Posted by: Guru
- [330592710] Fri, May 18, 11:27
For those who don't read the blurbs, I wanted to mention that I put out a short analysis piece which looks at SWP/EG vs. price for pitchers, infielders, and outfielders.
Nothing earth shaking, but sometimes a picture helps to clarify things.
Dang - I just found a problem in the data - stand by...
2
j o s h
ID: 32461112 Fri, May 18, 11:38
Nice analysis Dave. I read that earlier today and chuckled as your last sentence was "So as you roster value builds, you might want to upgrade your outfielders first".
So I assume you dont see alot of rationale to the selling of Jaun.
3
walk Sustainer
ID: 592181610 Fri, May 18, 11:41
I just love threads like this and summary paragraphs like the one below:
****************** "But for the more static portion of your lineup, this chart suggests that you should be more willing to spend big bucks on outfielders, plus perhaps Helton. And you might want to skimp on some of your infield slots, since you don't seem to get as much extra bang for your buck in most of those slots. So as you roster value builds, you might want to upgrade your outfielders first." *********************
My guess, Dave, is that the lack of infielder efficiency is partially due to the relative dearth of slugging 1Bs, 2Bs and SS we have typically have. Guys like McGwire, Pudge, Piazza, Bagwell, Kent, Alomar, Garciaparra, Jeter, and Glaus are not hitting the way they used to hit, or not even playing.
Further, guys like Juan G. and Moises were very under-priced and are in fact hitting like they are supposed to hit. Add guys like Burnitz, Ichiro, Berkman and a few other affordable OFs who are scoring like true slugging 1Bs, and you account for some of the results we see in your graph.
Your analysis certainly makes rotating into Mays attractive, but I have cynical doubts about some of the youngin' pitcher's near-term performance levels. Other than guys like Pujols, who is still mid-priced, there are only a handful of expensive infielders who are clobbering the ball. Pujols precludes owning Chipper, and then there's A-Rod and Helton. That's about it.
Things might certainly change in the second half of the year if folks like Glaus, Nomar, Jeter, and Kent start hitting like they usually hit.
- walk
4
Guru
ID: 330592710 Fri, May 18, 11:44
There - I fixed it. A-Rod (and all shortstops) were included with the outfielders in the initial version.
With A-Rod back in the infield, the infielders have a little more to offernow.
5
Guru
ID: 330592710 Fri, May 18, 11:52
Once I bail out of Pedro (and the THM), I'm going to have some cash to spend. I had been thinking of upgrading Rivas to Robby Alomar, but now I'm wondering whether I should start upgrading the outfield instead.
As walk mentions, with so many good producers in the $4m outfield range, it's hard to see a compelling reason to spend the extra bucks there. Maybe it's time to move from to Helton.
I guess the other point to mention is that although there aren't many attractive infield options right now, you only need one at each position. So you really don't need many "red diamonds" to work with.
6
Guru
ID: 330592710 Fri, May 18, 11:53
walk also alludes to another valid point, particulary as regards Prokopec and Mays. This type of analysis is good at showing who you should have had. But that isn't necessarily who you should have going forward.
7
SwinganaMiss
ID: 5845111 Fri, May 18, 12:05
I thought the same thing about your initial essay...there are some quality OF producers for 4.5 mil and under, I don't think I need to upgrade those first and foremost.
Is this type of logic contradictory to the data? Not necessarily, as there are green dots above red dots pretty much across the board. All this tells me is I wish I could have 8 DHs on my team.
8
F Gump
ID: 554351321 Fri, May 18, 12:10
One glaring omission from your report ...
Certainly Helton is the top producer in the infield. But, due to his price, doesn't Mietk show up as a "wanna own"? Or has his price gotten so "high" that he is no longer a price/point bargain for the median current roster values?
One other question: at what price level for a roster was this an optimum set of players? If you stated it, I missed it - wondering if the "attractiveness" of Helton fits at all levels?
9
Guru
ID: 330592710 Fri, May 18, 12:28
Gump - this wasn't an optimum set of players for any price. That would be an additional step of anaylsis - essentially creating optimal rosters for a range of total values.
Vis a vis , that's a tough call. YTD, he's averaged about 17 SWP/EG, which is certainly attractive for $3m (although there are several outfielders in that same ballpark). But Helton has averaged close to 25 SWP/EG. If you believe those averages will persist, then you get about 1.6 extra SWP/G for each extra $1m you spend on Helton, which ain't bad. And while 25 SWP/G is probably better than he'll do for the balance of the year, with June's homestand (or the possibility of a pullback), I think it's non-stupid to consider making that upgrade in the near-term.
10
F Gump
ID: 554351321 Fri, May 18, 12:29
One other question about the grid: if the "optimal" players are on the top left of the grid, and you want the players on the top edge on that side, then it would appear that by THIS model Pedro and RJ are overpriced and NOT worth owning - IF you had to buy and hold them for the long-term, that is. They are far below the "extended curve" (they are well outside of the general "population" because of their relative HUGE price so the "edge" has to be extrapolated)
That is contrary to your text accompanying the chart. Am I somehow misreading things?
11
Valkyrie Leader
ID: 9047923 Fri, May 18, 12:39
Thanks for the analysis Guru. I think it reflects the problems we are all having. i for one am sitting with a ton of cash- i really want to upgrade Miento man to Helton but with the way MMan is hitting and his consistent price increase can't justify it. Similarly, there are essentially 6 OFers which everyone seems to have in some combination. Of the six none, with the possible exception of Juan, is more than moderately priced and Suzuki and Drew are making too much money to drop. Where to put the money. I guess most are putting it in pitching but with the convergence a natural rotation isn't available and you have to either burn many trades or eat (diminished ?) price drops tomorrow. Decisions, decisions. One thought occurs to me- with this kind of scenario will money making slow? Will more emphasis shift to earning money in pitcher rotations ? To me your chart indicates I should be holding most if not all of my hitters even though price increases are diminishing. What I expect will occur in the near term is that we could see some exagerated price changes in the 2B position with fast swings from one hot mediocre producer to another. (Not as a point of self interest but I did just jump from Walker to Boone and expect to be moving again within a week) simply because there is no other logical hitter position to change. PS I do not consider catchers hitters Pudge and Piazza notwithstanding, (g).Did you include the with IFers or omit them entirely not that it really matters.
12
Caper
ID: 4645147 Fri, May 18, 12:40
I am wondering if this data doesn't showed exactly the opposite of the summary given. That is that the greatest gains are available in the few infield positions that are producing. The difference between Helton and the next best, ARod and the next,Pujol and the next are all much more than the gains extra money will make in the outfield.
You would be better served to get into the few elite infielders ASAP and use the large Alou's, Gonzalezes et al to stay close to those spending their money in the outfield. The idea should be to find players that will outpoint the other guy/gals players at the same position.
13
walk Sustainer
ID: 592181610 Fri, May 18, 12:48
Caper, I think the analysis shows, ON AVERAGE, that infielders are not as efficient as outfielders or pitchers. Clearly, owning A-Rod and Helton would yield more SWP than owning say Neifi and Mientkiewicz (not java enabled), but that would likely require one to do without THM or THM + Brown.
Ultimately, we all would like to have the elite at each position, and that is why we own Mientkiewicz, to make the money that will allow us to more easily move into Helton a little lateron.
For me, I am going to keep Neifi on one team and Aurilia (have had for a month now) on my other team, and move that fickin' name-guy on the twins to Helton come hell or high water by 6/1. In addition, I will move SOMEone to Larry Walker on the one team that is Larry Walker-less on 6/1 as well -- even if it has to be Manny Ramirez for Larry. If Pujols slumps soon, then I just might be able to figure out a way to have Helton, Walker and Ramirez by 6/1. Iffy though.
- walk
14
Stretch Nuts
ID: 20315412 Fri, May 18, 15:17
Walk, I'm in precisely the same boat as you... except I have a feeling you're going with a 3HM while I've got a 2HM and A-Rod.
15
walk Sustainer
ID: 592181610 Fri, May 18, 15:20
Nope, I have a 2HM going, but have a decent chunk of change in the OF (3 guys at $4MM per and 1 guy at $8MM). No A-Rod or Helton though, and about $2MM in cash.
- walk
16
Pond Scum Leader
ID: 54420321 Fri, May 18, 15:30
I think like Caper. Unfortunately, I haven't backed this up on my picks so far, but with $ freed up after today from pitchers, that's where I'm headin. Couldn't do much worse versus the Guru who has lapped me in the last week or so.
17
Guru
ID: 330592710 Fri, May 18, 16:00
Caper - I think you have a good point. Given this graph, perhaps the first people to "lock" up are Pujols (assuming he continues this way), Helton and A-Rod, since you can get respectable outfield production at much lower cost. Second base and catcher are still conundrums, however. I think you need to evaluate specific alternatives to see what makes the most sense in your situation, consistent with your outlook on future performance.
Gump - It is normal for the top producers (Randy and Pedro, in this case) to look rather overpriced. This doesn't mean that their prices aren't properly calibrated - or that they are not efficient. In fact, it probably means that they are.
There are two unrelated issues here:
As roster values inflate, efficiency becomes less important, as teams are more able to assemble the best producers at each position. If you had a roster value of $120m, you would be happy to own Pedro and Randy at even higher prices. The scarcity of producers at their level should continue to push their prices higher and higher.
Pitcher rotations make the top pitchers more affordable, since you can effectively own both Randy and Pedro in one slot.
The first point isn't restricted to pitchers, either. It is normal for the efficient frontier to be negatively convex (curved downward with increasing price), rather than a straight line. Currently, however, that doesn't seem to be happening. But that does suggest that the top hitters still have good price upside even if their production tails off a bit.
That said, it also means that as a buy-and-hold proposition, Randy and Pedro are relatively unattractive for most teams right now - at least on a purely quantitative basis. You can get better production out of a staff loaded with mid-priced pitchers. Of course, the trick is to find the correct mid-priced pitchers. I think Randy and Pedro also receive price support because of their general consistency. Aside from Randy's one stinker in April, you can be pretty sure of getting a good outing from either one. If you have someone like Radke or Reed or Morris, or even Schilling, you are always more concerned that the bubble might burst.
If you could be assured that you would always have the top pitchers in the $4-$6m range, you might opt not to own Randy and Pedro. But if you figure that your mid-priced staff will probably turn out to be modestly suboptimal, then Randy and Pedro might easily lie on a straight line extrapolated from your holding.
18
F Gump
ID: 554351321 Fri, May 18, 16:08
Gotcha, thanks for the extended and thoughtful clarification!
Rate this thread:
If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time.
If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating.
If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here.