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.
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