NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/rec/sport/baseball/38362

Text File | 1993-01-25 | 3.5 KB | 71 lines

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!udel!rochester!cornell!tedward
From: [e-mail] (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: Cecil signs :-( :-( :-(
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:51:00 GMT
Lines: 60

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dr. Dave) writes:
>Thus spake [e-mail] (Michael Wolverton):
>
>>You do the same with baseball players: look at what you get when you
>>*do* have the player, and look at what you'd get if you *didn't* have
>>the player.  Subtract the second from the first, and that's your
>>player's value.
>
>...unless most of the league is *better* than what you do have.  In which case
>he is *not* helping you win, no matter how far above "replacement level" he
>is.  Players who take away wins and add losses to your team have (it seems to
>me) negative use value.

Then half of the players in the majors have negative use value.  I
don't buy this.  Or perhaps I just don't understand the definition of
"use value" in this context.  Billy Hatcher and Dan Gladden seem
clearly useful, as without them (and their clones) around, major
league baseball would only be able to field about 15 teams.  Using the
car analogy, they get you around town (bring in the bucks).  Does a
team *lose* income when it signs Gladden?  Certainly not.  Do they
lose income when they make him their fourth outfielder?  Only if they
are the Atlanta Braves, or some other talent-rich club.  Otherwise he
will be an improvement, win more games, and draw more cash than the
guy he replaces.

So it seems to me that the use value of Gladden is positive, as long
as he belongs in the majors.

>No, he doesn't.  If you have an entire team of replacement-level players,
>you'll lose 120 games.  The sum (use) value of all your players is thus
>about -40 games.  If they're all about the same, that means they *all* have
>negative value.  *Very* negative.

Or you can view it another way...  Their total use value is +40 games,
because that is the number they won.  In your car analogy, you aren't
saying "that old rusty '72 Volvo has negative use value because most
cars on the road would do a better job".  You are judging it on its
positive value.  And I'm willing to bet that going 40-122 will sell
more tickets than going 0-0.  Making it ridiculous to talk about
"negative use value" for a replacement level player.  As long as the
sum of negative values has positive return, there is something wrong
with the model.

>Thought experiment:  suppose everybody else's starting 9 suddenly got much
>much better, but yours didn't, and the talent not currently in the majors
>stayed the same.  Clearly, your players are suddenly much less valuable than
>they used to be, because they will win many fewer games than they used to.
>But replacement level HAS NOT CHANGED; average level has.

You are confusing the issue here.  Sure, your players are suddenly
less valuable.  But they still have positive value, because you can't
replace them with any better, and it is more profitable for you to
operate a losing team than to not operate at all.

Question: Aside from baseball players, what things in real life have
negative use value?  How much would you be willing to pay for them?
How much would you be willing to pay to bring Dante Bichette (a decidedly
below-average player) to the Pirates?

-Valentine