At what point can I fairly veto trades? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

At what point can I fairly veto trades?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby teddy ballgame » Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:01 am

Matthias wrote:
teddy ballgame wrote:Ok, so basically what you're telling me is because Liriano isn't guaranteed to put up the insane numbers he has been, he's not worth what he's done so far?


Not exactly. What I'm telling you is that performance comes with degrees of surety. And, even if Liriano has better numbers for his number of starts than Santana, I would still take Santana in a heartbeat over Liriano. Because Santana has a stronger likelihood of maintaining his numbers. If you rate performances on a scale of 1 to 10, Liriano may be a 10 right now. But it's completely possible he ends the season as a 5. Santana, and other elite players, on the other hand, you're 80% sure they're going to be an 8 or better.

teddy ballgame wrote:Well, maybe that's one strategy, but that doesn't mean Liriano isn't worth Wright if they both keep up what they've been doing. Saying this trade is uneven because Liriano might not keep it up, for this year at least is like me thinking Wright will suffer a major injury.


No. It's completely different.

The probability of Wright suffering a major injury is probably about 3%. You can crunch the numbers on major injuries in the majors if you like, but my guess is that's pretty close.

The probability of a fireballing rookie pitcher coming in on a hot month and then significant cooling off for the rest of the season, I'm guessing, would be about 50%. Maybe greater.

So, yes. They're both probabilities. But discussing something that's a 50% probability as something that's the same as a 3% probability is either disingenuous or naive.

teddy ballgame wrote:There's no basis for that besides that it happened to someone else. Liriano isn't someone else, he's his own person, who will build his own personal history.


Sure. But Baseball Prospectus (and others) make a great deal of money comparing players to other playes and projecting year and career arcs. At the end of the day, yes, individuals are self-determinate. But they do fall into categories of probabilities which can be considered and weighed.

teddy ballgame wrote:Right now, he's been putting up numbers as good as any other pitcher in the league. To trade another young player doing pretty good, for a pitcher who has been pitching at a Cy Young level is not really uneven, especially for someone who was expected to do so, despite the risks that may be there.

Your whole stock market or whatever the hell that was basically showed me you expect Liriano to come crashing down this season.


No. What my stock market (or, actually, asset) example should have shown you is that all risks are not created equal. I don't expect Liriano to come crashing down this season. BUT, he has a greater probability of coming crashing down than David Wright does. And since at their current performance they're about equal, that makes it a bad trade.

teddy ballgame wrote:If you believe that, then this deal isn't for you. If you don't believe that, then it's not uneven. I'd still take the Wright side of this deal, but to call it uneven just because you personally don't think Liriano will keep it up is ridiculous IMO.


No. It's not uneven because personally I think Liriano won't keep it up. It's uneven because a rookie pitcher who has been starting for five weeks has a greater probability of regressing to becoming an average starting pitcher than a batter who has one and one-third full seasons of consistent play under his belt has of regressing to an average major league hitter.

If you want to make it really basic, think if I offered you the chance to win $100,000. And I gave you the option: you can either win it by flipping a coin and calling it heads/tails correctly or you can win it by rolling a die and calling the number correctly. Of course you would go for the coin. They both have the same payoff: $100,000. But the coin gives you 50% odds of winning (1 out of 2). The die only give you 16 2/3% odds of winning (1 out of 6). Given equal reward, you choose the one that is less risk.

And that's all that this is about.

Ok, well what I read in about 6 paragraphs here is that Liriano has a better chance of regressing so it's an uneven deal. Fine, you think that and you avoid Liriano. If someone thinks he won't regress that much, like the person in this deal, and many many more, then it's not uneven.

In this situation, the probability is greater for the rookie pitcher to regress...once again, doesn't mean he has to, and it doesn't mean all rookie pitchers will. Liriano is not the same as any of the other people who have regressed before. He has his own capability to keep pitching the way he has been, despite whatever anyone else has done, or any % that shows he will regress. Your numbers are meaningless to me because they are not built towards Liriano they are built towards players that have already been rookies and either regressed or succeeded.
Image
teddy ballgame
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 11485
Joined: 7 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Beantown

Postby Matthias » Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:17 am

teddy ballgame wrote:Ok, well what I read in about 6 paragraphs here is that Liriano has a better chance of regressing so it's an uneven deal. Fine, you think that and you avoid Liriano. If someone thinks he won't regress that much, like the person in this deal, and many many more, then it's not uneven.


Answer me one question: if I offer you a deal, heads I give you a dollar, tails you give me $1,000, is that a good deal? Even if it later comes up heads?

teddy ballgame wrote:In this situation, the probability is greater for the rookie pitcher to regress...once again, doesn't mean he has to, and it doesn't mean all rookie pitchers will. Liriano is not the same as any of the other people who have regressed before. He has his own capability to keep pitching the way he has been, despite whatever anyone else has done, or any % that shows he will regress. Your numbers are meaningless to me because they are not built towards Liriano they are built towards players that have already been rookies and either regressed or succeeded.


Stock prices go up every December. There's really no reason for it: it's not a major earnings announcement period; some Decembers are Christmases of good sales, some of worse; stock prices definitely go down in other months. But they go up in December. You can see it here. And go back further if you like.

http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/ ... chart/DW/M

Now, when this November rolls around (if you have the money to spare) are you going to buy stocks or say that this past experience is meaningless because it has nothing to do with stocks in THIS December? There's different buyers; different sellers; a different economy; whole different shabang. Me, I trust numbers. I'm buying.

I really wish you would take the time to absorb this stuff because, as I said earlier, this is how the world works.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby teddy ballgame » Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:37 am

Matthias wrote:
teddy ballgame wrote:Ok, well what I read in about 6 paragraphs here is that Liriano has a better chance of regressing so it's an uneven deal. Fine, you think that and you avoid Liriano. If someone thinks he won't regress that much, like the person in this deal, and many many more, then it's not uneven.


Answer me one question: if I offer you a deal, heads I give you a dollar, tails you give me $1,000, is that a good deal? Even if it later comes up heads?

teddy ballgame wrote:In this situation, the probability is greater for the rookie pitcher to regress...once again, doesn't mean he has to, and it doesn't mean all rookie pitchers will. Liriano is not the same as any of the other people who have regressed before. He has his own capability to keep pitching the way he has been, despite whatever anyone else has done, or any % that shows he will regress. Your numbers are meaningless to me because they are not built towards Liriano they are built towards players that have already been rookies and either regressed or succeeded.


Stock prices go up every December. There's really no reason for it: it's not a major earnings announcement period; some Decembers are Christmases of good sales, some of worse; stock prices definitely go down in other months. But they go up in December. You can see it here. And go back further if you like.

http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/ ... chart/DW/M

Now, when this November rolls around (if you have the money to spare) are you going to buy stocks or say that this past experience is meaningless because it has nothing to do with stocks in THIS December? There's different buyers; different sellers; a different economy; whole different shabang. Me, I trust numbers. I'm buying.

I really wish you would take the time to absorb this stuff because, as I said earlier, this is how the world works.

No, this is how the stock market works. These stupid head/tails games, and stock market comparisons mean nothing about the rest of Liriano's season. Liriano is his own person, and these 80% chance of regressing stuff is just BS. I don't care what happened to other players before him, HE'S NOT THOSE OTHER PLAYERS! I DO NOT CARE if you think there's a greater risk of him regressing than Wright. That does not make the deal, today on June 24th uneven.

You can keep throwing these numbers at me all you want, I don't care anymore. The numbers mean nothing to me, on how Liriano will fare the rest of this year. I think he's going to keep it up, and at the end of the year the deal will be pretty even. You can keep going if you want, but it's not going to change my opinion.
Image
teddy ballgame
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 11485
Joined: 7 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Beantown

Postby mak1277 » Sat Jun 24, 2006 10:22 am

Matthias wrote:Answer me one question: if I offer you a deal, heads I give you a dollar, tails you give me $1,000, is that a good deal? Even if it later comes up heads?


This is a horrible arguement. Of course your deal is not a good one. There's no debating that. The difference is that everyone KNOWS that a coinflip is a 50/50 proposition (that's not actually true but it's close enough for this arguement).

You cannot purport to KNOW what Liriano's (or Wright's) stats are going to be for the rest of the year. You can make a projection. I can make a projection. Odds are they are going to be different. Maybe vastly different, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong (or vice versa).
mak1277
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy Expert
Posts: 4569
(Past Year: 5)
Joined: 14 Nov 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby Matthias » Sat Jun 24, 2006 10:43 am

mak1277 wrote:
Matthias wrote:Answer me one question: if I offer you a deal, heads I give you a dollar, tails you give me $1,000, is that a good deal? Even if it later comes up heads?


This is a horrible arguement. Of course your deal is not a good one. There's no debating that. The difference is that everyone KNOWS that a coinflip is a 50/50 proposition (that's not actually true but it's close enough for this arguement).

You cannot purport to KNOW what Liriano's (or Wright's) stats are going to be for the rest of the year. You can make a projection. I can make a projection. Odds are they are going to be different. Maybe vastly different, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong (or vice versa).


I'm not purporting to know what Liriano (or Wright's) stats are going to be for the rest of the year. That would be purporting to know if the coin was going to come up heads or tails. What I am purporting to know is to have a reasonable probability distribution on their respective performances. And Liriano's probability distribution has a much larger downside, or chance of regressing to the mean, than does Wright. Do I KNOW that Wright will outperform Liriano? Nope. But I do know that Wright has a greater probability of doing so. That's the same thing as knowing that a coin flip, before you make it, has 50/50 odds.

teddyballgame wrote:No, this is how the stock market works. These stupid head/tails games, and stock market comparisons mean nothing about the rest of Liriano's season. Liriano is his own person, and these 80% chance of regressing stuff is just BS.


Have you read Baseball Prospectus? Do you see their %age to improve, %age to regress, %age to break out or collapse? That's all this is. In baseball.

And probability distributions is how the stock market works. It's how insurance works. It's how the law works (see: Learned Hand's definition of negligence). It's how bridges are built, rockets are launched, and fossils are dated. Nothing is ever known for 100% certainty. But people gather data and make predictive forecasts with various ranges and ranges of accuracy.

Liriano is no different.

I don't care what happened to other players before him, HE'S NOT THOSE OTHER PLAYERS! I DO NOT CARE if you think there's a greater risk of him regressing than Wright. That does not make the deal, today on June 24th uneven.

You can keep throwing these numbers at me all you want, I don't care anymore. The numbers mean nothing to me, on how Liriano will fare the rest of this year. I think he's going to keep it up, and at the end of the year the deal will be pretty even. You can keep going if you want, but it's not going to change my opinion.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby great gretzky » Sat Jun 24, 2006 10:56 am

in a 16 team league, the addition of liriano can have a massive impact on his stats, since everyone is going to have a weak link in their staffs. The addition is a double wahmmy for him, since he gets to basically bench his worst pitcher (pitching can actually move you backwards in roto), shift everyone down a spot and isnert liriano. It seems like a reasonable trade to me.

And for the last time, 2-1 trades are most definitely not inherently uneven. They can be in the two hitters for one situation. Not so much when it is a hitter and a pitcher for stud hitter. power hitter for moderate power hitter and steals, etc. When they are even, it usually shifts points around.

I think the relevant example in real life here is the trade involving liriano in the first place. Everyone thought that minnesota didn't do so well on that one.

I'd be livid. One thing you have to allow in any league is an owner to "overpay" should he decide that's what's needed to advance in the standings. Also, people generally have no way of totally knowing the full scope of offers that have been tried before this one. I think these kinds of things are fairly stupid. One up and coming hitter for another up and coming pitcher who are both shaping up to be total studs. Atkins to fill in the vacated spot. makes sense to me.
great gretzky
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 3769
Joined: 3 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Washington, DC

Postby mak1277 » Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:12 am

Matthias wrote: What I am purporting to know is to have a reasonable probability distribution on their respective performances. And Liriano's probability distribution has a much larger downside, or chance of regressing to the mean, than does Wright. Do I KNOW that Wright will outperform Liriano? Nope. But I do know that Wright has a greater probability of doing so. That's the same thing as knowing that a coin flip, before you make it, has 50/50 odds.


Wrong. Just wrong. You think that Liriano has a higher chance of regressing, but you don't know it. Every coin is roughly the same. Every young pitcher is not. You can make assumptions, but to just becase you think Liriano is going to regress, doesn't mean that my projection of him not regressing is any less accurate.
mak1277
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy Expert
Posts: 4569
(Past Year: 5)
Joined: 14 Nov 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby mak1277 » Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:15 am

Two reasonable people can have differing opinions on the value of a baseball player.

Two reasonable people cannot have differing opinions on the 50/50 nature of a fair coin flip.

Horrible analogy.
mak1277
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy Expert
Posts: 4569
(Past Year: 5)
Joined: 14 Nov 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby bleach168 » Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:00 pm

Quantifying the trade a bit further, according to ESPN player rater,

Wright has benifitted his team by adding 6.30 pts.
Atkins has benifitted his team by adding 1.36 pts.

Assuming these two continue at their current pace (or both could cool off at the same pace), Liriano would have to score 4.94 pts to make up the difference. However, he would need to score even higher than that to make up for the loss in roster space due to the 2 for 1 trade. There are only 2 pitchers who have scored that high, Santana (6.52) and Pedro (5.48).

So in order for this trade to be an even one, you must believe Liriano = Pedro.
bleach168
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy Expert
Posts: 5058
(Past Year: 16)
Joined: 22 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby teddy ballgame » Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:32 pm

bleach168 wrote:Quantifying the trade a bit further, according to ESPN player rater,

Wright has benifitted his team by adding 6.30 pts.
Atkins has benifitted his team by adding 1.36 pts.

Assuming these two continue at their current pace (or both could cool off at the same pace), Liriano would have to score 4.94 pts to make up the difference. However, he would need to score even higher than that to make up for the loss in roster space due to the 2 for 1 trade. There are only 2 pitchers who have scored that high, Santana (6.52) and Pedro (5.48).

So in order for this trade to be an even one, you must believe Liriano = Pedro.

Since when do the players exchanged have to perform exactly even for the deal to be even? First of all, those ESPN numbers are not for our league settings. Second, if you consider roster needs and strenghts, those number mean nothing.
Image
teddy ballgame
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 11485
Joined: 7 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Beantown

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Tuesday, Oct. 21
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

San Francisco at Kansas City
(8:07 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact