Comments on: Roster management and why it’s important

By: DMZ

DMZ — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:39:53 +0000

There have been substantial arguments about how to define replacement level because of that problem. Do you make a functional definition (”Who’s actually out there and free?”), a statistical one (replacement level is defined as the worst player at each position/the best guy in AAA/the average guy in AAA), and so on. It’s true that it’s not always as easy to find a replacement level talent as the concept is explained.

All definitions have some problem, and it’s true that teams often don’t have a replacement-level guy readily available and can’t manage to get one when they need one.

By: Evan

Evan — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:22:50 +0000

Replacement level talent isn’t prospects who are under contract – it’s minor league free agents and guys in the independent leagues. Freely available means freely available.

By: Livengood

Livengood — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:56:28 +0000

Man, what a load of poor grammar and spelling. Sorry about that; it’s early.

By: Livengood

Livengood — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:49:21 +0000

“. . .they even have specially designed athletic cups that are personally form-fitted for each member of the Yankee roster. (Don’t ask who does the personal form-fitting).”

On this:

http://www.thenuttybuddy.com/

Check out the video. No mere words can describe this.

In all seriousness, the Yankees are a poor example of looking to exploit small advantages. Their “commitment to winning” is almost exclusively a combination of platitudes and enough cash to cover up the multitudes of mistakes they make.

On other comment, Derek. Although I fully understand the concept of replacement level talent, it has always struck me as slightly flawed because near-ready MLB talent cannot move freely and seems to be far more valued than the theory seems to suggest it is (or should be). Yes, there is minor league free agency, and the Rule 5 draft, etc., but has anybody ever really looked at what it takes to pry loose from other organizations the kind of guys we’re talking about? Because I dount they come for “next to nothing” (though I admit I could be wrong about this).

By: colm

colm — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:04:21 +0000

It’s called looking for competitive advantage by seeking out commodities that the market currently undervalues. You don’t look for the BEST player on the market, you look for the best VALUE player on the market.

By: gwangung

gwangung — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:44:00 +0000

Considering that Bavasi has a higher payroll than Beane does (and so should have more flexibility), how much longer will it take before the M’s can outperform the A’s?

As long as it takes to fire some of the other people around him that have input into player evaluation.

By: noel

noel — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 05:37:12 +0000

So is Bavasi good enough to do this roster management stuff, or do the M’s need to go find the next Billy Beane?

Considering that Bavasi has a higher payroll than Beane does (and so should have more flexibility), how much longer will it take before the M’s can outperform the A’s?

By: DMZ

DMZ — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:16:53 +0000

I disagree. It’s not that the rest of baseball doesn’t do what he does. They do, but he’s moved on by then (see: drafting college players, or high-OBP machines). The A’s aren’t about finding some opportunity or approach and then relying entirely on that: they’re also comparing the different values in approaches, and willing to change how they build their teams if they see that they can do well with a different method.

That is extremely hard to mimic.

By: Typical Idiot Fan

Typical Idiot Fan — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:09:06 +0000

This reminids me of the time Oakland signed every available left-handed pitcher in baseball. They couldn’t use them all, but they knew there would be a demand for them later.

Let’s assume that every other ballclub does the same thing the A’s do and sign the lefties too. And useful bench players. And other valuable roster guys. The A’s then don’t have a surplus of squat. Part of the nature of the success that Beane has enjoyed is that everybody else DOESN’T do what he does. If the rest of the league starts, then eventually the idea saturates itself.

It wont happen, of course, so in the meantime party on.

By: CCW

CCW — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 17:59:18 +0000

Another concept that you might consider throwing in here, DMZ, is a bit more on the defensive spectrum. I know you touch on it, but, in my mind, it’s one of the basic concepts of roster management that some teams just don’t get. In other words, offense being equal, C > SS > 2B > CF >> 3B >> RF > LF > 1B > DH.

I put the >> in there because the gap between up-the-middle players and the corner players is particularly high. That’s one reason it will be so frustrating if the M’s, who have exceptional up-the-middle talent, fritter the opportunity away.