THE BOOK cover
The Unwritten Book is Finally Written!
An in-depth analysis of: The sacrifice bunt, batter/pitcher matchups, the intentional base on balls, optimizing a batting lineup, hot and cold streaks, clutch performance, platooning strategies, and much more.
Read Excerpts & Customer Reviews
If you are a media member and would like a review copy of The Book, please contact Kevin Cuddihy of Potomac Books.

Buy The Book from Amazon

MOST RECENT ARTICLES
MAIL : You ask | We say

Advanced


THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

<< Back to main

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Market Value

By Tangotiger, 05:44 PM

Free agency is not “market value”.  The market is made up of free agency, and arbitration-eligible players and slave wages.  Just because the free agent price is 4 million$ per marginal win (i.e., an average player who is a free agent would make 8 million$, plus an extra 4 million$ for every win above average) does not mean you have to pay for that.  Here’s everything I wrote on a recent USSM thread discussing Richie Sexson:


Sexson, from 2002-2006, is about +2.5 wins above the average league hitter per 150 games, meaning +1.5 win above the average 1B. 

According to the Fielding Bible, for 2004-2006, Sexson ranks 31st among 1B out of 36, but he was 10th for 2006.  If we were to believe Fans, they see Sexson as a step below the league average 1B.  Let’s call him -0.5 wins as a fielder, relative to the average 1B.

So, Sexson would be +1.0 wins above the average 1B.  Each win is worth anywhere from 2 million per win to 4 million per win, depending if you look at it from the true open market, to the current MLBPA-imposed limited supply and excess demand.  So, he’s worth 2 to 4 million$ more than the average 1B.

The average starting B should be 5 million$, but is likely in this market more like 6 or 7 million$.

Giving him all the possible breaks, treating 2002-2006 as his forecast going forward, with no decline from aging, 11 million$ is the most you can argue for him.  In reality, he’s probably worth 7 million$.

***

As for the “guaranteed run” of the HR: yes, it’s true.  And, it’s built-in to BaseRuns and the Perfect Run Modeler.  The only way to work is to weight every event a certain amount.  From 1999-2002, the win value of the HR was +.123 wins.  And, as has been shown many many times by me, the run value of the HR is fairly constant at +1.40 runs, regardless of run environment.  That’s reality.

If you want to argue that GMs overweight HR, so that instead of +.123 wins, they give it +.160 wins, fine.  That doesn’t mean you have to overweight it too.

***

I have 177 USSM readers who told me that he was a somewhat below average fielder:

http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/pos2006_1B.html

It really doesn’t matter what I, Dave, or someone else’s single opinion says.  A group of 177 hardcore Mariner fans will trump any single one person, unless that person is a pro scout who is focused on watching Richie Sexson make a few hundred plays.

***

As for the park factor for HR at Safeco: according to the 2007 BJ Handbook, there were 487 HR hit in Safeco, and 525 hit on the road when the Mariners were played.  The PF was a “93″ (i.e., 7% less HR in Safeco than other parks).  And the HR-PF for LHB?  93.  RHB?  93.

***

I was referring to opinions, not facts. 

Even “the audience” would be wrong sometimes on “Who Wants to be a Millionaire”.

***

And, just to be argumentative and irrelevant to my point, I think 200 college chemistry or physics students would give us an answer that is clustered near the truth, and 200 political science students can tell me who was the x-th president of the US.

***

taro, if you were to make everyone a free agent, where do you think Richie Sexson would rank among 1B?

There are two arguments:

1 - Is Richie Sexson an average to +1.0 wins above average 1B, or is he a +3.0 to +4.0 wins above average 1B?

2 - How does the market pay for that kind of player?

So, answer the first question first.  Go through the 30-40 regular 1B/DH, and tell me where Sexson ranks, and then let’s continue.

***

I’m sure there’s contamination, and that’s the case for any kind of survey that requires someone’s opinion. 

The key is to construct the survey so that the responder focuses on components, rather than an overall assessment.  Survey don’t ask you if you are a “Type A” personality, but rather ask you 30 or 50 questions, of which an overall assessment determines if you are Type A or not.

While I would have loved to ask 20 questions instead of 7 for each fielder, that wouldn’t be possible if I want the volunteer readers to participate.

Whether Sexson is truly below average for a 1B, who really knows.  But the evidence, however tainted by both observers and the data, does show that. It’s up to the reader to determine whether to convict on that evidence.  But, certainly, a single observer’s opinion is almost completely worthless, since I have no way of knowing if that observer was in a sensory deprivation chamber or not (unless that Mariner fan is Michael Jackson).

***

Terry/119 is spot on.  Get rid of him if you can.  Should be easy if you have a house worth 25 million$ with 24 million$ mortgage to find someone else to send you a piece of property worth 9 million$ with an 8 million$ mortgage.

***

“Market” value: to the economists in the group, the free agent market is not the only market, and that’s the difference between the real world and baseball.  You can do what Terry/119 is suggesting, and trade Sexson for guys still in the slave-wage market.  The choice to avoiding the free agent market is that you can concentrate on player development. 

Look at the Marlins.  They had three bona-fide rookies of the year this year, and the ROY was… gasp… traded for, by giving up… gasp … Sexson-like players who were… gasp… fair (free agent) market value, but overpriced in an overall (free agent + arb-eligible + slaves) market.  The Expos and many small-market teams operate in this manner. 

***

Repl/average: there’s no reason at all to talk about replacement level.  I’ve already said that Sexson is +1 win above average 1B.  Go back to my post 90.

In any case, an average player is +2 wins above the replacement level player.  But, you can’t just say “ok, 4 million per win x 3 wins = 12 million”.  That only makes sense if the free agent market is your only option (meaning, you are the Yanks, Mets and Redsox). 

As Dave and Derek are trying to hammer, you don’t have to go to one place, if you have a chance to go somewhere else.  And, getting a +1 above average 1B does NOT require you to go to the free agent route.

***

Did you not see my post about park factors?  Instead of asserting how Safeco affects various hitters, how about some statistically significant numbers to back you up?

***

Sexson’s free agent price is 12 mill per year.  That’s *not* the market (FA+arb+slave) value for a +1 win above average 1B.  Pujols free agent price would be over 40 million per year!  If it came to that, I’d trade Pujols for an entire farm system.

Free agent price does not equal market value.

#1    studes      (see all posts) 2006/11/15 (Wed) @ 22:39

But there is no “market” for arbitration-eligible players or “slave labor.” (terrible name) Those players don’t have a chance to sell their services.  The only market is the free agent one.  If you negotiate with a player who is a free agent, the free agent market is the relevant yardstick.


#2    tangotiger      (see all posts) 2006/11/16 (Thu) @ 00:59

A GM can turn his back on Soriano, and hit the player development or trade market.  Ask Florida.  There are options.


#3    David Gassko      (see all posts) 2006/11/16 (Thu) @ 02:32

Not quite. At a certain point, you have to use the free agent market. You simply can’t build a 90-win (true talent) team through the farm system. What’s more, for some teams, it might make sense to sign free agents, even for over-inflated contracts. A marginal win is worth a lot of large market teams, and they’re the ones (for the most part) signing free agents to big contracts. It may well be that a marginal win is worth $4-5 million to the Yankees, if not more.


#4    studes      (see all posts) 2006/11/16 (Thu) @ 07:41

Of course there are options.  But, I disagree with your definition of a market.  In fact, arbitration salaries are purposely set as a percentage of the only real market there is.

And, as David says, virtually all teams that want to seriously compete for a postseason spot will have to deal in the free agent market eventually.  The key strategy is choosing when and how to do that.  Detroit is a good example.


#5    Guy      (see all posts) 2006/11/16 (Thu) @ 07:46

This totally depends on what question you’re asking. 

If you want to evaluate a single FA signing, Studes is clearly right:  you ask if the talent/price ratio is better or worse than the current average for FAs.  That’s the current market rate for FAs. That price can’t be ‘good’ or ‘bad’—it just is.  (Of course, whether a signing meets the needs of that team at that moment is another question.)

Clearly, it’s better to have arb- and pre-arb players.  So if we’re evaluating a franchise or a GM, it’s fair to ask what kind of return they’re getting on total payroll.  If they are relying a lot on FAs, and therefore paying more for talent on average, it’s fair to criticize that (and praise GMs who can develop or trade for a lot of non-FA talent).

But teams and fans operate in the present.  We want to win now, or at least soon.  So it would be a mistake to rule out the FA market as a way of improving your team. Purchasing players at the market rate, when they fit your needs, is a completely rational and effective way to improve a team.


#6    tangotiger      (see all posts) 2006/11/16 (Thu) @ 09:23

"You simply can’t build a 90 win...”

I’m sure there are plenty of examples of building a 90-win team, without paying free agent market prices.  Here’s one:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/MON/1994.shtml

How about the Marlins:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/FLA/2003.shtml

I-Rod was signed as a free agent, but he’s the best catcher in the league, and was signed at likely normal market price, not free agent price.

I refuse to accept the premise that you can’t build a 90-win team without free agency.

As well, there are very few true 90-win teams to begin with.  A fairer number would be a true 85-win team.  In any case, you want to build a team that is in the top-third, or top-quarter, in talent.  That would be the sweet spot.


#7    tangotiger      (see all posts) 2006/11/16 (Thu) @ 09:28

According to PECOTA, a true 85 win team would put you 10th in a league of 30.  Only two teams were 90+ wins (Redsox and Yanks).  So, with unlimited payroll, you can do it.  Otherwise, that’s not the realistic goal.


#8    studes      (see all posts) 2006/11/16 (Thu) @ 10:58

Well, I refuse to accept the premise that most teams can build a “true” 85-win team without free agency.  There simply isn’t enough of that level talent to go around.  Part of the far end of your distribution of talent will always be free agents, and teams that play in the free agent market will be more likely to achieve “true” 85-win status.


#9    tangotiger      (see all posts) 2006/11/16 (Thu) @ 11:12

I never said most teams can do it.  I’m refuting the argument that free agency is a necessity.  Obviously, if you overspend for something, you’ll end up producing more.  That’s a given.  All I’m saying is that you don’t need, as a necessity, to spend free agent prices.  How many teams think it’s a good idea to let Tejada and Giambi walk, to trade away Mulder and Hudson, and let Zito play it out?  It’s harder to do, but it’s doable.


#10    Guy      (see all posts) 2006/11/16 (Thu) @ 11:14

"I refuse to accept the premise that you can’t build a 90-win team without free agency.”

“According to PECOTA...Only two teams were 90+ wins (Redsox and Yanks).  So, with unlimited payroll, you can do it.”

Tango:  As you know better than anyone, anecdotes are not evidence.  Two successful low-payroll teams in 13 years tells us precisely nothing. And almost by definition there will only be a very few players available at any given time at below-market compensation, so most teams cannot possibly take this route.

If your point is that teams that can’t afford to sign free agents can still—with skill and luck—sometimes succeed, well of course that’s true.  And they have no choice but to try.  But if your point is that even teams that can afford to sign FAs shouldn’t do so (unless they can sign a player at well below current FA market rates), well, that’s just not a plausible position.  It is often true that the best way for a team to improve quickly is to acquire a suitable free agent.

* *

“In any case, you want to build a team that is in the top-third, or top-quarter, in talent.  That would be the sweet spot.”

I disagree.  The sweet spot is being number 1 in talent.  The next sweetest spot is being number 2.  And so on.  You can’t control luck, so you want to assemble the most talent you can, given your resources.  Remember, the goal is to WIN GAMES, not post the best Win/Payroll ratio.


#11    studes      (see all posts) 2006/11/16 (Thu) @ 11:26

I agree with Guy.  I think Free Agency is close to a necessity.  Yes, there are teams that sometimes have great years without free agents, but that’s because only a few teams try to do it.  If more teams followed your strategy, it would be less successful because all the free agent talent would be more consolidated into fewer teams.

Point of view is important, because it colors one’s assessment of every player contract and acquisition.


#12    tangotiger      (see all posts) 2006/11/16 (Thu) @ 11:28

Those examples were to refute the “not possible”.  So, it is possible.  I’m sure I can go through each year and find many teams.  The A’s and Twins probably the most prominent.  The Expos throughout the 80s.

***

The goal is to make the playoffs, and that’s 8 teams (25% of teams).  The sweet spot, where you are going to get the most bang for your buck, is around the 85-win mark.

***

And I agree that since the supply isn’t great, some teams, while even wanting to go into FA, won’t even be able to.


#13    studes      (see all posts) 2006/11/16 (Thu) @ 11:29

By the way, your choice of the Athletics as an example is a case in point.  They do play in the free agent market, but they do it intelligently.


#14    tangotiger      (see all posts) 2006/11/16 (Thu) @ 11:32

Again, I’m always talking about not paying free agent prices.  David Eckstein for example, was a free agent who cost the overall market price, and not the inflated free agent price.


#15    studes      (see all posts) 2006/11/16 (Thu) @ 11:55

OK, yes I agree that you can build a true 85-90 win team without paying retail free agent prices.  By definition, only a few teams can do it, because if all teams did it then the average free agent price would fall.  And I don’t think the economics of baseball encourage teams to do it, other than the low-value, “have-not” teams such as Florida, Oakland and Minnesota.  For high-value teams (and Seattle is a high-value team), the payback of a playoff appearance makes that incremental dollar spent on a free agent worthwhile.


Page 1 of 1 pages


Name (required)
E-Mail (optional)
Website (optional)

<< Back to main


Latest...

COMMENTS

Jan 08 04:25
Sabermetric Moves of the 2009 Pre-Season

Jan 09 02:33
Cheers

Jan 08 23:45
The first Hardball Times Annual available for download!

Jan 08 21:16
Line Drives

Jan 08 20:23
(recent) Historical WAR on Fangraphs

Jan 08 16:07
Clint Eastwood is Archie Bunker

Jan 08 16:06
Hardball Times Annual 2008, starring…

Jan 08 15:58
Madoff’s Ponzi

Jan 08 03:41
Valuing relievers

Jan 07 17:41
The latest in park factors