|05-31-2007, 05:03 PM||#1|
Stat Wanker Hodiernus
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Look Sharp (from Nate Silver @ BP)
I don't have the time (or the permission) to repost the entire article, but Nate Silver has a great piece up on BP right now about the makeup of teams in terms of production distribution. Mods, please remove the quoted section if I shouldn't be borrowing it from BP, but this pretty much tells the whole story.
The answer to the first question is easy.
- Hard to improve the team because it takes a very productive player to realize gains over a mediocre one (it's easier to upgrade over Tony Womack than Brandon Phillips). But you do have a solid base to work from.
- It's hard to "get hot" because it requires multiple people to all do well at the same time. Sure, you're also more slump proof, but being locked in to a level of performance is only good if you're the best team.
- Your production rides in the hands of a few select people and therefore is subject to random variation. Sure, they can carry you, but if they slump, you slump. If they get injured.... you become the Cardinals.
- Easier to improve the team because you can improve it at so many positions, however, if something happens to your star(s), you're in deep crap.
The Reds have the flat problem. How do we improve this team? We're "decent" almost everywhere, but not excellent anywhere. To truly improve over where we're at, we need stars to replace average guys. There are no more cheap incremental gains, outside of a few spots in the bullpen that are giving us horrible production. Unfortunately, stars are hard to come by and aren't cheap in FA. If you do develop stars as a small market team, you HAVE to hold on to them because you aren't going to be able to win without their production and you aren't going to be able to sign them in FA. I'm looking at you Kansas City.
Given finite resources, the Reds would be incredibly stupid to try and compete with a flat roster as they simply cannot afford enough production. Rather, we should be devoting good resources to some very good players and then trying to realize some incremental value out of the rest of the roster. Call it the Oakland or Minnesota approach (both 1S teams)... Right now, we're pretty much the opposite.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
Last edited by RedsManRick; 05-31-2007 at 05:14 PM.