2014 MoFo FBB Trading Block

Not goofy. His average overall in 2013 was 418. He had 424 at bats and totaled 135 overall for the season. Thats not McCutchen, and he shouldnt be at the same table as him.

I think its a massive mistake on the rankers part. Jose Reyes just hasnt been productive, and other than a couple dingers, hasnt even batted near what he used to. Avg is off too. I could see them ranking Granderson there since they were going off his April production, but I thought Reyes would be there right along with him.

Now see, that last sentence just snips the balls from me if I end up being right

I honestly have no idea what any of this means. Who was comparing Harper to McCutchen? 135 overall what?

But he isn't, so that should prompt you to wonder why, yeah? It's not because the rankers are all total morons, or threw a dart at the wall. And it's not a coincidence that several of us were surprised by the trade, too.

There are tons of reasons to be prefer Reyes over Granderson, even though their production so far is similar:

1) Granderson is three years older. Older players decline more, especially after 30.

2) Granderson was both bad and hurt last year--Reyes was just hurt. When he played, he was excellent.

3) Granderson's in a far worse ballpark now, so even returning to form wouldn't produce the same numbers--severely limiting his upside.

4) Reyes plays a much scarcer position, so even if he produces a fair bit less overall, he'll be more valuable.

5) Reyes has had both a higher and longer peak than Granderson did.

I can go on.

I don't exactly follow, but the risk thing I mentioned is pretty much the whole issue. You could defend any trade, no matter how bad, by talking about what might happen. And hey, sometimes those things do happen. But it never makes sense to bet on them. Fantasy sports is about maximizing probabilities, not hanging on possibilities.

I was comparing Harper to McCutchen because you said it was goofy to bringing up Harper not being a first rounder because he was injured. Even when he played he was ok, averaged 135th overall. McCutchen last year averaged 49th overall. Yet they rank them in the same round, and not rank Reyes near Grandy. You then spelled out why.

Reyes is fragile, and hes playing as such. I wasnt aware of many of Grandersons disadvantages though. We'll see.

The bottom line is injuries aside Reyes has a 100% shot of outproducing Granderson by year end.

You cut Eric Young ALREADY?!!!! You have ZERO patience.

What does "averaged 49th overall" mean? By what measure?

Either way, Harper can't be used as an example of a bad rank after just 22 games. And there's the matter of degree, too: it's fairly common for a guy to be ranked in the 1st but perform at a level befitting the 4th or 5th. And if Reyes and Granderson were ranked a couple dozen spots apart I wouldn't even have mentioned it. But it's a whole heck of a lot rarer for them to whiff when they've ranked someone 150-200 spots ahead.

I completely understand your point.

The stats Im quoting are from the Yahoo Team Page features. Go to your team page, hit Average Stats at the top, then hit 2013-14 underneath it and youll see Cutch averaged 49th overall.

Victorino's good for 20-40 steals a year with extras. Eric Young is only good for steals. So I should pass on Shane Victorino because I just traded away a high Era/Whip closer for Young? No way.

You can't tell me you don't make moves for the sake of just making them

I dont make moves for the sake of making them.

I sometimes look back and scream, but I dont trade/drop/grab "just because".

You guys do see how Adam LaRoche is doing this year right? What about Melky Cabrera? Where are they ranked? I know what their upside is because of the 2012 stats. Strong strong chance theyll finish ahead of Jose Reyes.

I might get stung on Granderson, and I say this because I know more now. Theyre hunches and not moves for the sake of. It aint pretty, but it gets it done for me each season.

195 moves is something I've never seen at the beginning of May.

Okay, but what does that rank mean? I don't see any explanation of it. And there's no way Cutch was the 49th best player last year--he won the MVP and was 6th in ESPN's Player Rater.

In 2013 he averaged 49th overall, but his total was 8th overall. When judging close talents its a good indicator to see who is more consistent. 49 is incredible for there are many players with just a few at bats that season unjustly ranked ahead of him.

If you go to the Player page and hit Season Avg, then click below that where it says "Rank" it will show the #1 ranked player is.....wait for it, George Kottaras! #2 is Devin Mesoraco, #3 Johnny Cueto, #4 Josh Hamilton, #5 Clayton Kershaw, and etc...

Why I brought up the averages is when a players season is cut short in 2013 or 2012 its hard to guess where he truly places when theyre listed in the Season Totals, not Avg. So thats why Im mystified Bryce Harper was in the first round.

Just curious because its off point, if Bryce Harper was available on your turn would you have picked him over Adam Jones?

But averages don't tell us anything about consistency. It's actually the exact opposite: averages smooth out differences. If a guy goes 2 for 4 on consecutive nights and another goes 0 for 4 and then 4 for 4, averaging their totals out will make them look the same.

Seems clear to me: he put up very good numbers despite missing a third of the year, and his age indicates he's probably going to get better.

In a vacuum, no. With trade considerations factored in, yes.

Yeah thats what averaging does. There is no system in place that shows the multi hit games. I dont use averages as a standard but one of many tools.

"He's probably gonna get better" is crap reasoning to put someone in the first round. First round belongs to the tried and true, the sure things. Actually I think you told me that once, Idk.

Trade considerations?! Are you telling me you would spend your first round draft pick on Bryce Harper for the plan to trade him away?!
I have defiled you.

I'm kind of struggling to think of any situation where they'd be particularly useful. But regardless, the point I'm making is that averages don't measure consistency. To the contrary, they hide inconsistency.

I probably said something about preferring safer guys early, which is true. But projecting a young hitter to get better its pretty safe; we have tons of historical data on hitter progression. Take a guy under a certain age and there's an additional chance of improvement. Take a guy over a certain age and there's an additional chance of a fall off. Not certainties, just probabilities, but maximizing those is the whole (forgive the pun) ballgame.

Heh. I'd almost never take someone I thought I really had to trade, but if two players were close to equal and I thought one would make significantly more attractive trade bait, yeah, that can be a decent tiebreaker.

Baseball uses averages but if you dont that's cool.

Someone offered you Bryce Harper for Adam Jones, I strongly think you would have said no. You might have even said no if they were asking for Encarnacion. The Rankers method of deduction is a sound one, but not an infallible one.

Funny thing on an aside, but Dexter used to draft Rays players specifically to trade to me later so he could make bank. As much of a trade whore that I am, Ive never drafted a player with the specific goal of trading them later.

Batting averages don't measure consistency, either.

You can use whatever metrics you want (though I wouldn't use them just because they're there), but if you're using averages to measure consistency, it won't produce sensible results.

Indeed. 'Course, this describes every method of deduction

Yeah, I normally wouldn't do that. I think I have a couple of times and it's not a great position to be in. Player arbitrage is a tricky thing because you only have control of one side of things.

In case anyone's curious, the aging curve for hitters looks like this:



It might be changing, though, because of the way teams are smartly delaying promotion to maximize pre-arbitration service time. But otherwise 27 is around the time where the benefits of experience and the benefits of youth are at their highest combined potency.

It's later for pitchers (and contains a lot more variation).

Very helpful. Maybe they should start putting the players age next to their name in the drafts.