Replacement Level Depth Revisited

Last week, I tried to puzzle through something that has been bothering me – how depth affects replacement level. Consider outfield and shortstop. Last season, I might be looking at Josh Reddick and Adeiny Hechavarria as my first picks off the wire. I can do something with Reddick. In fact, I actually want to own Reddick. I like his offensive capabilities, even if he’s underwhelmed in recent performances. With Hechavarria, I would desperately seek a replacement.

The post wasn’t my best – I failed to communicate my message. My first gaffe was to create a pre-draft scenario. I probably should have gone with “in a vacuum” since my goal was to explore the possibility of trading $20 for $17. Despite my lack of clarity, the post did generate a lot of useful comments. Today, I’ll try to summarize and incorporate the dialogue.

Let’s start today’s effort by reframing the scenario. It’s post-draft, but the season has yet to begin. Your team has the correct number of outfielders but no shortstop. You can trade a $20 outfielder for a $17 shortstop. In that event, you’ll grab an outfielder off the waiver wire. Alternatively, you can select a shortstop off the wire. Your offensive stats are balanced such that you’re indifferent as to which categories improve/decline (just go with it). Patrick adequately described the pros and cons of either choice.

Even though you’re indifferent to which categories improve/decline, you’re still trying to maximize your overall performance. You want to take the option that delivers the best expected value subject to variance and your risk aversion.

The commenters to last week’s article frequently cited replacement level as a reason to avoid spending on scarce positions. If Troy Tulowitzki comes with a 40 percent chance to land on the disabled list, it could be better to invest in a similarly priced outfielder. Maybe Carlos Gomez? If Gomez lands on the disabled list, I can go plug in Reddick. If Tulo hits the skids, I have to reach for Hechavarria. My actual preference will depend on my risk tolerance since Tulo is a higher variance play with more upside (even if that’s debatable, let’s just say it’s true for the sake of the example).

Alternatively, you can swap Ian Desmond into the equation if you want a less injury prone shortstop. Based on early ADP data, Desmond (31st pick) is comparably priced to Tulo (27th). Unfortunately, you could be trading a lot of production for his track record of health. Michael Brantley (26th), Hanley Ramirez (28th), Josh Donaldson (32nd), Ryan Braun (33rd), Victor Martinez (34th), and Buster Posey (35th) are among the players in the same cohort. All of them project to outperform Desmond’s statistics by a wide margin.

Does Desmond plus Reddick match Braun plus Hechavarria? That depends on your projections. Steamer says team Desmond produces a fantasy slash of 128/35/135/23/.253 compared to team Braun’s 126/28/128/22/.264. Not much difference between the two. Of course, you could also have different choices for a replacement. I picked Reddick and Hechavarria because they bounced on and off waivers in a 12-team, deep roster league last year. Maybe your options are actually Dayan Viciedo and Wilmer Flores. Or maybe you project a lot more out of Braun and think Reddick will continue to flail.

There’s no foolproof, “correct” answer here. Your job is to maximize your expected performance subject to your preferences and tolerances. There is certainly such a thing as being “more correct,” but the backbone of building a roster is to create a logical process and follow it.

As commenter DaBears pointed out (emphasis mine):

Replacement level valuation systems poorly account for distribution at any point in the value spectrum. Intuitively, it seems there must be a difference between a position where values (pre- or post-positional adjustments) are bell-curve shaped, top-heavy or bottom-heavy.

Distribution of talent is exactly what is bothering me. Shortstop drops off very quickly. Outfield more closely resembles a lightly sloped curve with a tail. There are plenty of top talents, more mid-level talents, and a long tail of useful parts until the eventual plunge where playing time evaporates.

My hope was to derive some logical means to incorporate this into dollars. As multiple commenters pointed out, dollars are an insufficient means of capturing a player’s total value. There are many reasons, but the most important is that value is relative. Just as Mike Trout is worth more money to the Angels than the Phillies, Billy Hamilton might be worth a lot more to me than you based on our rosters. For me, Hamilton might represent a nine point gain in steals (and some points lost elsewhere). If you own Gordon, Gomez, and Ben Revere, then you’re already likely to win steals without Hamilton.

It’s this relativity that defeats my attempt to account for the distribution of talent with a dollar value. Fortunately, it’s not too difficult to use strategy and tactics to adjust for changing dollar values. While there probably is a mathematical solution, it would change with each pick and every add/drop. For me, it’s not worth the effort.

We’re left with an unsatisfying answer to our original question. Would I trade a $20 outfielder for a $17 shortstop? It depends.