THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Matt Moore as the choice is a no brainer.  A lot easier to fill a hole at 1b than it is finding an ace to plug into your rotation.

Are we to make assumptions about the time-horizon, or is that meant as a potential determining factor in this question?

Which assumptions do you want to make that I haven’t explicitly noted?

"Matt Moore as the choice is a no brainer.  A lot easier to fill a hole at 1b than it is finding an ace to plug into your rotation.”

#1 A WAR is a WAR is a WAR.

lessee....depends what the market price is in both cases.  But I think the point may be that $26.5mm is about what should be expected through the arbitration process in both cases.  so, it’s a question about attitudes toward risk.  Sure-ish thing Votto v wide range of possible results Moore.  So, Votto. 

Except that it looks like the $70mm figures are sort of risk-adjusted.  For Votto $70mm is toward the high side of the 40-80 range, and Moore’s $70mm is toward the low side of the 30-130 range.  So, now I’m pretty indifferent.  I’m more bullish on Moore than Votto, so I’ll go with Moore.

pierre/5: right, the risk has been included.  So, the question is if the 70MM$ average needs to have a further risk assessment beyond the average.

Similar to, say, wanting an 8% return on stocks, 6% on bonds, and 4% on money market because of the higher risk for stocks than money market.

So, if the average return is 70MM$ for Votto Tbill and 70MM$ for Moore JunkBonds, but both cost 26.5MM$, are you going to prefer Votto to Moore?

***

As for your last line that you are more bullish on Moore: for purposes of illustration, you have to accept my assumptions of fact.  I used Votto and Moore to get a recognizable face.  If you can’t set aside your bias (of wanting to give Moore more value than 70MM$), presume these guys are named Voey Jotto and T. Tam Eroom.

so the $70mm is sort of probability-weighted, I guess.  And I preferred Moore because i was substituting my own subjective probabilities.  So, yes, give me Votto because he is the surer bet.  You’d apply a steeper discount rate to Moore’s $70mm…

Since we have to accept these assumptions I think the only variables are risk tolerance and non-performance attributes.

Risk tolerance is dependent on the team/GM but I’d generally go for Moore, almost all teams need luck to have good to great seasons and 9th place=30th place in MLB.

As for non-performance attributes I’d take Votto as he has name recognition that you could sell to the fans.

Overall, if I’m a GM with good job stability I go with Moore, if not I go with Votto.

If both cost and expected value are about the same, the difference is just the timeframe.  Give me Jotto if my team looks to be a borderline contender over the next 2 years.  He can be the piece that puts us over the top.  Eroom is the choice for a rebuilding team, hoping to contend 3-6 years down the road.

I agree with Rally/9.

Right, #8 and #9.  For whatever reasons (people don’t like risk, having nothing is a lot worse than having a lot extra, people don’t understand the concept of risk versus reward, etc.), investments which are riskier have a larger return.

That is not necessarily true in baseball.  As several people pointed out, it depends on the team’s position with and without the player in question, and probably other factors as well.

Personally, if I am a GM, there is so much “luck” in making the post season and winning the WS, over and above having a talented team, I am not going to waste a whole lot of time, energy, and money worrying about whether I want a “sure thing” or a riskier commodity.  I would be doing everything in my power and devoting most of my time and money trying to maximize my talent (expected WAR) for each season and for the future as a whole. That includes player development, draft, roster construction, player acquisitions and trades, in-game strategy, lineup construction, teaching at the MLB level, etc.

If I maximize all that, I have won 95% of the battle and I will be 95% ahead of most teams…

Can I change my vote?  I think MGL et al are right.  Most MLB teams should be risk-seekers.  The exception I guess is the Yankees or Red Sox, who are trying to stack the deck, not shoot the moon.

I am not really the one advocating risk-seeking.  I don’t know and it depends on the team and their situation.  I do think that it doesn’t really matter and that I would not waste a lot of time pondering it (if I were a team)…