From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Cecil signs :-( :-( :-(
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:47:33 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Thus spake tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer):
>In article <2467@blue.cis.pitt.edu> genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
>>
>>...unless most of the league is *better* than what you do have.  In which case
>>he is *not* helping you win, no matter how far above "replacement level" he
>>is.  Players who take away wins and add losses to your team have (it seems to
>>me) negative use value.
>
>Then half of the players in the majors have negative use value.  

More than half, actually.

>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").

>  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.
Which is all I'm talking about.  For purposes of comparing AGAINST THE OTHER
TEAMS IN THE LEAGUE (which is what pennants are all about), league average
is the correct baseline.  W/L record is a zero-sum game among a finite
collection of teams, where every team gains advantage only by improving 
relative to the quality of the opposition OVERALL, not by improving relative
to the ability level of the worst players in the league.

>Using the
>car analogy, they get you around town (bring in the bucks).  

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.

If you choose to field a team in a given league but not to try to win, you
of course will have a different notion of what a player's use value is.

>Does a
>team *lose* income when it signs Gladden?  Certainly not.  Do they
>lose income when they make him their fourth outfielder?  

Who was talking about income?

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

>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.

>>No, he doesn't.  If you have an entire team of replacement-level players,
>>you'll lose 120 games.  The sum (use) value of all your players is thus
>>about -40 games.  If they're all about the same, that means they *all* have
>>negative value.  *Very* negative.
>
>Or you can view it another way...  Their total use value is +40 games,

...which have a total value of *ZIP*, because you can't stay in the league
by winning 40 games a year.  With a few notable exceptions, having a successful
franchise depends on winning, at least some years, more games than you lose.
And the way that you win more games than you lose is by being above average.
And the way that you get above average is by playing players who are above
average at their positions.  Anything less is "failure to be competitive".

>because that is the number they won.  In your car analogy, you aren't
>saying "that old rusty '72 Volvo has negative use value because most
>cars on the road would do a better job".  

But it *does* have negative use value at Indy, when I start competing against
other, better cars.  It costs a fortune to enter that race, and every cent I
put into a hopeless cause like my Volvo is just good money after bad.

>You are judging it on its
>positive value.  And I'm willing to bet that going 40-122 will sell
>more tickets than going 0-0.  

For one year.  But this is *still* not the question I was addressing back 
when I started this discussion, which was about contribution toward winning
in a given year.

>Making it ridiculous to talk about
>"negative use value" for a replacement level player.  As long as the
>sum of negative values has positive return, there is something wrong
>with the model.

It's not a positive return.  It's 40 games *below* .500.

>>Thought experiment:  suppose everybody else's starting 9 suddenly got much
>>much better, but yours didn't, and the talent not currently in the majors 
>>stayed the same.  Clearly, your players are suddenly much less valuable than
>>they used to be, because they will win many fewer games than they used to.
>>But replacement level HAS NOT CHANGED; average level has.
>
>You are confusing the issue here.  Sure, your players are suddenly
>less valuable.  But they still have positive value, because you can't
>replace them with any better, 

That's not positive *use* value.

>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?

>Question: Aside from baseball players, what things in real life have
>negative use value?  

Celery.  You use more energy chewing it than you get back in nutrition.
Solid gold slugs for gumball machines.  Suzanne Somers.  

>How much would you be willing to pay for them?

It depends on what use you have in mind.  Which was point all along.

>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.



-- 
       David Tate        |"Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
 dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | That sends the screaming liner over it 
 Prof. of Story Problems | And spills the bleacher-dwellers from their seats."
 Member ORSA, TIMS, SABR |  	"Fenway Wall", Robert Frost