Originally Posted by Cooper
RMR: players abilities are leveraged all the time - management makes those decisions in the field with the regular -players all the time. It's akin to saying -and this is an extreme example "i know ken griffey can hit all those home runs, but why should he get those opps instead of Joe Oliver?"
I'm sorry, but I just don't follow you here. This isn't about giving opportunistic to lesser players. It's about crediting players for the performance they're responsible for, not the team-level outcome that results from it.
I'm talking about separating out the credit you give Junior for hitting 40 HR from the credit you give him for driving in 140 runs as a result of hitting 40 HR while batting 4th in the lineup behind a couple of good OBP guys (when those same 40 HRs would have only produced 110 RBI batting 6th). Good on the manager for using his slugger where his production was most valuable. But if you're responsible for acquiring players, you don't pay Griffey extra for the difference in RBI those 40 HR produce based on where you bat him -- you pay him for his ability to hit 40 HR.
Chapman is a great reliever because of his dominant ability to get outs and prevent runs. But while getting 3 clean outs in the 9th inning with a 1 run lead might move the Run Expectancy meter 10x as much as getting 3 clean outs up 4 in the 6th, I'm not going to pay the guy 10x as much to get those outs. Most of the win value difference in those two performances is a function of the context in which the player was placed, not in how well he performed.
I agree 100% that players should have their talents maximized from an opportunities/leverage standpoint. Managers would be stupid not to -- and GMs would be stupid to ignore a team's composition when building a roster. What I'm arguing is that players shouldn't personally be given extra for the win value created by leverage; doing so presumes they are solely responsible for creating the value when they are not -- rather it is a circumstance the whole team has created.
Think of it this way: Person A wants to sell you a weighted coin that flips heads 75% of the time. He just made 100 bets of $1 each using the coin, won 75 of them, netting $50. Person B wants to sell you a weighted coin that flips heads 60% of the time. He just made 100 bets of $1,000 each using the coin, won 60 of them, netting $20,000. Person A's coin won $50. Person B's coin won $20,000. Easy choice, coin B, right? Obviously not.
Same idea here, pay for the characteristics of the coin (75% vs 60%) not the situation in which the coin was used previously ($50 vs $20,000).