[horseofcourse]

In essence here is what Peralta costs them. Zone rating is the pre-eminent stat used now. It is percentage of balls successfully fielded in the shortstop range. Peralta is always at or near the bottom in that stat. He was quite good in 2005. He hovers right at 80 percent for 3 years now though. That is not good. Generally in a full season 85 percent is a great number for a shortstop. The last 4 years under 10 per year in MLB reach that number. 5 to 8 is the total of full time shortstops per year get to that number. Occasionally you'll get a guy near 90 percent (Vizquel, everett, Tulowitski...), but lets call 85 percent a standard for a guy with excellent range.

Generally the Indians get 460 balls or therabouts in the shortstop's ground ball range. This means Peralta gets to about 370 of them. A shortstop in the 85 percent range if they had that would get to around 390 of them per year. So in a full year the difference between a shortstop with great range and Peralta is 20 base runners per year. How many of those score?? About 40 percent of base runners score in the major leagues...I'll be generous and call it that for you. It is generally under that, but for easy math I'll call it 40 percent. So 8 of those 20 extra base runners will score. How many of those 8 runs scored will come in 1 run losses costing them a game?? I'll be very generous and call it 20 percent...meaning at most 1.6 of those extra base runners will cost them a game.

So in essence the difference between Peralta at short, and one of the best in the league at short is 1 or 2 games a year Peralta's D costs them which is how they can win 96 games with a poor range shortstop playing for them. Which is how the Yankees are in post season year after year with a similarly poor range shortstop. It really in all honesty doesn't mean much at all. This takes nothing into account of offense, 2 out hitting etc.

Math...study...investigate...consider. It is not all about bombast. Bombast on internet boards doesnt' decide baseball games. Playing them does. A shortstop zone range of 60 percent costs you...70 percent costs you. 80 percent??? Really doesn't cost you all that much. It does cost, but it is so minimal that generally it means nothing. If the Indians miss the playoffs by 1 game ever, then you can talk about Peralta's D costing them (in '05 Peralta was at around 85 percent so no...he was near the top in MLB that year...didn't cost them a playoff appearance!!...he has fallen considerably from that the last 3 years however, so his 80 percent seasons resulted in nowhere near playoffs and actual playoffs). Until they finish 1 game out of a playoff birth, Peralta's D means pretty much zero in the grand scheme of INdians baseball. Your bombast is meaningless in reality.

Mathematics my friend. Simple concepts. It ain't brain surgery.

So Avery, even using the absolute worst statistic Peralta has at shortstop...the dreaded zone rating...he costs them one game a year on defense. I am accepting his badness at defense and using what he is worst at on defense...range. And it all adds up to a game. You're the man!! Your points are nearly flawless as always it appears!!

(I'm so good I scare myself!! OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!)