Trying to understand the value of pitching

[cummings2]

Before I go on, 4 disclaimers:

1.- I am quite a newbie to strat, perhaps all of what I "come up with" is old news to you old seasoned vets but I am just getting my feet wet.

2.- I am working without the CD so maybe all of this info is available to the the CD users (By the time I got interested in the CD I just felt it made more sense to wait for the next year)

3.- I post these ideas for you guys to tell me where my logic is wrong.

and

4.- I am not very good good at explaining myself, my limited use of logic is often quite illogical and defies rational thinking to the max.

So, If you are willing to keep going and helping me out thanks!

Alrighty then,

[b:68113d4bee]A little background[/b:68113d4bee]

From the moment I started playing SOM I have been trying to make some sense of the pricing, particularily since it seems there are two ongoing practices:

1) Find the bargains, the players that give you the most for your money.

2) Get the most expensive, especially with pitching: If it's pricey it must be good.

For the purposes of this thread I'll keep all examples to pitching only.

Now, I know there are several variables that influence the performance of pitching: BP, defense, opp lineups...

However, I have been trying to figure out what is it that I am paying for when I get a pitcher. Let's say that I go into the "Draft Store" and I ask for a Randy Johnson, The clerk shows me the specimen and says:

Clerk: "These are mighty fine this year...they go for 11.9 Million"

Me: "11.9 Mill!!! that's almost 7% of my entire Budget! Why is he so expensive?"

Clerk: ...

That's the answer that I have been looking for. I want to know what is it that I am paying for so as to make sure that I am not spending money twice on the same thing.

For example, I believe that one of the advantages of a strikeout pitcher is that he is more likely to get out of trouble without relying on the defense so much. Why, because the K is the one out the pitcher can get on his own. So, when getting a strikeout pitcher I am paying, partly, for that advantage that allows me to ease a little on the defense budget. Let me rephrase that: I believe that high strikeout pitchers are more likely to [u:68113d4bee]overcome[/u:68113d4bee] poor defensive play(actually all pitchers rely on the defensive rating the exact same way to the best of my knowledge).

So, how much more am I paying for the fact that this pitcher can be reliever or a starter? how much more am I paying for the fact that this pitcher can start on 3 days rest? How much for the Ks? How much for the OAVG & WHIP?

How come Odalis Perez has the same WHIP as Chris Carpenter, slightly lower ERA and yet Odalis is 2.08 Mil cheaper than Carpenter?

How come Oliver Perez card is quite comparable to Roger Clemens' yet Perez's is 2.34 Mil Cheaper? Is the * worth about 42% of the pitcher's worth? (Perez=5.48 Clemens=7.82 Diff=2.34 (42.7% of 5.48 MM)

Well, anyway I started developing some theories on the pricing of pitchers. In the process of proving my theories right or wrong I came up with the following, which by the way proved me that I was wrong about all my prior theories on the value/pricing of pitchers.



[b:68113d4bee]The numbers.[/b:68113d4bee]

I'll start with the pitcher's endurance. In order for some numbers to make sense let's start by finding out how many innings is the pitcher good for.

Starting pitchers' total innings:
A * SP can start a maximum of 41 games in one season.
A non-* SP can start a maximum of 33 games in one season.

Therefore when buying an S7* SP I am paying for:

41 Starts, each start of 7 innings or 41*7= 287 Innings total

So:

S7* =287 Innings
S7 =231 Innings
S6*=246 Innings
S6 =198 Innings
S5 =165 Innings

Now looking at the Clemens/Oliver Perez Case (Numbers deduced from the cards only):

[u:68113d4bee]Clemens 7.82 MM[/u:68113d4bee]
H/ip= .788
K/ip= 1.0172
BB/ip= .3686
K:BB= 2.7594
OAVG= .208

[u:68113d4bee]Perez 5.48 MM[/u:68113d4bee]
H/ip= .739
K/ip= 1.2193
BB/ip= .4132
K:BB= 2.9506
OAVG= .197

The numbers clearly indicate a similarity between the two cards, the numbers are a bit better for Oliver Perez. The other ratings one might pay for (HLD, e, Bk, Wp) are also slightly better for Oliver P.

Now step 2:

[u:68113d4bee]Roger Clemens[/u:68113d4bee]:
7.82 MM / 287 innings = $27,247.38 Per Inning.

[u:68113d4bee]Oliver Perez[/u:68113d4bee]
5.48 MM / 198 innings = $27,676.76 Per Inning.

So, given these numbers is Clemens' extra endurance worth 2.34 Mil?

The answer is quite simply: Yes.

No hidden costs, no premium payed for a * SP...nothing.

Now the same can be done for RPs and Closers,

R1/C3 = 108 innings
C4= 144
C5= 180
R2/C6= 216
R3= 324
R4= 432

If you run these figures you find out that the most expensive pitcher is:

[u:68113d4bee]Mike Gonzalez [/u:68113d4bee]$55,277.77 Per inning

By Comparison:
[u:68113d4bee]Randy Johnson[/u:68113d4bee] is $41,463.41 Per Inning

Since rounding numbers alters results drastically I suggest you use the entire salary figure (#,###,###.##) not the abbreviated (#.##)

[b:68113d4bee]So What???[/b:68113d4bee]

After coming up with these numbers and running several comparisons between starters and relievers and looking into the other stats I used earlier for the comparison between Oliver perez and Roger Clemens
I am starting to find some patterns that lead me to believe that K/BF, K:BB, OVG and the nature of hits given are the main factors in determining a pitcher's salary per inning which is, at last for me, an easier to grasp indicator of worth since the overall value is very much affected by the endurance rating of the pitcher.

The worth of identifying such value is in spending my money where I need to and knowing how much money I am wasting in the way I use my pitching staff.

For example, let's say I pick up Wilson Alvarez to carry in my staff, list him in my Rotation but not on my per game starters so that way I 'fool' HAL into not using Alvarez whom I am saving to start vs certain teams:

[u:68113d4bee]Wilson Alvarez [/u:68113d4bee] 1.83 MM S5/R3/C0

(So far I have found more accurate to use the greater number of innings projected, so in the case of Alvarez we'd take the R3 rating)

1,830,000 / 324 = $5648.14 Per inning

Let's say that Alvarez sees a lot of action and is a regular starter vs two other division teams. We play 8 series vs each Divisonal team, so in this case, assuming he is rested he'd start in 16 games. let's say he lasts for 7 innings every start (since the matchups supposedly favor him). At the end of the season he'd have 112 innings pitched.

By using Alvarez in 112 innings at $5648.14 per inning we are only using $632,591.68 of his salary. In other words we are wasting $1,197,408.32

There are many other little thoughts to write about but this has gone on for far too long and I am far more interested in what you have to say than in my convoluted rant.

[MICHAELTARBELL]

First of all, I applaud all of the work you have put into your above question.

Second of all, it does not really matter how they come up with the value, but is the guy worth what you are paying for? In the case of RJ, he is by far the most dominate pitcher in the set, no comparison. It might be the best sp card (outside of ATG, and even then he is comparable to Petey!) EVER in the 200XX series. You are GUARANTEED 20 games won, usually more like 25. So you ask yourself, is 7% of you total budget worth guaranteeing 20 wins, or maybe 25% of your total wins for the season? Seems like it is.... :wink:

[UrbanShockers]

"For example, I believe that one of the advantages of a strikeout pitcher is that he is more likely to get out of trouble without relying on the defense so much. Why, because the K is the one out the pitcher can get on his own. So, when getting a strikeout pitcher I am paying, partly, for that advantage that allows me to ease a little on the defense budget. Let me rephrase that: I believe that high strikeout pitchers are more likely to overcome poor defensive play(actually all pitchers rely on the defensive rating the exact same way to the best of my knowledge)."

Interesting and thoughtful stuff. To pick up on just one piece of it:

Strikeout pitchers are just as dependent on their defense as finesse guys. I consider that one of SOM's major flaws. Others insist it is proper. There have been some major debates about this, going back a couple of years, but I have no idea how to find them or if their findable.

So I'll try to re-start the debate, picking up on your suggestion: certain pitchers should have more "X" chances than others, and the fact that they all have the same (which is my understanding) omits an important element of strategy and realism from the game. Agreed or opposed? Anyone?

[cummings2]

Well U-Shocks...I think I disagree.

The pitcher is not responsible for the athletic capacity playing behind him.

It is true they say that the defense plays better with a fast-working pitcher and stuff like that but, for the sake of SOM I like the fact that they all rely on defense the same way, that's why I rephrased myself and underlined the word "overcome" up there. I do believe that the better pitcher cards have [u:6b852ec262]a better chance [/u:6b852ec262]of [u:6b852ec262]overcoming[/u:6b852ec262] porous defenses than the lesser cards.

However I haven't really thought through the implications of having it otherwise. It would be interesting to hear what some of the other players think about it.

[cummings2]

Thanks mt!

Interesting way of looking at it...can't argue with that logic 7% of my budget to get me 25% of wins. :D

Now a question, which I guess we could put up at top of the thread as a poll:

Who would you rather have pitching on the top of the 10th inning (you are the home team) of game 7 in the finals:

A fatigued Randy Johnson?
or
A rested Mike Gonzalez?

[MARCPELLETIER]

Good logic Cummings. I particularly like the idea of calculating a value/inning for each pitcher, and then see how much money you are wasting.

However, I disagree with your breakdown of relievers.

Closer ratings have little bearing on the number of innings pitched during a season---in fact, to have a closer rating might influence owners to limit the use of closers to closing situation, reducing the number of innings.

What is crucial is the managerial settings.

In my opinion, a rule of thumb is to assume 180 innings for the best R2 set-up man (140 innings for best R1 set-up), and then to assume between 125-175 innings for the best closer (say, 125 for R1, 175 for R2).

As for the rest of staff, you can think that they will grab the number of innings left so that your team finishes the season with 1460.

If your SP staff grabs 1000 innings, and the two best relievers grab 300 innings, you can deduce that the rest of the staff will accumulate 160 innings (1000+300+160).

Also, make sure to not overlook power. Odadis Perez low whip is nice, but you better play in a pitcher's stadium.

[visick]

I consider myself an educated guy. Not in Mensa or anything...

But, MY BRAIN HURTS WHEN I READ THIS. :roll: :roll:

j/k

I would personally rather have a slightly tired RJ than Gonzo with his 20 WP.

[cummings2]

Thanks Lucky,

I agree with your numbers in regard to the innings expected for bullpen usage. I think that's why right after starting this thread I bumped the "newbie advice" :D

I am a bit iffy on the relievers & closers figures as well. I have been running several comparisons between different pitchers to see if the arguments hold water or not and and the results is still a bit inconclusive with relievers & closers.

I've been operating with the idea of using the maximum ammount of innings the pitcher can go for given his endurance rating in order to figure out the salary per inning, but this would mean that all starter/relievers would be better off used as relievers and even then it is very questionable to assume that you can fully use the pitcher's innings, for example Rodrigo Lopez has an R4 rating, so that would mean that he could go 432 innings. Now I don't know if anyone has ever approached this figure but even so this issue keeps making me go back to the numbers and find out several little things like for example the relation between salary and the difference between WHIP and ERA, this is a rough way of seeing the power that you refered to in regards to Odalis Perez.

Thanks again Lucky.

[UrbanShockers]

"The pitcher is not responsible for the athletic capacity playing behind him."

But he is affected by it. A guy who allows more balls to be put into play is affected more than a guy who allows fewer. A guy who allows more ground balls is affected more by poor IF def. than a guy who allows fewer, and ditto re: OF D for flyball pitchers.

Apart from the fact that I think what I've said above is manifestly true, having the cards reflect it would add a major element of strategy now missing. EG, you can better get away with good-hit, poor glove IF's if you assemble a staff of K and flyball pitchers.

[MARCPELLETIER]

I have to agree with Urbanshock on the X-ratings. Average defense running after 100 balls will surely make more errors than average defense running after 50 balls---although some argue that high K pitchers causes their defense to be sleepy.

As for the 432 IP being the most possible effective use: that would be true only if a pitcher would never have its performance declined due to "fatigueness". Also, invariably, you will only need 1460 innings per season (plus or minus 40). If you use Lopez 400 innings, this means that the rest of your pitching squad will have 1000 innings--that could be quite ineffective if this pitching squad includes RJ!!