Another SOMO myth debunked-Jhonny P leads his team into 1st

[The Biomechanical Man]

marcus wilby said:
[quote:c952de9a79]... There was another bias in TSN, which has also been corrected (in fact, over-corrected, in my opinion). We came to realize, with Daniel teams and other data, that outstanding offensive players were not priced appropriately because they were generating more offense then predicted... To give concrete examples, Bonds used to be priced around 14M in his great years. For the same price, you have nowadays Pujols and D.Lee who are not even close of Bonds's potential.

... There is also an additional cost for playing of-4 in the field. In Strat, there is a real gap between of-3 and of-4. I don't know the details about TSN pricing system, but I am pretty sure that TSN doesn't weigh that gap. [/quote:c952de9a79]

Luckyman, is it therefore your opinion that in general:
[list:c952de9a79][*:c952de9a79]Instead of buying one top-priced hitter and one low-priced hitter to start in your lineup, you are better off using the same money for two mid-priced hitters.
[*:c952de9a79]A -4 arm in LF, CF, or RF is a bargain (while -3 or less is fair market-price).
[*:c952de9a79]These opinions are for Strat 2006 and ATG3.[/list:u:c952de9a79]

[MARCPELLETIER]

[quote:0cf17a9377]Luckyman, is it therefore your opinion that in general:

Instead of buying one top-priced hitter and one low-priced hitter to start in your lineup, you are better off using the same money for two mid-priced hitters.

A -4 arm in LF, CF, or RF is a bargain (while -3 or less is fair market-price).

These opinions are for Strat 2006 and ATG3[/quote:0cf17a9377]

#Yes, I have the belief that two mid-priced hitters are a bit more efficient, but the difference, to be honest, is rather small--a couple of wins per season, at most. The cost of ending up with not enough offense is superior, so you have to be careful in your draft that you will indeed end-up with sufficient offense.

## It is not my impression that -4 arms are bargain. I once checked data about outfielders, and those with -4 arms often ended up with less assists. So -4 arms seems to save run by stopping runners at third, but other outfielders save run by throwing out audacious runner at a higher level.

### I have no clue how ATG3 system works. Never seen it.

[The Biomechanical Man]

Thanks. I am still confused on one statement you made above:[quote:1e6a717a03]In Strat, there is a real gap between of-3 and of-4. I don't know the details about TSN pricing system, but I am pretty sure that TSN doesn't weigh that gap. [/quote:1e6a717a03]

So are you saying that in your opinion TSN doesn't really add price to a player for a -4 arm vs. a -3 arm, but that's reasonable because the benefits of a -4 over a -3 are fairly negligible?

[MARCPELLETIER]

Oooooohhhhhhhh, I see the confusion.

In the original post, I meant of-3 as in a player with a range of "3", not with an arm (-3).

So, to rephrase, in Strat, there is a real gap between outfielders with a range of "3" and outfielders with a range of "4", and I am pretty sure that TSN doesn't take into account this gap.

But there is no gap between an arm of (-3) and an arm of (-4) because arms with (-4) are only slightly better than arms (-3).

[The Biomechanical Man]

Sorry about that. That was stupid of me. I see now: there is a difference between an outfield 3 and an outfield 4, that is not in the price. I agree with this.

Thanks for clearing this up.

[MARCPELLETIER]

I don't want to rub it in, but the team finished with a 66-96 record, and the pitching team with a whooping 5.54 ERA.

Playing a 4 at ss will most of the time kill you because you then overspend for a player on a key defensive position (the salary of a ss-4 is based on performing at dh, and not hurting your defense)

[durantjerry]

Yeh, not one of my more successful experiments. I got a little carried away with poor defense at almost every position topped off by Jhonny P. I still think it could work with the right team structure. I have made the playoffs stealing 478 bases, hitting 449 HR's and playing B Clark in CF, so I don't see why it can't be done with a "4" at SS. I think I will give it a more realistic try before 2007 appears and when(if?) I get a credit or two.

[MARCPELLETIER]

[quote:b66b3cf26e]What makes you say a "4" at SS is priced as someone playing DH?[/quote:b66b3cf26e]

Well, TSN has the difficult task not only to find the "right" price for a playing ss, but also the "right price" for a potential dh.

In the case of Adam Everett ss1e16, his price is about "right" if he plays ss. But if he plays at dh, then he is severely overpaid.

The same is true for the mirror-situation. Take Sanchez as an example. At 2.36M, his offensive card is comparable to Clark at 2.52M for the dh spot. He has less on-base, but more slugging, probably not as good as a bargain than Clark, but he is usable. But consider if you play Sanchez at cf, where he is 5e25 (he is 5e25 at rf). Then, any way you look at it, his 2.36M appears severely overpaid if he is forced to play cf. Even Clark, not a Gold glove with his 4e2, is about 50% better than Sanchez at cf. Contrary to Everett, Sanchez is a case where his pricing is about "right" at dh, but severely overpaid if forced to play at cf.

Any real bad defender (say the 4s in the middle field, and the high e-ratings at the corner positions) is similar to Sanchez, but at different range. Peralta is not as bad as Sanchez, but when he plays the field, his use prevents your team to be as efficient as it could be if he were to play dh.

[MARCPELLETIER]

Stealing is totally different matter. The value of stealing all depends on how TSN has valued it.


Consider the case that TSN doesn't bother putting a price tag on stealing bases. All of a sudden, you got 449 steals for which you have paid no dollar. No matter how small a steal is worth, any basestealer used extensively would become a huge bargain (if this situation were the case).

Looking at the success of the running teams, I tend to believe that TSN has indeed underestimated the value of the running game. Perhaps this has always been the case in TSN, but was overlooked in the previous years by even greater effects that TSN has now under control.

This has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of defense.