is this possible, somebody has to be getting screwed here. Who gets the same number of win shares on a bad team and who doesn't.

For example.
Does Sean Casey(PLAYER) get 18 ws on a good team or a bad team, but Ken Griffey Junior(TEAMMATE) gets less because he's on a bad team.
does Ken Griffey Jr.(Player) get 14 WS whether on a good team or a bad team, but Sean Casey(Teammate) was limited to 18 because he was on a bad team.

Isn't everyone a player, and a teammate?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Sorry once again for the lack of clarity.

Casey would get 18 win shares if he was on the Braves, Expos, Reds, or on whatever team. His performance is NOT dependent on what his teammates do.

Casey's fellow TEAMMATES would get fewer win shares if, say, the team only had 66 wins as opposed to 97 wins because the teammates wouldn't be contributing as much. This is just another way of saying that good players tend to make contributions that help teams win.

Take the 2001 Reds and compare them to the 2001 Braves:

Braves (88-74) Reds (66-96)
Hitting 104.1 WS 105.3 WS
Fielding 46.4 28.1
Pitching 113.5 64.6

The reason the Braves won 88 games and the Reds only 66 should be quite evident from the above. The Reds actually had better hitting than the Braves in 2001, but the fielding and pitching were A LOT worse. If you take Casey and put him on the Braves, he would still get 18 win shares, but the TEAM as a whole would be better because the Braves had much better fielders and pitchers than the Reds did in 2001. The better fielders and pitchers made the Braves a winning team, just as the lack of good fielders and pitchers made the Reds a bad team in 2001.

Does this make more sense now? Sorry about the lack of clarity in my writing.