From: thornley@milli.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Subject: Re: Cecil signs :-( :-( :-(
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:45:14 GMT

In article <2473@blue.cis.pitt.edu> genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
>Thus spake tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer):
>>In article <2467@blue.cis.pitt.edu> genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
>>>
>>>[Players who are below average have 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").
>
OK, let's talk about winning pennants.  To be specific, let's talk about
divisional titles.  Can we agree that a reasonable goal for a GM is to win
as many divisional titles as possible, and hope that this turns into pennants
and rings?  If so, I think we can agree that the value of a player is his
value to a division-winning team.  (By extension, we might consider the
value of a player to an unsuccessful contender, but we will not consider the
value of a player to a below-average team, like the Angels or Mets.)

>>  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.
>
Certainly no team is going to win a division because they have Gladden
playing left, while a team could win a division because they have Bonds in
left (the rest of the team being good).  Does this mean that Gladden is
useless to a division-winning team?  In '87, he was actually better than
Mark Davidson (the fifth outfielder) and Mickey Hatcher (whom he replaced)
and was better against lefties than Randy Bush (the fourth outfielder).
Therefore, he was of some use to the WS-winning Twins.  The case in '91 is
not nearly as good, as I think the Twins would have been better off with
Mack/Puckett/Munoz than Gladden/Puckett/Mack.

Similarly, the division-winning Oakland As of last year would have *loved*
to have an average starting pitcher.  The WS-winning Jays would have been
better off with an average third baseman.  The NL-pennant Braves really
could have used an average first baseman (although they didn't play their
best lineup in any case), and the Pirates had weaknesses also.

The '91 World Champion Twins won with Gladden in left and 2.5 good starting
pitchers.  Were the '90 World Champion Reds perfect?  The As won the
WS in '89 with Carney Lansford at third.  The '88 Dodgers and '87 Twins
were full of holes.  The '86 Mets?  '85 Royals?  '84 Tigers?

For the '92 Jays, an average third baseman would have been an improvement.
Therefore, an average third baseman would have been of value to them.
How about an average second baseman?  Might they have been able to trade
an average second baseman for an average third baseman?  If so, an average
second baseman would have had value.

>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.
>
Certainly not.  You can compete, given a good club with a few weaknesses, by
bringing in a Gladden or two to fill holes.  The Tigers were very good
offensively, despite having Gladden in the lineup, and if they had had
reasonable defense (and Gladden is still decent defensively) they could
have won their division.

>>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, Gladden has positive value if you accept the premise that *some* teams
would win more games with him than their current LF.  After the 1986 season,
MacPhail correctly decided that the Twins would be better off with Gladden
than with Mickey Hatcher, and the Twins won their division.  It is very
possible that they would have failed to win with Hatcher (and a few random
factors - Gladden isn't several games better than Mickey).

>>>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".
>
>>>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.
>
Meaning, of course, that the unenhanced team will not win any sort of title
until the SuperSerum wears off.  However, this is still not quite accurate.
Suppose that Barry Bonds, after receiving his injection, goes off to
straighten things up in ex-Yugoslavia.  In that case, an unenhanced but
otherwise decent left fielder has real value, in that he may allow Bonds'
old team a chance to compete (albeit with a weak spot in left) rather than
playing some much worse player, with a lesser chance of competing.  Further,
a team might trade away a superplayer for a regular player plus prospects.
The unenhanced players have some value, since they have some possible
use for division winners, just not as much as they used to have (even
though they are just as much above replacement level as before, of course).

>>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.

Let's switch to the Twins.  It seems reasonable that the Twins might
be in competition next year.  Could they use an average pitcher?  You
betcha.  An average center fielder?  Sure, they could probably trade
him for an average (or close to average) pitcher.  Therefore, an
average player does have value to a competitive team.

David Thornley
"I will try to doubt everything, including the '93 baseball season"
- Descartes