I’m working on a research project, currently writing code. One of the concepts in this project, however, is the idea of a minimum team. Imagine a general manager trying to build a team from scratch. He signs a second baseman and a pitcher. They are two very good players, but at the moment they have very little value, since they cannot win any games. What is the minimum number of players and configuration of those players for a team to have real value, to be able to compete?
For example, the bare minimum is nine players, one for each position. That doesn’t seem very valuable, since any time one of the players gets injured, the team forfeits the game. If the team only carries one pitcher, he won’t be able to start every game.
In my mind, sixteen players sounds like the bare minimum needed to avoid most forfeits. A team would need ten position players (eight starters and two subs) and six pitchers (four starters and two relievers). That is until a squad contains that many players, the team is really worthless. That still seems too low, however.
An eighteen man squad consisting of four outfielders, five infielders (a first baseman and four skill infielders), two catchers, four starting pitchers and three relievers does the trick for me. Imagine this team:
- Outfield
- Matt Holliday
- Shane Victorino
- Ichiro Suzuki
- Carl Crawford
- Infield
- Albert Pujols
- Robinson Cano
- Evan Longoria
- Hanley Ramirez
- Stephen Drew
- Catcher
- Yadier Molina
- Kurt Suzuki
- Pitchers
- Roy Halladay
- CC Sabathia
- Dan Haren
- Cliff Lee
- Mariano Rivera
- Jesse Crain
- C.J. Wilson
This team is both good and durable. The might actually compete. Without a backup to Molina, however, there is a real risk long stretches of poor play. Without the swing man C.J. Wilson, two much pressure is put on both the starters and the bullpen.
I’m very interested in your opinions on this. Does a team need a player for every position, or would generic outfielders and infielders work just fine. How many specialist pitchers are needed, or should it just be a generic pitcher? Thank you for leaving your thoughts in the comments.
An intriguing question. If you really want to eliminate a player, have you tried this? Carry one extra IF/OF, rather than one of each; and also use your backup catcher more — to back up the corners, at least. I think 10 guys can handle 8 positions.
That idea probably sacrifices quality for flexibility. This is your project, so I’m not clear how much quality you’re willing to give up. I’m assuming that you have spring training to get Suzuki (or whoever) some reps at first base and in left. Also, your theoretical GM should go for the type of guys who are willing and seem able to play in unaccustomed positions. (So Infante, not Zimmerman.)
I may be misunderstanding your question about specialists, but seems to me you need to cover center, short, and starting pitching. Guys who can do that can do the other stuff (corners, second base, relief). That seems too obvious an answer, so I must be missing the real question.
Oh — and try to focus on ambidextrous pitchers. That’ll help a lot.
You’re not far off from how teams were constructed at the turn of the 20th century: six-man pitching staffs (four starters, a couple of long relief/spot starters), two catchers, five infielders, four outfielders.
There’d be a premium on versatile players — an outfielder who could fill in at a corner infield position, a catcher who could play first base and left field in a pinch. And it’d be nice to have a good-hitting pitcher or two who could be used to pinch-hit with, even fill in as an outfielder if needed. Micah Owings was born a hundred years late.
@Scooter: I’m looking for an inflection point when the value of the players means something. For example, I could have a collection of eight players with a total of 50 WAR, but because I don’t have a ninth, the group is worthless (having only eight players causes a forfeit). There is some number that is greater than eight but less than 25 at which point I capture the value of all the players on the team. My gut is that you can get away with 16 players, but 18 is more solid.
Thanks for the response. By the way, I’m a bit concerned about 7 pitchers. Back of the envelope, it looks like your specific 7 pitched 1,267 innings in 2010. That’s maybe 180 innings light. I know you picked guys whom you could push a little further than last year (surely Mo can give more than 60 innings), but the innings won’t be perfectly distributed. Just two straight extra-inning games could cause problems, I think.
Anyway, I love this question and I hope some actual smart people weigh in. I’ll be watching the comments.
@Scooter: I think that team would still forfeit a few games, but not enough to make them untenable. The four staters were picked for their ability to go deep in games. That’s why I left Felix Hernandez off. Despite a lot of innings over the last few seasons, he’s so young he would worry me in that stressful a rotation.
In a few years, Bryce Harper would probably be a good addition to such a team–he could provide a little insurance behind the second catcher or even serve as the backup catcher if you were really hurting for spots.