From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: Cecil signs :-( :-( :-(
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:22:39 GMT

In article <2473@blue.cis.pitt.edu> genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
>Thus spake tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer):
>
>>I don't buy this.  Or perhaps I just don't understand the definition of
>>"use value" in this context.
>
>I think it's the latter.  I keep trying to talk about a player's contribution
>toward the particular goal of winning pennants, and everybody else keeps
>changing to subject (as you do below, talking about the only marginally
>related issue of "profitability").

But the two are inseparable, no?  If something has negative use value,
it seems you should avoid ever using it, whether or not you have
anything better around.  If the job has to be done, then there (by
definition) is at least one available tool with positive use value.

>>  Billy Hatcher and Dan Gladden seem
>>clearly useful, as without them (and their clones) around, major
>>league baseball would only be able to field about 15 teams.  
>
>On the other hand, without them (and their clones), the teams that win 
>pennants wouldn't win nearly as easily.  The fact that they may be the
>best available for a given team at a given time does not change the fact
>that they are making it *very* difficult to compete with the good teams.

Hardly.  Name a single pennant-winning team which would have won if
all of its below-average players had died in a bus crash on day one.
They are *necessary* for winning, though less so than the stars.

>I was NOT talking about "bringing in the bucks".  All of my comments were
>quite clearly labelled as being about *winning*, and how individuals help
>or hurt that effort.

Whatever.  All of my comments apply equally.

>>Only if they
>>are the Atlanta Braves, or some other talent-rich club.  Otherwise he
>>will be an improvement, win more games, and draw more cash than the
>>guy he replaces.
>
>Dan Gladden will be an improvement?  Over whom?  How many teams will win 
>more games by playing Gladden in place of the best LF they have at the moment?

That is not what I said.  Most teams have *some* outfielder worse than
Gladden.  Usually the fourth and fifth outfielders are comparable or
worse.

>But it's irrelevant anyway, because you can't compete by implementing a policy
>of signing Dan Gladdens.

And you can't compete by ditching all of your below-average players
either.  What's your point?  You can't compete by signing an entire
team of Gladden's, because their total value doesn't add up to 90
wins.  But signing three Gladdens, five Maldonados, eight Gomez's and
three Barry Bonds will win you the division.  While three Barry Bonds
alone will not.

The factor you are ignoring is that you are *forced* to play
*somebody*.  Again to use the car analogy, a junker car has a high
positive use value.  But not because you enjoy driving.  In fact, you
probably *hate* driving and avoid it when possible.  You simply hate
walking to work even more, and you are *forced* to get to work
somehow.  The car has positive use value because it is a less negative
form of transportation.  Scott Cooper has a positive use value because
he is a less negative way of filling the position.

>>So it seems to me that the use value of Gladden is positive, as long
>>as he belongs in the majors.
>
>It is if you accept the premise that most teams would win more games with
>him than they would with their current LF.  Which is patently false.

I never said or implied that.

>>and it is more profitable for you to
>>operate a losing team than to not operate at all.
>
>Really?  For how long?  Is it more profitable to operate a losing 
>manufacturing business, than it is to not be in business at all?

I dunno.  The Indians still seem to be pulling a profit.

>>How much would you be willing to pay to bring Dante Bichette (a decidedly
>>below-average player) to the Pirates?
>
>Nothing.  It wouldn't help the Pirates compete.

Huh.  Then *this* is our real disagreement.  You think the Pirates
should release everybody on the team except Wakefield and Van Slyke,
and wait until they collect 24 more above-average players.  I think
they should hang on to most of the team, and should even consider
acquiring non-stars like Bichette, if the price is low enough.

-Valentine