Btt70s Card Teaser #2

[Jablowmi]

[quote:7259049baa="Hakmusic"]

I think to an extent, you leave the "bad" year out of the equation unless there is no bad year, because whether the bad year is a 4.15 or 5.75, at that price, he is going to be dropped. I generally judge pitchers based on the quality of their good cards and the number of bad cards, not so much how bad the bad cards are, since if you drop, you drop. Thus, in the 80's game, there are a lot of valuable guys that are valuable because they have one really bad year rather than two so-so years. I think a guy with 4 really good years and one awful year should cost more than a guy with three really good years and two not so good years.[/quote:7259049baa]

what i meant re: stieb is that he appears to have been severely penalized (from a salary standpoint) b/c his 5th year is so bad. when compared to others in the 6-7M range, they seem to have similar, top 4 cards but a better 5th year. because that 5th year for all of them (for the most part) still sucks and is not worth the 6-7M price tag, they will all be dropped anyway. stieb is a bargain by comparison and i think it's because of the 5th year discount.

[Jablowmi]

[quote:c83c3b0c81="YountFan"]He'll is more like Sutcliffe. His having grace is a total lack of slg and BP #

Consider the OB chances
Year OBL OBR
1975 42.2 29.6
1976 34.1 24.2
1977 27.2 21.7
1978 23.6 22.6
1979 20.2 12.2

Here are Soto's
OBL OBR
21.7 18.2
21.7 12.3
13.8 18.0
18.0 16.8
23.5 19.3

Sutcliffe
OBL OBR
28.3 25.2
27.6 23.8
12.4 21.1
26.5 34.2
28.2 29.7[/quote:c83c3b0c81]

seeing actual numbers rather than simply eyeballing the ERA/WHIP numbers makes me think he'll fall below (maybe, just below) the Soto range. i think he's a good notch about sutcliffe.

[Hakmusic]

>>what i meant re: stieb is that he appears to have been severely penalized (from a salary standpoint) b/c his 5th year is so bad. when compared to others in the 6-7M range, they seem to have similar, top 4 cards but a better 5th year. because that 5th year for all of them (for the most part) still sucks and is not worth the 6-7M price tag, they will all be dropped anyway.<<

Yes, I was saying the same thing. My thought is that when you are looking at cards vs price, throw away the 5th year, and compare the other 4 because whether it is somewhat bad or really, really bad, you are going to drop. So if two pitchers had identical top 4 cards, and one had a 5th card with a 4.5 ERA and the other had a 5th card with a 7.5 ERA, and the latter is priced cheaper because of it, then the latter is a much better bargain.

I think in the 80's game, these sceanrios affect RP pricing more than SP pricing. A number of the cheaper RP's have top 3 or 4 cards comparable to the more expensive RP's, but bottom cards that are far worse, and they are a better bargain because of it.

[FAaron]

I've never played BTT80s (played too many 80s seasons in college using the cards and dice), but I'm looking forward to BTT70s. All of my favorite players from that era who haven't gotten into an ATG set yet, like Cedeno, Kingman, Elliott Maddox, Hisle, Zisk, Blomberg (Mr. DH #1), JR Richard, Matlack and Fidrych (although I doubt the Bird is going to get a card since he didn't have 5 representative seasons).

[childsmwc]

Hakmusic,

Interesting discussion on pitchers and it has caused me to change my valuation dynamics for the btt80's players. The economist in me believes that standard deviation is a bad thing, therefore if you took two players who perfrom the same on average, but one does not have the highs and lows, the consistent player is worth more because you will more likely get a performance equal to the salary.

However, do to the dymanics of the game, you can "discover" bad/good cards and basically you can keep the good seasons and drop the bad seasons. Assuming this dynamic holds true, then standard deviation is a good thing because you have greater upside on the great individual seasons and won't be penalized much by a bad season because you can replace it.

So I am on the screw consistency band wagon and lets go play the Bo Jackson Lotto :D .

Bbrool

[Outta Leftfield]

[quote:3581a03776="Jablowmi"]what i meant re: stieb is that he appears to have been severely penalized (from a salary standpoint) b/c his 5th year is so bad. when compared to others in the 6-7M range, they seem to have similar, top 4 cards but a better 5th year. because that 5th year for all of them (for the most part) still sucks and is not worth the 6-7M price tag, they will all be dropped anyway. stieb is a bargain by comparison and i think it's because of the 5th year discount.[/quote:3581a03776]

The nice thing about Stieb, and what makes him such a bargain, is that the bad year is SO bad that it sticks out like a sore thumb--plus the platoon factor is so opposite from his other cards. That makes it really easy to spot the bad year and drop him all the faster. And if you drop him in the first 42 games, you get 95% of your money back--not a bad deal all around. In some ways, the bad year should RAISE his cost, because it is so easy to identify--not like, say Gooden or Guidry. Anyway, I'd rather start a season with Stieb than with Gooden or Guidry, and by a considerable margin.

[quote:3581a03776][b:3581a03776]Bbrool wrote:[/b:3581a03776]
However, do to the dymanics of the game, you can "discover" bad/good cards and basically you can keep the good seasons and drop the bad seasons. Assuming this dynamic holds true, then standard deviation is a good thing because you have greater upside on the great individual seasons and won't be penalized much by a bad season because you can replace it.

So I am on the screw consistency band wagon and lets go play the Bo Jackson Lotto . [/quote:3581a03776]

Bill James has written that it was right for Carlton to get into the Hall of Fame well before Sutton because even though their career numbers were almost identical, Carlton's mix of great and ordinary years was more valuable than Sutton's consistent B+ performance in terms of winning pennants. The basic idea was that those peak years could really push a team toward the pennant and has disproportionate value. I guess you could argue that in relation to the 80s/70s, though for me it's a mixed bag. If I'm building a team, I want a base of players who are pretty consistent. On top of that, one could risk some players with highs/lows.

BTW, it will be interesting to see how Carlton and Sutton shake out in the 70s. I have the feeling Sutton is more popular in the 80s, but that might change in the 70s.

Actually, though, I just looked at Sutton's numbers at baseball-ref and some of those 70s numbers look AWFULLY good. Depends on the years they choose.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/suttodo01.shtml[/b]

[Hakmusic]

""So I am on the screw consistency band wagon and lets go play the Bo Jackson Lotto""

Funny that you point to me for the inspiration for this because, probably more than any manager in this discussion, I avoid the guys with the big positive and big negative years, and go with the guys that are consistantly in the middle.

9 times out of 10, I'll take Petry and Rozema over Hershiser and Gooden.

so no Bo lottery for me. :lol:

[Runnin Rebel]

I AM SOOOO STOKED!!!!

The 70's were my formative years when I gorged myself on Reggie Bars and Broc-a-Pop. The Big Red Machine, The Bronx Zoo and The Amazin' A's.

Can't wait to get my hands on Gibson '68

[basemike64oh]

Thanks, Bernie! :D I've been hoping for a Back to the 70's game ever since I started playing online.

[honestiago1]

Man, I'll take those W's/K's any day. JR is da bomb! And an 8? Jeez!