[quote:c52ea998b6]I'm always open to the variant perspective. I think I see a couple of holes in your argument, however, and it may take a true stat guy to to be called upon as a defense witness. The Strato Berce website states that a 4e10 at SS equals a 1e84 SS, so Adam Everett is costing you 75 baserunners that you need to make up. That means a .250 hitting "1" equals a .400 hitting "4" (if you use 500 at bats, a .250 hitter (125 hits) needs to now get 200 hits to even things out from his bad glove). Did Larkin hit .400? Did he steal bases like Everett? Bunt? Hit and Run? Additionally, the true stats nuts (unlike me, a more user friendly stats nut) once had this insane discussion many years ago about lost opportunity cost that occurred when a 1 on defense ended an inning with a double play. I don't doubt your anecdotal evidence, and maybe even under the right opposing ballpark conditions your observation is very valid. I would just say that you're swimming against the current, in my estimation.
[/quote:c52ea998b6]
It's even more complicated than your explanation. You don't have to have Larkin himself achieve the 75 hits, it has to come from the team as a whole. Since Larkin costs less than Everett, you could make up the hits by spending your additional money on other offensive players or (and I think this is Helium's argument) by reducing hits by spending it on better pitchers.
Additionally, by having a four at SS, you give up many more hits which can cause pitcher fatigue, requiring more bullpen usage (and presumably more bullpen spending to be successful). It is very difficult to calculate the cost of this. This is where SOM gets highly complex (and fun) because you have to weigh these factors with little ability to track them. So while a 1 e84 and a 4 e10 give up the same number of baserunners, the cost is not exactly equal since the errors don't cause pitcher fatigue.
Then the opportunity cost discussion comes in. Makes your head swim.
This is a great thread.