Wednesday, November 20, 2013
How Important Is Roster Flexibility
Let me make a simplified hypothetical situation to make this as easy as possible. Let's say you have the choice between being the GM of one of these two teams. Everything about these two teams is equal, except you know that Team A has a 6 WAR player and a 0 WAR player and Team B has a pair of 3 WAR players. This is all we know about these two teams, assume everything else is equal (contracts, payroll etc...). Which of these two teams would you rather have and why?
Team A: 6+0
Team B: 3+3
Would you value the flexibility that Team A has given that they have a 0 WAR player that should be pretty easy to replace via free agency or trade? Assume each team was allowed to increase their payroll a little bit by the same amount. Which team would be able to improve quicker?
So what would it be.
Team A because of roster flexibility and the ease to improve.
Team B because of ???
Niether because there is no difference.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Team A. Because of injuries, mainly. A guy could be a six WAR player, but if he's on the 60-day DL, what's the point?
Also, how does the 6 WAR guy bring the 0 WAR guy home if the latter isn't on base, because he's no good?
First, in response to the above comment:
"Also, how does the 6 WAR guy bring the 0 WAR guy home if the latter isn't on base, because he's no good?"
This hurts my brain so much and despite what Moneyball says WAR and OBP are not the same thing.
Second, Team A because there's more room for improvement. 4 WAR players are harder to find than 1 WAR players, so I can upgrade by a win more easily if I have Mr. 0 instead of Mr. 3?
What am I missing from the hypo?
Post a Comment