Using Diamond Dope

[motherscratcher]

Diamond Dope is great. I've spent a huge amount of time there since being introduced a few weeks ago. I'm not sure the best way to use it to make sure I'm getting the best value out of the cards I'm using. For example:

I'm the Indians. My 1B options are limited.

1st option I have is Trosky '37 ($5.4mil). BR = 14.16/13.42

2nd option is Burns '24 ($1.68mil) BR = 6.24/4.88

But, I'm playing in league park '11. This will reduce Trosky's performance and enhance Burns's performance.

Trosky is still better, but aren't I getting more value for the money I'm spending on Burns? I figure, I'm going to spend the whole cap on my team no matter what.

I guess what I'm asking is, how do you determine what is a good value based on the cost of the card? It is very hard to compare cards of players who are very far apart in salary and determine which one is the better fit.

Or am I putting too much importance on BR?

[PotKettleBlack]

BR doesn't factor their fielding at all.
There are some other questions, like context and opportunity cost.

What would you do with the extra money by taking the cheaper player.
That's the opportunity cost question.

Would it be worth the money to have the extra offense, the more porous defense, and whatever handed bat Trosky presents? In the context of the rest of the team? That's the context question.

Dope is a great start, but at some point, you make the choices.

[motherscratcher]

Admittedly I don't have much of a grasp on defense. I mean, I can read the cards, but I have a tough time understanding the degree to which it affects the team.

In this example both Trosky and Burns are black holes of suck defensively.

My point is that, philosophically, it doesn't really matter where the extra $3 mil that you save by going with Burns instead of Trosky goes, because it's going to go somewhere. And according to DD Burns would outperform his normal production while Trosky would underperform in this park. But at the end of the day Trosky will always be better side by side.

But let's say that the extra money goes to turning Mudcat Grant into Cliff Lee. How does someone decide if a Grant/Trosky combo is better than a Burns/Lee combo?

Is there a mathematic way that you determine production per cost? Like, you get "X" amount of production for every $1mil for player "A". And you get "Y" amount of production for every $1mil for player "B". Then compare X and Y.

I'm assuming that the relationship wouldn't be linear.

EOD, my guess is that there isn't any magic formula to follow, the experienced players just get a feel for who will work by playing a ton of games and an inexperienced player just needs to keep playing.

(I also am assuming that this makes very little sense. It makes sense in my head, though.)

[PotKettleBlack]

What you're talking about is an efficiency curve. I am sure it exists, but the pool is too large to sort efficiently to determine it.

DeanTSC worked on an article entitled Offense vs Defense, that translates positional defense into batting. So, you can, theoretically, compare the tradeoff between a bat light slick fielding short stop and a big hitting defensive sieve. I have the article if you can't find it on the interwebs.

[Valen]

If that article has a link that can be posted that would make a great thread. Should generate some interesting discussions.

[216 Stitches]

A couple of random thoughts to mixup up the conversation

DeanTSC link used to found on Bernies Homepage, but now that link
is dead. Don't know if the article disapperared.

Of DD three "single-valued" player values (RC/27, BR, NERP), the NERP
will factor in the glove. Having a bad glove at 1B is often an acceptable
tradeoff. The 3 values should agree in most cases, but are based
on different assumptions, so if there are large differences it could
be a hint that the player may under or over perform the "projetions."
Or maybe you might just peek at the DD actuals.

Fitting into the lineup is also a factor. A balance lineup can help or hurt
some maybe 5% or 10%. Not a lot, but a 5% improvement in your
lineup improvement can mean 4-5 extra wins per season according to the
Pythagorean formula (expected win-lost total in the standings).

I guess I am saying there are a lot of little choices that make a lot
more sense when you start to make them, and succeed or fail with them.

[motherscratcher]

When you look at actuals do you look at the results for all of the seasons played? Or do you limit it to the ballpark you are in?

(Also, where does all of the data come from for the actuals?)

[Mean Dean]

Looks like there is no longer a "blog" function, plus the site that hosted the article is down anyway :(

For now, I guess I'll put it [url=http://www.box.net/shared/fifc1lhyn3axupgln540]here[/url].

[ADRIANGABRIEL]

[quote:2caa70a436="DeanTSC"]Hey... if you want to read my article, the link in my blog here should still work.[/quote:2caa70a436]
We don't have blogs anymore. We have Rowdy. I was very disappointed to find all of my old blog posts deleted.

[216 Stitches]

[quote:4f8a531517="motherscratcher"]When you look at actuals do you look at the results for all of the seasons played? Or do you limit it to the ballpark you are in?

(Also, where does all of the data come from for the actuals?)[/quote:4f8a531517]

Probably not the best person to answer this, but here goes:

It comes from the finished seasons statistics that Adrian has added to his
DD database.

It definitely requires you to limit to the same cap level. Limiting it to the
same ballpark would only make sense if the sample size is significant
enough. Half the games are still on the road, so its not a bad idea to
look at both. Honestly, though, I usually only look at the actuals if
I think I am missing something in the what I call the DD Projections (the
card reader page).