Skip to main content

Franchise Mode Is Awesome

This is a relatively new feature on sports video games, where one controls the finances, the drafting of new players, and of course, the game on the field. In actual sports, drafting is highly inexact. The 3-time Super Bowl winning quarterback Tom Brady was the 199th selection in his draft. In most games, however, you can spend the time to make sure that a high pick is not a bust. My favorite thing to do is trade my roster's highest-paid player (a surefire star) for a very high draft pick.

If you can get the same task done for less money, you do it, in this context. There are very few moral dilemmas related to justice when one's employees are super-rich. GMs have to be ruthless.

The basic concept behind things like 'Moneyball' is to figure out what you need to win, and giving up the least to get it. The market value of a star will be inflated by his reputation, and by competition over his services.

My insight was to figure out a style that worked for my personnel, and place each person in a position to do ONE THING very well. A star player does many things exceedingly well; that's why he or she is expensive. But suppose that key person were not a star. He has that one thing. And you've identified that you need it. In my example, we have the San Antonio Spurs (basketball) from the 2004-2005 season. At the outset, I found a center to replace the retiring David Robinson. So the defensive core of the club was the great Tim Duncan, and this other center I found in the draft. Offensively incompetent, he could certainly block shots and rebound. But I realized 1 thing: against an opponent who shoots well and is able to get open to shoot, we need to take the ball away. I need a point-guard who can steal the ball. I found the free agent Brevin Knight, who possessed the highest rating in the entire league for steals. He's quick, but his ability to shoot and other things was highly suspect. It would have to be lay-ups at the basket on the fast break if he was going to score. Shot-blockers, rebounders, and a ball thief. And I was far under the league salary cap. But I needed one more thing. We needed to be able to score in what they call the half-court: both teams set, running plays at one end of the floor. We don't need a star; just a shooter. A 3-point shooter. And so that's what I did. You don't need the best players at every position; you need ONE THING. It saves piles of money. And a team with money can buy a star if they fail to find him. Every great team needs its star.

What got me thinking about this was the free agency departure of Albert Pujols in 2011. Don't kid yourself: Statistically, those were on the whole the greatest 11 seasons to begin a career in the history of baseball. If he retired tomorrow, he's a lock for the Hall of Fame. Yes, he's that good. But an irreconcilable dilemma occurs when one's diamond in the rough becomes the game's best player: he wants to be paid accordingly. But a GM pays for the present, not for the past. He cannot give 300 million dollars over the next 10 years to a 32-year-old. Yet the player has earned that reputation; his value is determined by what others will play him. His value to a team is the skills he contributes to victory. A good GM will slightly overpay an irreplaceable centerpiece. And that will be known, because a key player will know perhaps that he is not irreplaceable to every team, but he is to this team. Yadier Molina is this person for the Cardinals. It does not serve to overpay the one who can be replaced, but the one who cannot.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un