From: fierkelab@bchm.biochem.duke.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball.fantasy
Subject: About the Mussina Trade:  My Reply
Date: 11 Jan 93 00:18:50 GMT
Organization: Biochemistry

OK, OK, it's time for a stat-based reply to all these comments on the Mussina
for whomever-based trade.  First, a confession about my first posting.  I
didn't put enough consideration into the requirements of the league, as per
which statistics "counted".

Now, the relevent stats for some principles involved in the discussion.

Mike Mussina  Age 24  on opening day next season
2.54 ERA  18-5 W-L  241 IP  130 SO  48 BB 32 GS  8 CG  (1992)

Shane Mack  Age 29 on opening day next season
156 G, 600 AB  101 R .315 BA .467 Slug. .394 OBP  64 BB 26/14 SB/CS
16 HR 75 RBI  (1992)

Mike Deveraux  Age 30 on opening day next season
156 G, 653 AB 76 R .276 BA .467 Slug. .321 OBP 44 BB 10/8 SB/CS
24 HR 107 RBI.  (1992)

Derek Bell  Age 24 on opening day next season
61 G, 161 AB 23 R .242 BA .354 Slug. .324 OBP 15 BB 7/2 SB/CS
2 HR 15 RBI. (1992)
(Perhaps his 91 Syracuse stats would be more appropriate)
119 G, 457 AB 89 R .346 BA .? Slug. .? OBP 57 BB ? SB/CS
13 HR 93 RBI.

Jeff Bagwell Age 24 on opening day next season
162 G, 586 AB 87 R .273 BA .444 Slug. .368 OBP 84 BB 10/6 SB/CS
18 HR 96 RBI.

From tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) Sun Feb  7 16:10:48 1993


>I think that Mack can repeat what he did last year, a .315/16/75/26
>performance.  Why is that valuable?  He helps you in all four
>categories; he isn't outstanding in any one, but the combination is
>excellent.  A SB is roughly equivalent to a HR.  A hit is worth
>(roughly) an RBI.  Compare him to Juan Gonzalez at .260/43/109/0.
>That's a 30 RBI difference, but a 30 hit difference too.  A 25 HR
>difference, but also a 25 SB difference.  Basically, Mack is worth
>$10 on his batting average alone.

OK, but if you're preparing for NEXT SEASON, wouldn't you rather have Gonzales
than Mack?  If nothing else, Gonzales will be no more than 24 next season,
suggesting the potential of great improvement in his stats.  Of course, he'll
probably never steal many bases.  

Mack will be 29 next season, and it is as likely that the last two seasons were
his peak seasons compared to the possibility that next season will be his peak
season.  After all, peak seasons are most likely to happen for players age
27-28.

>Furthermore, Mack is a proven player.  There may be 15 or 20 players
>who will have a better season than that next year.  But are there that
>many with a better chance of doing so?  Of course not.

>So what did Claudell Washington look like in his prime?  Was he as
>consistent as Mack has been over the last three years?

Claudell Washington, career average after 1985 season (last season as a Brave,
8.86 total seasons, including his peak seasons...-- Sorry, but this is what I
happened to have around the house...should serve as an OK yardstick.)
589 AB 82 R .279 BA ? Slug. ? OBP 41 BB 29/13 SB/CS
13 HR ? RBI.
1985 stats for C. Washington
122 G, 398 AB 62 R .276 BA .455 Slug. .342 OBP 51 BB 14/4 SB/CS
15 HR 43 RBI.  (Note: If I recall correctly, he mostly batted leadoff that
season...lack of anyone better for the job on a pretty bad team)

I think you will agree that these numbers are comparable to both Mack and
Deveraux, or in the case of the 1985 stats will be comparable in 3-4 years. 
The big difference in the careers of these players is that Claudell got ML
playing time early in his career, as opposed to Mack and Deveraux.

As an aside, isn't this a reflection of how screwed up the Dodgers and Padres
are? 

>>Mike Deveraux is an underated offensive player, IMO.  He'll be about as
steady
>>a 3rd or 4th outfielder for you as Mack would have been.

>Huh.  If you say so.  Devereaux won't help (and may hurt) your BA, he
>probably will never get more than 75 RBIs again (not batting second),
>and his power was a fluke.  Meanwhile, he has been stealing less than
>Mack.  Mack had a better season last year, and is *far* more likely to
>be good next year.

>Devereaux in 1990 (times 1.5 because he was only part time): .240/18/74/19.
>Devereaux in 1991: .260/19/59/16.

>And you think he's as good as Mack?  He has *marginally* more power,
>not significantly better RBI potential, his average sucks, and he
>steals only 2/3 the number of bases.

Deveraux's average is just that...average.  Neither Deveraux nor Mack have a
reasonable SB/CS ratio (generally 2 SB = 1 CS results in no net gain to the
offense), although Mack's is better.  Both players have exactly 2 seasons under
their belts as a starter.  Deveraux last year somehow exibited *SIGNIFICANTLY*
more HR power, although total slugging ave. between the two players was
identical.  Was it a fluke?  I admit the possibility that it was.  But Deveraux
is only one year older than Mack, neither player has an extended track record
as a starter, and either player would help an offense to some degree.

As to last season, using the criteria that you used in the Mack-Gonzalez
comparison to compare Mack to Deveraux, then Mack had approx 30 more hits, 8
less HR, 27 less RBI, and cost his team 4 less with SB/CS (26 - (2x14) = -2 for
Mack, while Deveraux 10 - (2x8) = -6.  OK, (30 - 2) - (8 + 27 - 6) = +1 for
DEVERAUX!!!  (Actually, if you count Runs scored in addition to this, then Mack
does look substansially better than Deveraux for last season.  But then the set
of statistics used in your criteria suggests that 1 hit = 1 run, which is
RIDICULOUS!!!  (even if that's how the league is set up.  That's why I play in
a Game-Result HTH competition league.;)))

Also, I'd agree that Mack may be a better bet than Deveraux for next season,
because of his demonstrated consistancy over the last two seasons.  But I still
believe that the two players are more similar than most of the respondants do.

I would also agree, for the sake of argument.that Shane Mack may be among the
best 25 offensive players in the AL, because he does hit for a high average,
has reasonable statistics in power categories, and can draw a walk.  (I'd still
put him in the lower 1/3 of the best 25 offensive players of the AL) That means
he's among the best 45 - 50 offensive players in the Major Leagues, given that
this is a 16-team Dual league Rotisserie setup.  That means that, on average,
he'll be one of the 3 best offensive players on a team.  On an average team,
I'd say he'd be that team's 3rd best offensive player.  For the sake of
arguement, let's say that Deveraux would be an average team's 4th best
offensive player.

Now let's look at the trades discussed.

1)  Mussina for Mack and Derek Bell.
2)  Mussina and Ryan Thompson for Jeff Bagwell and Mike Deveraux

A:  IMO, Ryan Thompson = zero.  I don't recall much about his minor league
statistics, but I remember NOT being impressed by them.

B:  Would you trade a outstanding young pitcher (age 24 at the start of next
season) coming of his first full year of Major League success for ANYBODY's #3
or #4 offensive player (Age 29 - 30)?  Of course not, or at least I wouldn't! 
(As for those people who thought I did not know who Mussina was, I confess that
I did not follow him that closely this season, but I did know that he was one
of Baltimore's top prospect pitchers.)  Those players have to be seen as
temporary incentives, aids to this season, but not long-term parts of the
puzzle.

Thus the trade boils down to "Whose long-term future do you like better, Jeff
Bagwell or Derek Bell?"  Here, the answer is obvious!  Jeff Bagwell has had 2
years of major league success, while Derek Bell, at the SAME AGE, struggled for
1/2 a year in the Majors.  Furthermore, Derek Bell's Minor League stats suggest
the makings of a "Shane-Mack" like ballplayer at best.  Jeff Bagwell already
has numbers similar to Mack at age 24, and "should" continue to improve over
the next couple of seasons.

C)  Given the pitching staff of the person who made the trade, I don't think I
would have made this particular trade.  Bill Wegman has been consistantly good,
but not great.  Curt Schilling has yet to show consistancy.  El Sid is El Sid. 
How big will he be next season?  Apparently he's not here in Durham
"rice-dieting" this winter, as opposed to last winter.  Mussina doesn't look
like a pure power pitcher, but he's probably going to be the best of those 4
over the next two seasons.  I probably would have tried to do a 1:1 trade using
any one of the other 3 pitchers for Bagwell, or maybe a Wegman or El Sid - Mack
trade.  When El Sid is good, he's very very good (2.73 ERA, 14-11 W-L, 214.2
IP, 193 SO, 67 BB last season), but when he's bad, he's horrid.  (or, more
likely, on the DL).  Of course, I would have traded Ryan Thompson for Mike
Deveraux straight up!

Anyhow, that's my reply to all you who didn't like my first post.  Hope you
find this one more digestable.

Eric Roush				"Here I stand; I can do no other"
fierkelab@				Martin Luther
bchm.biochem.duke.edu