Ask Rotoman

January 15, 2003 – The Daily Prospectus: The Colon Trade

I’ve been holding off on writing about the Colon trade. It seemed for a while that all that needed to be said was going to be said, but it wasn’t. I read a Fantasy Baseball Review email log this morning in which nobody got it, in which nobody came close, and then this Baseball Prospectus analysis, which is better but misses the point, too.

I think.

I think the facts in this case match Peter Gammons’ story this week at ESPN best of all. The idea that the Yanks hoodwinked the Red Sox is overblown, the idea that Minaya screwed up is overblown, the idea that Kenny Williams was a genius is overblown. Try these facts on for size:

The Expos gave up a once-upon-a-time top prospect pitcher coming off a career year, a pitcher they couldn’t afford and everyone knew they couldn’t afford, and got in return a good veteran pitcher making the minimum.

The Yankees gave up one of their eight (read excess) starting pitchers, plus $2M, and got back a very good middle relief pitcher they could certainly use. Since Osuna makes less than what Hernandez will make in arbitration this year, it didn’t cost them the whole $2. In fact, the deal might actually save them money, though just a little, depending on how arbitration goes.

The White Sox gave up a good reliever, a valueless reliever, a worthless corner infielder and $2M (plus the Yankees’ $2M) for a former top prospect but generally disappointing pitcher coming off the best year of his career.

Clearly, what matters here is how good Colon pitches this year. Clearly, from what Theo Epstein was saying, the Red Sox didn’t get Colon because they wanted Vazquez. And they weren’t ready to jump all over Colon because they think he could be a problem.

Assuming the Yankees did save some money (which they save at a multiple because of the salary tax), it seems to me everyone benefits by this deal.

And no, Minaya may have not recouped what he paid for Colon, but the situation now is different than it was last summer. That doesn’t absolve him of the imbalance, and doesn’t mean he didn’t make mistakes (should they turn out to be so), but it does point out the difficulty of setting priorities when you don’t know if this is your last gasp or your next to last gasp. And when everyone else knows nearly as well what your situation is.

If he’s right, that the right guy to deal was Colon (and not Vazquez), then I think he did just fine. It seems to me he rather aggressively took a shot at the title when he had a chance (and wouldn’t you?), rather than playing is safe and mouthing whatever insulting pieties came to mind to explain away his inaction.

Now he’s doing it again, refusing to cede the division because without that what is there? That’s what I want to know.

Go Expos!

I have copies of the magazine in hand. Here is a JPEG of the cover.

I’m told it will be available in stores in about two weeks. Yes, baseball is near.

I somehow managed to screw up the prices on about 40 pitchers for the month of September. I’m not certain what happened, but I think when I expanded the list to include the September callups I failed to copy the formulas for ERA and Ratio into the new rows.

The result was some pretty wrong prices, especially Vicente Padilla, and lots of little adjustments to all the pitchers. I’ve sent a corrected page to mlb.com and I hope they’ll replace the old wrong sheet.

Here is a link to a corrected spreadsheet, too. Corrected pitcher prices.

Sorry about that.

David Halberstam writes a sour piece about Barry Bonds in today’s ESPN.com Page 2.

Sure, it would be great if Barry Bonds were thoroughly happy, if his joy were infectious, if his love for the game and reporters and us, the fans, was limitless and unconditional. Sure, it would be great if Barry Bonds weren’t so clearly conflicted about his job, his role and way sports define us (and him). I’d like him to be happy.

Heck, I’d like to be happy.

What gives Halberstam the right to rip this man on a personal level, a man who has devoted himself to developing incredible baseball skills and delivers them every day (a man who in other words does his job well), escapes me. Halberstam has spent some time in locker rooms, I would think, and most surely knows the resentful arrogant vitriol that spews from the mouths of reporters day after day. Halberstam must have spent some time on the field, near the players, and heard the vicious impersonal bleating of fans looking for interviews, photos, or simply a reaction.

To ignore the context of Bonds’ complaints is disingenuous, an easy sort of rabble rousing that gets the bleachers cheering for you, Mr. Pulitzer Prize Winner, and throwing screwdrivers and golf balls at the objects of your displeasure.

It would be great if Barry Bonds reacted to all that stuff with a goofy smile, a bit of wit and a hug, to remind us all how lovable we are. It would be wonderful if Bonds could hit like Ruth and mug like Uecker. But I happen to think that it is better that Sir Barry has used his anger and rage to motivate him to work hard and to achieve all he can, while he can. Some of the alternatives available to him, the paths of Darryl Strawberry and Jose Canseco, for instance, are perhaps easier and would be far more sad.

It would be nice if Barry had the grace to suck it up the way Mark McGwire–another athlete who seemed more comfortable playing than talking about it–did when he was under the magnifying glass. But to rip him this way is as vapid and contextless as suggesting that Bonds’ world (and the world at large) would be a better place if Bob Gibson were around to throw a little chin music. That sentiment–also Halberstam’s–is worse than sentimental claptrap, it’s also dangerous.

ESPN.com: MLB – Angels to challenge Bonds in evenly matched Series

I’m not exactly sure how it happened, but I’ve spent much of that last week arguing with friends about the meaning of the way we judge a team’s ability based on the components of runs scored. And the fact that seems to be unassailable is that the past two years the Giants have scored fewer runs than we would have predicted given their component stats.

My friend Alex Patton suggested that this is because an intentional base on balls is truly worth less than a regular base on balls, and looking at the Giants’ numbers the last two years (when they led the major leagues in IBB) it’s hard to argue with that. It’s especially hard to argue when you look at the other teams that drew lots of IBB, and see that they too didn’t score as many runs as you would expect.

The Giants won the first game of the series tonight and I tend to believe that they will beat the Angels handily, though I can’t find any good statistical reason to think that. And the most powerful evidence I have about this series is that the Angels should walk Bonds in all but the most benign situations.

Rob Neyer and most sabremetricians disagree. But I think that’s because they see a walk as a walk, rather than truly evaluating the rather singular role Bonds plays in the Giants’ offense. If the Angels decide to pitch to Bonds they have to hope that he doesn’t reproduce his productive stats from 2001-2002.

If they walk him they have to hope that they can contain Benito Santiago and JT Snow. They couldn’t contain Snow last night, but I think their best chance is going after the guys who hit after Bonds.

Of course, they also have to hit the Giants’ pitching, but no matter what else they did, they’d have to do that anyway.

Giants in five.

USATODAY.com – American League studs, duds

Oh, maybe I’m being cranky.

I suppose I’m complaining because as a magazine editor who has run a feature for three years, the online deadlines of Baseball, er, Sports Weekly trump my annual.

But I believe I invented the Perfect Draft, in which a fantasy baseball analyst decides which $260 of draft day money buy the most dough. In hindsight of course. As John Hunt does in this week’s Baseball, er, Sports Weekly.

So, I’m being cranky, but I’m not forgetting that imitation is flattery. And I’m glad that John gets it right.

Okay, it looks like there will be a magazine this year. Let me know who you want on the cover. Right now I’m thinking Adam Kennedy.

Also, let me know if you value any sorts of info over any others. I’ll be rolling out a new system of pricing to go with the profiles. Still 25 teams, still both leagues, but based on what their likely draft day prices will be, rather than what my projection is worth. I’m still trying to figure out how to add that info gracefully.

Anything else? Give a holler. Thanks.

MLB.com Fantasy: Rotoman’s End of Year Prices

I should have pointed this out earlier in the week. Yes, my end of season prices are posted at mlb.com.

Thanks for waiting for August Prices. They’re here now.

September 3, 2002 – Prospectus Roundtable: Strike’s End

I’m not clear on the timing of this discussion, which appeared today but seems to have been taking place while we were all waiting for an end to the strike.

I have a few comments, of course.

I love BP. I admire their determination and I admire a lot of the work they’ve done. I enjoy the annual book and I read the website. But there are always some problems:

I won’t go into all of them here. Maybe someday. But the problem with their fierce belief that the players sold out to the owners, and their comical confusion about why, fails to acknowledge one prime fact: The Players Association has actually seen the Owners books.

When BP writers talk about the obscene profits that the owners have been making, and compares them with the more obscene profits they’ll be making under the new agreement, I have a hard time lining up in support.

No, I don’t trust the owners (even though they write a nice paycheck to me every week during the season), I believe that their financial condition is a good bit stronger than the “books” they showed Congress demonstrated. But if the players decided to approve revenue sharing and a modest luxury tax, I can only think it’s because they see that the revenue imbalance in baseball is a real problem.

The mantra of BP is to take an objective view of the facts. The facts we have here are that an active and rock solid group of workers made some concessions to allow the restructuring of the economics of their business. These workers have shown themselves, in the past, to be very smart and very savvy. To act now as if they’ve screwed the pooch seems to me to be an extremely subjective judgement.

Having said that, it’s hard to see how this agreement fixes any of the very real structural problems baseball has. But if the owners who receive the revenue sharing spend it on improving their teams, there is some hope that the game will win out over cynicism.

Me, I’m cynical enough that I worry.