Smallball Theory
28 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
by motherscratcher » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:14 pm
How can a player who is a poor value be a significant factor o winning games? Do you have an example of a guy like that?
- motherscratcher
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by The Last Druid » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:21 pm
With small ball teams I bat Cobb 3 or 4th. The .339 Wagner I like in the 5th slot but also in the leadoff slot in non-dh leagues. There the extra clutch becomes valuable after bunts. But then you have to not have a guy who chokes batting behind Wagner.
Pretty much like to bat Speaker 3rd or 4th on small ball teams, more than Cobb even. Speaker at least is obtainable as his good card is considered too expensive at lower caps by many managers. Generally though I prefer leadoff men in the 3M or cheaper range; tend to spring for a little more there on small ball teams i.e. Flick, for example. On the other hand, Hamilton is one guy I will spend money on to lead off.
It's funny, back in ATG II Waner seemed more popular than Cobb who often went undrafted with his 1909 card. Now Waner always seems to be easy to obtain.
Pretty much like to bat Speaker 3rd or 4th on small ball teams, more than Cobb even. Speaker at least is obtainable as his good card is considered too expensive at lower caps by many managers. Generally though I prefer leadoff men in the 3M or cheaper range; tend to spring for a little more there on small ball teams i.e. Flick, for example. On the other hand, Hamilton is one guy I will spend money on to lead off.
It's funny, back in ATG II Waner seemed more popular than Cobb who often went undrafted with his 1909 card. Now Waner always seems to be easy to obtain.
- The Last Druid
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by JohnnyBlazers » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:49 pm
[quote:b29b84e7a7="FUDU"]My question doesn't pertain to strictly the small ball question at hand, but more so about value that is so often mentioned, why is "value" so sacred as opposed to winning, b/c the two don't have to be inherently tied together.
I'm not suggesting value isn't important b/c it obviously is, but couldn't over seeking value be detrimental to winning at some point? I mean aren't there guys worth putting on rosters that are not great values but that are clearly significant factors to winning games?
Isn't that what this is all about winning games?[/quote:b29b84e7a7]
I guess you can make an argument that certain cards are not "values" given your home park and league context, but will help you win games anywhere. An example to me would be the Willie Mays 12.83? card - you get at CF (1) -5, natural HR power, and 17 speed - he will help you win games anywhere and though not a "value" pick for a small ball park, and by "value" I mean not the best bang for the $$$ based on what metric you choose to define value (OPS, RC/27, Batter Runs), his Natural HR's, XB,speed and defense translate well almost anywhere in 80 & 100m.
I don't think at 140 or 200 leagues it would make that much of a difference because the difference b/w winning and losing is largely negligible and I think "value" takes on a more specialized approach to your park and league. Context is important. At some point, the "value" approach takes on more meaning when you try to balance b/w hitting/pitching balance. You usually have to sacrifice pitching/hitting, etc. given salary cap constraints - finding the value in certain cards allows you more money to shore up other areas.
I'm not suggesting value isn't important b/c it obviously is, but couldn't over seeking value be detrimental to winning at some point? I mean aren't there guys worth putting on rosters that are not great values but that are clearly significant factors to winning games?
Isn't that what this is all about winning games?[/quote:b29b84e7a7]
I guess you can make an argument that certain cards are not "values" given your home park and league context, but will help you win games anywhere. An example to me would be the Willie Mays 12.83? card - you get at CF (1) -5, natural HR power, and 17 speed - he will help you win games anywhere and though not a "value" pick for a small ball park, and by "value" I mean not the best bang for the $$$ based on what metric you choose to define value (OPS, RC/27, Batter Runs), his Natural HR's, XB,speed and defense translate well almost anywhere in 80 & 100m.
I don't think at 140 or 200 leagues it would make that much of a difference because the difference b/w winning and losing is largely negligible and I think "value" takes on a more specialized approach to your park and league. Context is important. At some point, the "value" approach takes on more meaning when you try to balance b/w hitting/pitching balance. You usually have to sacrifice pitching/hitting, etc. given salary cap constraints - finding the value in certain cards allows you more money to shore up other areas.
- JohnnyBlazers
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by FUDU » Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:33 am
[quote:641e9dc28c="motherscratcher"]How can a player who is a poor value be a significant factor o winning games? Do you have an example of a guy like that?[/quote:641e9dc28c]
I think johnny did a decent job of explaining what I'm trying to say but I will add to that, for example a guy like Tom Hall who I like a lot and has a very very good card, yet I am not going to use him for a defined role and most likely not maximizing his starts. He can play a couple roles yet I'm not going to stick him to one role, I'm going to move him around as the season goes on. I could probably have two players for his money in 100mil but at that cap his card is going to be so significantly good that he will perform at a higher level even though I could get better value possibly by not keeping him.
I hope I worded that correctly.
I think johnny did a decent job of explaining what I'm trying to say but I will add to that, for example a guy like Tom Hall who I like a lot and has a very very good card, yet I am not going to use him for a defined role and most likely not maximizing his starts. He can play a couple roles yet I'm not going to stick him to one role, I'm going to move him around as the season goes on. I could probably have two players for his money in 100mil but at that cap his card is going to be so significantly good that he will perform at a higher level even though I could get better value possibly by not keeping him.
I hope I worded that correctly.
- FUDU
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by PotKettleBlack » Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:22 am
[quote:8cb518c4c5="FUDU"][quote:8cb518c4c5="motherscratcher"]How can a player who is a poor value be a significant factor o winning games? Do you have an example of a guy like that?[/quote:8cb518c4c5]
I think johnny did a decent job of explaining what I'm trying to say but I will add to that, for example a guy like Tom Hall who I like a lot and has a very very good card, yet I am not going to use him for a defined role and most likely not maximizing his starts. He can play a couple roles yet I'm not going to stick him to one role, I'm going to move him around as the season goes on. I could probably have two players for his money in 100mil but at that cap his card is going to be so significantly good that he will perform at a higher level even though I could get better value possibly by not keeping him.
I hope I worded that correctly.[/quote:8cb518c4c5]
Let me see if I can rephrase this so jerks like me (read: amateur economists) can understand.
You believe that you can get more value out of Hall by using him less often, but perhaps in higher leverage innings. As you consider this to be an inefficient use of funds ("I could probably have two players for his money"), but you still believe this will lead to more winning.
What you are suggesting is that valuation is not static. I got some news for you, Sunshine, you're right. Valuation is not static. Game situation creates leverage. Leverage differentiates the value of innings. So it is possible to get higher value out of fewer innings than maximum use in the game.
The problem is that you are reliant on setting your bullpen and pitcher settings to maximize the leverage. Given my understanding of HAL and BPv2, you have some ability to influence that, but not as much as you would if you were tactically managing each game by hand. Since you're not able to control it that tightly, I think flexing Hall is a negative play at 80/100 as there are R4 and quality R3's available at a discount versus Hall, and the ability to start adds significant cost to a card.
And there are some folks who say that leverage is dopey. And they have a point. A run in the first brings you just as close to winning/losing as a run in the 7th. They don't count as more than one run because the game is late. Or close. On the other hand, we don't care as much about run scoring as game winning. And that's where the leverage argument starts to gain some steam. A close+late run creates more winning than early runs.
That said, the leverage effects, as HAL allows, are not that large, and you are, IMO, better of starting Hall every fifth day at 100/80.
I think johnny did a decent job of explaining what I'm trying to say but I will add to that, for example a guy like Tom Hall who I like a lot and has a very very good card, yet I am not going to use him for a defined role and most likely not maximizing his starts. He can play a couple roles yet I'm not going to stick him to one role, I'm going to move him around as the season goes on. I could probably have two players for his money in 100mil but at that cap his card is going to be so significantly good that he will perform at a higher level even though I could get better value possibly by not keeping him.
I hope I worded that correctly.[/quote:8cb518c4c5]
Let me see if I can rephrase this so jerks like me (read: amateur economists) can understand.
You believe that you can get more value out of Hall by using him less often, but perhaps in higher leverage innings. As you consider this to be an inefficient use of funds ("I could probably have two players for his money"), but you still believe this will lead to more winning.
What you are suggesting is that valuation is not static. I got some news for you, Sunshine, you're right. Valuation is not static. Game situation creates leverage. Leverage differentiates the value of innings. So it is possible to get higher value out of fewer innings than maximum use in the game.
The problem is that you are reliant on setting your bullpen and pitcher settings to maximize the leverage. Given my understanding of HAL and BPv2, you have some ability to influence that, but not as much as you would if you were tactically managing each game by hand. Since you're not able to control it that tightly, I think flexing Hall is a negative play at 80/100 as there are R4 and quality R3's available at a discount versus Hall, and the ability to start adds significant cost to a card.
And there are some folks who say that leverage is dopey. And they have a point. A run in the first brings you just as close to winning/losing as a run in the 7th. They don't count as more than one run because the game is late. Or close. On the other hand, we don't care as much about run scoring as game winning. And that's where the leverage argument starts to gain some steam. A close+late run creates more winning than early runs.
That said, the leverage effects, as HAL allows, are not that large, and you are, IMO, better of starting Hall every fifth day at 100/80.
- PotKettleBlack
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by FUDU » Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:56 am
Appreciate the reply PKB and it an iteresting one. Be assured though I am starting Hall I just don't anticipate it being every 5th day. The leauge is strongly leaning RHB and I spent more on my line up than my staff, which is predominately balanced against RHB.
- FUDU
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by nels52 » Sat Mar 24, 2012 11:30 pm
[quote:d223d0da08="FUDU"]
I mean aren't there guys worth putting on rosters that are not great values but that are clearly significant factors to winning games?
Isn't that what this is all about winning games?[/quote:d223d0da08]
I definitely think there's some truth in this statement. Certain players just have win huge win conditions such Bonds, Gibson, Ruth, Hornsby, and countless cheaper superstars in the 4-10 mil range.
The games all about win conditions to me. Obtaining as many that fit together as possible. Frankie Frisch is a guy that stands out to me as an incredible winner, Collins too. I don't use either players really at all anymore as I see so many holes in there game but they seem to always win. They're real life Derek Jeter's wheras the strat Jeter sucks.....
If what a card is doing for YOUR team is that important, a card with a percieved inferior value may be well worth the price when used optimally.
Still, underpriced players never hurt....
I mean aren't there guys worth putting on rosters that are not great values but that are clearly significant factors to winning games?
Isn't that what this is all about winning games?[/quote:d223d0da08]
I definitely think there's some truth in this statement. Certain players just have win huge win conditions such Bonds, Gibson, Ruth, Hornsby, and countless cheaper superstars in the 4-10 mil range.
The games all about win conditions to me. Obtaining as many that fit together as possible. Frankie Frisch is a guy that stands out to me as an incredible winner, Collins too. I don't use either players really at all anymore as I see so many holes in there game but they seem to always win. They're real life Derek Jeter's wheras the strat Jeter sucks.....
If what a card is doing for YOUR team is that important, a card with a percieved inferior value may be well worth the price when used optimally.
Still, underpriced players never hurt....
- nels52
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by nels52 » Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:28 pm
Idk MM, win condition is just a term I like to use for guys that have an exceptional characteristic that can win you games, sometimes singlehandedly. Bonds is an obvious example. He can go 1 for 2 with a homerun and 3 runs scored easily. Although he's not the greatest bargain, Gehrig like any other MEGA star, can single handedly win you alot of games also. I think it's why certain 1 dimensional players can be outstanding I.E. '94 M. Williams.
I'm listing bomber guys which are by means the best and only guys, they just have the biggest game changing skill: homeruns :twisted:
In smallball, you obviously don't want too many (if any) HR guys. Still, when balanced correctly a good natural HR hitter, or more specifically a good RBI guy, can be money in the bank in small-ball. 10-20 homeruns is ALOT more than 1 from a big RBI guy. In smallball, runs are inherently more important than they are in team Balco builds.
I'm listing bomber guys which are by means the best and only guys, they just have the biggest game changing skill: homeruns :twisted:
In smallball, you obviously don't want too many (if any) HR guys. Still, when balanced correctly a good natural HR hitter, or more specifically a good RBI guy, can be money in the bank in small-ball. 10-20 homeruns is ALOT more than 1 from a big RBI guy. In smallball, runs are inherently more important than they are in team Balco builds.
- nels52
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
28 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Return to Strat-O-Matic Baseball: All-Time Greats
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests