From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: About the Mussina Trade:  My Reply
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:04:44 GMT

In article <8475@news.duke.edu> fierkelab@bchm.biochem.duke.edu writes:
>
>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)
>
>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.

Huh?  Washington's best year was .286/.376/.469 in PART TIME play in
1984.  Furthermore, he only reached 500 AB three times in his entire
career, and he never had a 600 AB season.

Claudell Washington was a decent hitter for average and power, but
walked less than Mack and *never* played full time in his entire
career.  He might have been a better player than Devereaux (at least
for rotisserie purposes), except that it is impossible for a player to
have much value when he only plays 120 games a year.

I don't understand what you are trying to say...

>But then the set
>of statistics used in your criteria suggests that 1 hit = 1 run, which is
>RIDICULOUS!!!

Not at all.  The system is standard rotisserie (which, while a *bit*
unrealistic, is not entirely ridiculous).  But I checked...  A hit is
worth far *more* than an RBI.  Why is this?  Because teams tend to
cluster closer in the "batting average" category than in the "RBI"
category.

The last place team will often need 200-250 RBIs to catch the first
place team.  But hits?  An extra 100 hits go a *long* way.  Like from
tenth to first.  A player who, in 600 AB, gets 150 hits and 100 RBIs
is worth less than the one who gets, in 600 AB, 200 hits and 50 RBIs.

That's just how it is...

>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 did a comprehensive analysis of the AL last year (for rotisserie
purposes).  I applied this formula to all players equally (with a
small position adjustment).  I believe my formula to be accurate to
within about 10% or 15% in judging past value to a rotisserie team
(predicting future performance is, of course, harder).

Mack rated at $31.  The only players who rated higher were Molitor,
Thomas, Alomar, Baerga, Edgar Martinez, Anderson, Puckett, Carter,
Griffey, Gonzalez, and Belle.  Which is my basis for rating Mack in
the top dozen players.  Consistency?  Better than many of the above...

>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! 

Yes.  Mussina is very good, but he was IMHO playing over his head last
year.  I expect his ERA to rise to the 2.90-3.00 range.  Mussina is
one of the best pitchers in the league, and therefore worth $20-$25.
Mack is one of the top dozen (or top 20) offensive players and so is
worth $20-$25.  That's simply how most rotisserie leagues work.

>Those players have to be seen as
>temporary incentives, aids to this season, but not long-term parts of the
>puzzle.

In most rotisserie leagues, the long term isn't a big deal.  You don't
get to keep the players forever, after all.  Mack, being only ~30,
will almost certainly remain productive for as long as any current
rotisserie owner is able to keep him.  So will Mussina.  Not that
much of a difference.

>Thus the trade boils down to "Whose long-term future do you like better, Jeff
>Bagwell or Derek Bell?"

No it doesn't.  You are entirely neglecting the salary concern.  Have
you never played rotisserie???  Check the salaries involved, and the
Bagwell deal looks *much* less tempting.

>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.

Depends on the league, I suppose, but in my league there are *always*
quality players available in the draft.  And so this shouldn't be a
concern at this point in the season.  Balance the team later.  For
now, worry about hogging value.

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

Sure.  Makes sense in real life.  But this isn't real life, this is
rotisserie.  Short contracts, salary concerns, and the annual draft
all change things.

-Valentine
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball.fantasy