all the baseball deals won't get into the top 3 lopsided trades of all time:

Well, if we're talking all-time here, there's the little matter of the Red Sox (sorry, kevin) handing the Yankees the foundation for the first wave of their 80 years of dominating the American League . . . . That's got to be as lopsided as Herschel Walker, doesn't it?

But was that, or any of the other Red Sox shipped to the Bronx, a trade? I thought they were sales.

Don't forget Lew Alcindor to LA for Brian Winters, Elmore Smith, Dave Meyers and THE Junior Bridgman.

If you count it as a real trade (it was actually part of the corrupt franchise operation typical of Andrew Freedman), the trade of Christy Mathewson from CIN to NY, qualifies too. That created the foundation for the Giants to win 5 pennants (really 6) in 13 years.

Carl Hubbell was the director of the Giants' farm system for most (maybe all -- I can't remember when he retired) of those years. I wonder if he's the one who deserves the credit and Stoneham the blame?

Hubbell was the Giants' Farm Director for all or nearly all of that period, so he deserves enormous credit for the tremendous production of the Giants' system. But Stoneham was Hubbell's boss, and so obviously deserves credit too.

Hubbell can't be blamed for the trades, although I suspect his input was sought on assessing the future development path of this or that player. Stoneham was the guy in charge, but he never made his decisions hastily or independently; he always sought and carefully considered the advice of the cadre of executives he employed for decades, which included (his nephew) Chub Feeney, Tom Sheehan, Jack Schwartz, and Rosy Ryan.

The bucks got excellent play from Winters, about 19PPG for about 5 years, Smith wouldn't kill you, but he wasn't a 48 minute guy, Meyers could have been the next DeBusschere if he stayed healthy and Bridgeman was a Cazzie Russell type instant offense guy getting around 15 a game in his prime. Not a bad haul considering Kareem was demanding to get out.

No comments on this?

I read this article and Mike's one at lunch. Very interesting, but I don't really see a correlation between success at the trading desk and success on the field.

Mefisto - what's that story on Mathewson? After all, he was already a Giant when he made his 19-year-old debut.

Any analysis of "trades" has to imply consenting, competing formally equal partners. The evil doings of the 1898-99 and 1899-1900 offseasons shouldn't count. (e.g., Cy Young and Jesse Burkett from the Cleveland Spiders to St. Louis, Honus Wagner, Fred Clarke, and Tommy Leach from the Louisville Colonels to Pittsburgh.)

I'm interested in the Whitey Herzog trading record in St. Louis from about 1980 to 1985. It shouldn't grade out by this method as particularly striking in either direction. After all, the biggest blockbuster, the Simmons/Fingers/Lezcano multiplayer trade with Milwaukee, has to score as a net loss for the Cardinals. But the whole series of trades did a good job of building the team he wanted, including such nice A for B, B for A shuffles like Sorenson for L. Smith, T.Scott for Andujar.

I'm interested in the Whitey Herzog trading record in St. Louis from about 1980 to 1985.

Giving up Keith Hernandez for Neil Allen and Rick Ownbey has got to kill his record, doesn't it?

No comments on this?

I read this article and Mike's one at lunch. Very interesting, but I don't really see a correlation between success at the trading desk and success on the field.

Well, a few comments:

First, I need to correct the flaw in the data.

Second, did you actually run a regression analysis? Don't forget that we're talking about 40 years worth of data. If you run that regression, you'll have to adjust for expansion teams.

Third, even if you still find there's little correlation, my guess is there is more of a correlation once we look at the data broken out by five or ten year periods.

Fourth, if we get all that right, the squared error of each team would be an interesting indicator of something in itself.

BTW, Mike and I have the same data for free agents and draft choices. Down the line, we can probably put it all together.

Second, did you actually run a regression analysis? Don't forget that we're talking about 40 years worth of data. If you run that regression, you'll have to adjust for expansion teams.

Nah, I'm still at work. I was just eyeballing the article. But I'd take the last 40+ years history of the Mets, Red Sox, or Braves (teams that scored low) over the history of some of the teams that scored well.

BTW, Mike and I have the same data for free agents and draft choices. Down the line, we can probably put it all together.

I think Mike mentioned that in his article. I look forward to the next installments.

the biggest blockbuster, the Simmons/Fingers/Lezcano multiplayer trade with Milwaukee, has to score as a net loss for the Cardinals.

I'm not so sure...Lezcano was then involved in the trade for Ozzie Smith; and David Green and Dave LaPoint (also part of the Fingers trade) were later traded for Jack Clark, and Larry Sorensen (also part of the Fingers trade) was part of a trade to acquire Lonnie Smith. Ozzie Smith, Jack Clark and Lonnie Smith were all instrumental to the success of the pennant-winning teams of the '80s...

OK, it was the summer of 1980 because Green was traded that December. But he couldn't believe his arm.

What happened to Green anyway?

The Giants traded for him, so of course he immediately turned to crap ...

When Green was doing poorly with the Giants, two rumors clouded around him:

1) He was older than advertised.

2) He was partying hearty.

No, because Hernandez needed a slap upside the head to quit coking. If he hadn't been traded, he may have continued to backslide and take who knows who with him.

Yeah, the trade to New York sure led Mex to clean up his act. A regular choir boy after that.

I'll tell you who he took with him: Darryl Strawberry. The Hernandez role model: late nights, lots of booze, party hard.

Rarely, if ever, has a player been such a good influence on the field and such a bad one off it. I don't know how many times I remember watching Hernandez, standing on second base with Darryl at bat, motioning to him to keep his front shoulder in and wait on the pitch. Thank God I never saw the "counsel" he was giving at the nightclubs . . . .

In any event, from a win shares perspective, the trade was a big, fat stinker for Herzog. And I don't care how bad Hernandez was in the clubhouse and late at night; you just can't trade him for Neil Allen and Rick Ownbey.

What happened to Green anyway?

You're absolutely right that he was a much-hyped part of that deal. As to what happened to him:

1. Not all toolsy prospects work out.
2. Demon rum.
3. (Speculative) Baseball age?

Salvomania - you know I'd utterly forgotten that Lezcano was in the San Diego deal. I'd forgotten that he was still playing at that point. I tend to think of Sorenson/Smith as it's own very good trade, along with LaPoint & Uribe/Clark (together with its reverse twin trade, Hendrick/Tudor), rather than trying to make all of that part of the Simmons deal.

Sam M: Yeah, Hernandez was a talent loss. Love him or hate him for it, by dealing both Simmons and Hernandez, Herzog established the position that he was bigger than any of his players and the game would be played his way.

I expect the full analysis would be near-neutral on win shares exchanged, and that only because Whitey got very, very lucky on Templeton/Ozzie. On the whole, it worked anyway. Some of the biggest credit I give Whitey is for recognizing the disposabilty of such players as Ken Reitz and Tony Scott and getting value back for them anyway.

Love him or hate him for it, by dealing both Simmons and Hernandez, Herzog established the position that he was bigger than any of his players and the game would be played his way.

Templeton, too.

by dealing both Simmons and Hernandez, Herzog established the position that he was bigger than any of his players and the game would be played his way.

Of course, the sad thing is Herzog probably managed only one player in his whole career who "played the game his way" on the field to a greater extent than Keith Hernandez. Hernandez played a smart, patiently aggressive game who didn't give an inch away, took chances when it made sense, made very few mistakes (physical or mental).

It was Hernandez off the field that Whitey couldn't live with -- and that meant Keith had to go, period.

Regarding Ken Reitz: back in the '70s, as a kid growing up in St. Louis, my sisters and I (for very different reasons) all loved him. All I saw was that great defense and a couple 30-40 double seasons and a couple seasons with double-digit HR totals at a time when that made you a slugger in St. Louis.

Looking at his numbers now it's incredible to realize that the guy NEVER had a full season with an OBP above .300 and he only cracked .400 slugging (.412) once.

I never would have pegged him as a guy with a career .640 OPS (+79).

Still, somehow, the Cubs saw something in him that made them want to trade Bruce Sutter for him...(okay, for him and Leon Durham).

Well if you count drafts, free agents and trades then there should be an excellent correlation, otherwise win shares does not correlate with wins, which given how they are calculated is impossible right?

actually come to think of it given that players switch leagues and switch to divisions in eras of unbalanced schedules, such an evaluation may give information as to how wins compare from league to league and division to division... it also might point out flaws in win shares. But Im probably just talking out fo my as$.

Good work Studes!

Hernandez played a smart, patiently aggressive game who didn't give an inch away, took chances when it made sense, made very few mistakes (physical or mental).

Smack on target.

Hernandez is, all things considered, one of the most intriguing figures in baseball over the past 30 years. He's obviously highly intelligent, an extremely articulate student of the game, dashingly handsome, a Seinfeld celebrity beyond the realm of baseball.

He's also got that very complex love/hate relationship with his domineering father, and the prediliction to addictions (coke, booze, cigarettes).

There's just an awful lot of stuff going on in trying to understand Keith Hernandez. I suspect there's a great book waiting to be written there.

"No comments on this?

I read this article and Mike's one at lunch. Very interesting, but I don't really see a correlation between success at the trading desk and success on the field."

By the way I was responding to this comment and studes reply. But I thought id add that it should not be too surprising if things do not correlate. There are two main reasons. A minor one is that teams get credit for WS that they loose through free agency, and loose credit for WS they would have lost through free agency anyway. Mainly this is only one of three major ways to build a team, and every team puts different amounts of resources towards each of these three methods (trades, farm, free agents). I would, therefore, expect the correlation between good trades and win/loss record to be low. The Giants are a good example given in this thread... lousy traders, great developers of talent in the farm system... Im guessing they then became great traders to erase most of that deficit from the 60's and early 70's...

There's just an awful lot of stuff going on in trying to understand Keith Hernandez. I suspect there's a great book waiting to be written there.

Even the current book, Pure Baseball, is a beautiful dissection of the game. I'm reading it and Earl Weaver's book at the same time, finding similarities (and some disagreements) all over the place.

Im guessing they then became great traders to erase most of that deficit from the 60's and early 70's...

I don't know about great traders, but the Giants' trading record since Stoneham sold the club in 1975 has generally been good ... Darrell Evans, Jeffrey Leonard, Atlee Hammaker, Mike Krukow, Mark Davis, Kevin Mitchell, Bill Swift, Mike Jackson, Rod Beck, Darren Lewis, Rich Aurilia, Jeff Kent, Ellis Burks, JT Snow, Shawn Estes, Felix Rodriguez, and David Bell are among the many key players acquired in trade by the Giants who delivered net value added.

Regarding Ken Reitz: back in the '70s, as a kid growing up in St. Louis, my sisters and I (for very different reasons) all loved him. All I saw was that great defense and a couple 30-40 double seasons and a couple seasons with double-digit HR totals at a time when that made you a slugger in St. Louis.

You also probably remember him as having a higher batting average than he really had. The man seemed to have a knack for going .400-for-April. If you search the press archives, you'll probably find national stories talking about that great Cardinals left side of the infiled, Templeton and Reitz. Reitz always had good press.

Oberkfell was as good defensively if not better, just less-celebrated for it. And Oberkfell had a lifetime .350 OBP. Maybe Oberkfell would have been in the lineup anyway, at 2B, so trading Reitz actually opened the lineup spot for another .350 OBP player, Tom Herr. Whitey may not have spent all that much time talking about OBP, but that doesn't mean he didn't value it.

Reitz had butter-soft hands and a strong, accurate arm. Problem was his range was about four inches to either side. And that was before he lost his "speed" once he hit 30.

An idea for the modified study: count production in years for which the trading team controls the player's contract. So minor leaguers are counted for six years, and major leaguers are counted for the duration of their current contract, or until their six-year control period runs out.

Of course, the sad thing is Herzog probably managed only one player in his whole career who "played the game his way" on the field to a greater extent than Keith Hernandez.

OK, I'll bite, Steve. Who are you talking about here? George Brett? (The Cardinal fan in me wants to bring up Ozzie.)

OK, I'll bite, Steve.

I didn't say that, Sam did. I'm curious too.

Herzog probably managed only one player in his whole career who "played the game his way" on the field to a greater extent than Keith Hernandez.

Amos Otis?

George Brett?

Yeah, I meant Brett. Brett was different than Hernandez -- more intense, more aggressive -- but very much in that part of Herzog's mold that was demanded an in your face, ultra-competitive, screw-the-SOBs who stand in your way, attitude. Hernandez was also intense and intensely competitive, but in a more contained way. I think if you combined Hernandez's approach to the play of the game, with Brett's leatherneck attitude, you'd have Whitey's perfect player.

There's just an awful lot of stuff going on in trying to understand Keith Hernandez. I suspect there's a great book waiting to be written there.

Are you planning an article on him at some point?

It's been touched upon here a bit, but when I look back at the trades Cashen made for the Mets in the 80s, you really have to tip your cap to him.

Mazzilli for Walt Terrell and Ron Darling

Neil Allen/Rick Ownby for K. Hernandez

Bob Bailor/Carlos Diaz for Sid Fernandez

Terrell for Howard Johnson

Hubie Brooks/Mike Fitzgerald., etc. for Gary Carter

Cal Schiraldi for Bob Ojeda

Ed Hearn for David Cone

It was just one slam dunk after another for a while.

To go back to my earlier post: you said his W/L record was the result of supersized run support. That just ain't the case. Maybe he just exceedingly lucky (either that or I did the math wrong).

The more I think about it, and realize how extreme his expected W/L to actual W/L split is, the more I wonder if I did frick up the math. I did a good job with it - double checking everyone's in season run support, but sometimes errors still help, or I'll type in the wrong number when I dump into excel to figure adjusted win/loss records, so .. . .

I double-check & sure enough -- I screwed up the math. In real life, he had 145 runs scored in 32, given the park factor of 109, and the league runs/game average of 4.01, that works out to an RSI of 104.

Better than what I had it at, but at least now its average/slightly above average run support.

Still a lucky b@stard, but no longer such an all-time historiclly lucky one; just an incredibly lucky one.

He had 12 starts where the game was decided by one run. The Cards were 9-3 in those games (he himself won seven of them). The Cards were 4-1 in two-run games he started (he got all of those wins).

Sorry for the earlier error.