THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Pineiro, 2/13, paying for 1.7 WAR.

Pineiro had a horrible forecast coming into the 2007 season, half-way between a replacement-level pitcher and a starter.

For the 2007 season, it’s was a strange one.  He looks like he performed better as a starter than as a reliever, but that’s because he did exceptionally well with men on base.  This is a talent that few hold.  A better sign is his OBP/SLG in his two roles.  As a reliever, he was horrible, basically replacement-level, or worse.  As a starter however, he was a bit below league average.

The expectation is that your performance as a reliever should be no worse than that as a starter, and likely significantly better.  Pineiro showed a reverse split, which may be due to sample size, or a change in environment (Bos/STL), or he really hated being a reliever.

This is one of those cases where you’d want to look at the pitch-by-pitch data.  Barring that, we’re stuck.  If Pineiro can provide say a .450 record as a starter, with about 15 full starts (say around 135 IP), that makes him a 1 WAR pitcher.  For him to go all the way to a 1.7 WAR, which is what the Cards are paying him, he’d have to be a .480 pitcher with 17 full starts.

I don’t think that is justifiable, so I’ll have to say that the Cards overpaid for him.

That said, if you are going to overpay for someone, at least sticking to 2 years is palatable.

If ever there’s a case of needing to sign someone to an incentive-filled deal, this is it.

Tango, this is kind of related and kind of not.  I cannot for the life of me figure out why Theo signed Pineiro to a $4m deal this year.  Do you think it was a matter of competition for his services necessitating that price?  Or is it some kind of baseball rule having to do with years of service, arbitration, or something like that?  I just can’t believe that some other team was willing to pay even $3 million, so I wonder if this is an issue of Theo somehow misreading the market.  Seems trivial, but this is one move the Sox have made that I just can’t follow.  If you want to take a chance on a guy, fine.  But couldn’t they have done it for $1.5 million or something?

I think it was just a dumb signing, same situation as Bill Stoneman signing Shea Hillenbrand for 6 million. Or a much more costly mistake like giving Carlos Lee 100 million - which the Astros probably don’t even realize was a mistake since he got his 30 hr and 100 rbi.

Piniero was a free agent and any team that signs him is under no obligation to pay him more than the league minimum.  If service time had anything to do with it, Julio Franco would be getting A-Rod money.

Apparently Piniero has a very good agent, who worked his magic on Epstein last year and gets an even better deal from the Cards.

Coming into the 2007 season, the Bill James forecast was for a slightly below average pitcher.  Marcel had him much closer to replacement.  Chone, for some reason had him forecast for 60 K, 25 BB, plus a 4.45 ERA, which was lower than any of his 2004-2006 ERAs.  Clearly, Chone must be wrong in its forecast.  And yet, he ended up 60/26, 4.33 for the 2007 season!  Hopefully, Chone forecast him for a reliever (85IP forecast), so that would explain the very favorable forecast.  It’s just interesting that he stunk as a reliever.

Anyway, he should have been signed last year to a 1/2.5 or so deal.  Redsox have the luxury to overpay for potential.

Yes, I did a starter to reliever conversion on him.  At the time I ran the projections, he was supposed to be the new Red Sox closer with Papelbon going to the rotation.

Do NOT forget that there is a gigantic difference in the NL and AL right now.  A pitcher going from the AL to the NL “gains” something like .3 runs in ERA.  (Same is true for hitters.)

If you are an NL team you MUST get almost all of your players from the AL, as they will likely be undervalued as compared to NL players.

For those of you who don’t know what I mean…

For example, if a starter in the AL has a true talent ERA (whatever that actual number happens to be - doesn’t matter whether it is 4.3 or 4.8) of exactly league average (so he is a league average starter - obviously) and he goes to the NL, he will have a true talent ERA of around .3 runs LESS than the NL league average (again, that could be 3.5 or 4.5).

That has nothing to do with the parks or the hitting.  It is because the average pitcher in the AL is .3 runs in ERA better than the average pitcher in the NL (if they played in the same park against the same batters).

Good stuff Rally. 

A .500 reliever (+.030 above replacement) for 85 IP (almost 9 full games), still registers as barely above replacement (+0.3 wins).  That would make his salary offer from the Redsox at $1 million.  How you can (a) go to free agency and (b) find a closer for $1 million is clearly ludicrous unless you (c) offer him $4 million to do so.  The Expos did something similar when they signed Graeme Lloyd and Hideki Irabu: overpay for an asset so that it looks valuable.  That would explain Carlos Lee.

MGL, I get pretty much the same results for league difference.  I ran a dead average pitcher through the CHONE system, and I get a 0.42 difference between pitching in an average AL park vs NL.  The American League has about a .10 higher ERA the last few years, so relatively, the AL guy is .30 runs better.

For Piniero I have a 4.53 ERA in St Louis, assuming average defense.  He would be 5.17 in Boston.  The projection is split with 19 games starting and 37 games total - I’ll add G and GS this year so people know what role I’m projecting.

I haven’t gotten to projecting team defense yet but St Louis will probably be above average, mainly because they have Rolen and Pujols.

Of my top 30 projected starters, 21 are in the American League.  The disparity is really apparent when you watch these playoffs, and for 3 of the NL teams, they have very good aces (Hamels, Webb, Francis) but when you get to the #2 guy you ask yourself “how did this guy get to make a playoff start.  Of course the Cubs had three decent starters and still got swept.  Funny game.

http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/10/cards-sign-joel-pineiro

JC has Pineiro’s value for performances in 2005/06 as totalling 16MM.  I think there’s definitely something wrong with how he comes up with that number.  Without running the numbers completely, it’s a safe bet that Pineiro was one of the worst starters over those two years.

Ah, what the heck:
http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/m4z2

Of all starters with at least 300 IP in 2005/06, 86 starters qualified.  Pineiro had the second worst OPS+ of the group.  (I forgot about you, Ramon Ortiz.) Pineiro also had the worst ERA+ of the bunch.

Even dropping the qualifier down to 200 IP, he’s 136th out of 140 in ERA+.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/pineijo01.php

BP has him at -52 runs relative to average over 355 IP, or -1.32 runs per 9 IP.

That’s below replacement level performance.

Sorry, JC.  The numbers don’t add up.

I have updated the salary chart for this off-season:
http://www.tangotiger.net/salary.html

The 2007 and 2008 charts are both available.  I went with 4.4MM per win for the 2008 chart, which is 10% higher than the 4.0 for the 2007.

Obviously, better research would give us a better number.  I’m happy with the “rule of 10” for now.

There’s also a link back to this blog from the page, so that should make life easier for all.

I’m just waiting for BDB to get their data up-to-date so that I can run Marcels, and we’re off to the races…

Good stuff.  It would be nice to know the marginal dollar value of a marginal win once and for all, but I think your assumption is going to be close either way.  It’s funny how just a few years ago we were saying $2 mil per win is what you should strive for and now we’ve doubled that number.

With that said, because your number is for free agents, would you use that same $4.4 mil per marginal win to calculate the value of an arbitration/non FA player?  Wouldn’t be (technically) have to create another $/marginal win number for these players that are not FA or you have already signed (and what to know what they are now worth in present value)?

Going further, if we had access to team financial data and could calculate the dollar value of a marginal win for each team, I guess that would take care of non FA.  I really wish someone could get hold of that data because that combined with slwts would get use nearly to 100% of what each player is really worth.  I know a lot of players’ value wouldn’t change that much, but I think the information would be worthwhile.

You’re probably new around here!  I use the following:
20% 2.x to 3 years less a day
40% 3 to 4 years less a day
60% 4 to 5 years less a day
80% 5 to 6 years less a day

For guys who had exactly 3 years of prior ML service, their arbitration value is 40% of the free agent value, or 1.76MM per win.

The 2.x means only the “super twos”, or guys who qualify for arbitration.

I was also thinking that there’s a “lag”, since arbitration awards are based on prior comps.  But, for multi-year settlements (like Chase Utley), there wouldn’t be a lag.

Still, I’m going to be doing work on these classes of players, now that two people so generously gave me the long-needed ML service time data.

The 2007 multi-year arb players were very low (Utley, Mauer, McCann), which makes me think the 20/40/60/80 is too generous (or more likely that these players got scr-wed).

Another thing is that there’s greater revenue sharing (meaning fewer marginal dollars).  Think about the NFL, where a substantial portion of their revenue is shared.  If all their stadium revenue was also shared across all 30 teams, then guess what: there is zero monetary incentive to get a better product, and therefore, the marginal dollars per win would be zero.

So, it’s possible that the 10% growth I’m giving should be much lower, especially if the MLB revenue growth is due to MLBAM.

However, I feel quite confident that MLB owners have no fiscal responsibility, and are pure Picasso purchasers: they will spend to their budget, even if market forces allow them to spend far below that.  They are like kids at a toy store, thinking this is the only toy store around, and all the other kids will soon gobble up all the toys.  They end up creating a market that would otherwise not need to exist if they simply applied a modicum of rationality.

Greg Maddux: signed for 1/10, paying for 2.3 WAR.

I don’t have my Marcels, and since this is just a 1-yr deal, I’ll just wing it.  He will probably be forecast for 180 IP for 2008, meaning 20 full games.  He did have a 4.14 ERA, and his FIP was a fanstatic 3.52.  But, this is Petco.  The impact of parks on runs is listed here:
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/run_impact_in_parks/

We need to bump up Padres’ ERAs by 0.50, which is fairly substantial.  This basically makes Maddux a .500 pitcher.

Since a replacement pitcher (as a starter) is a .380 pitcher, that makes Maddux +.12 wins above replacement per game, or +2.4 wins above replacement.

This is a huge bingo.

(Maddux, I would bet, has figured out that he can keep “looking” good by pitching in a pitcher’s park.)

Schilling: 1/8, plus 2MM “healthy” bonus, 3MM “performance” bonus, 1 MM for any Cy Young votes paying for ??.

Let’s assume that he’ll hit 1.5MM on the healthy bonuses, and 2MM on the performance, and won’t receive any Cy votes.  That makes it a 1/11.5 deal, paying for 2.6 WAR.

Let’s presume 162 IP (18 full games), as a slightly above average pitcher (say .525).  That makes him +.145 WAR per game, or a total of WAR of 2.6.

I swear that I wrote this on the fly, and in just 5 minutes.

A huge bingo.

I just thought of something.  The AL is the superior league, as we’ve shown say an 8 win gap between the average AL and average NL teams.  But, the average AL team won 82 games and the average NL was 80 games.  There’s an additional 6 win gap that needs to be applied (+3 wins for each AL team, and -3 wins for each NL team).

+3 wins means about +1.3 wins for the pitchers and +1.7 wins for the nonpitchers.  If you pitch 162 innings (18 full games), that’s 1/9 of 1.3 that needs to be adjusted, or an extra 0.14 wins to be added to Schilling, and 0.16 wins to be subtracted to Maddux.

So, when I said that Schilling is a 2.6 win pitcher, he’s probably a 2.74 win pitcher.

And calling Maddux a 2.4 should really be a 2.24.

Not much of a difference obviously, especially since I’m just doing this with the least amount of effort.

Here’s the free agent tracker at ESPN:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/features/freeagents

***

Mike Lowell: looks like he’s a +1 win hitter, and Fans still see him as a +1 win fielder.  Dewan’s Plus/Minus concurs somewhat.  So, he’s +2 wins above average.  Take off 0.5 wins for aging.  No adjustments for 3B.  Playing time expected to be full-time.  So, +3.5 WAR player.

I expect him to sign for: 2/30, 3/43, 4/55, 5/65 deal.  What’s the word on the street?

Omar Vizquel:

This is where more research on aging would be nice.  He’ll be 41 years old, and the Marcel forecast of 5/4/3 just doesn’t seem to me that it should apply.  I have to believe that the further away you are from age 27, then the more weight you have to give the recent season.  Something like 5/2/1, or something.  From 2004-2006, Vizquel was a shade below league average hitter (not for a SS, but for all hitters).  But in 2007, he was one of, if not the, worst hitter in the league.  (Or, I should accurately say “worst performing...”, which is a big difference.)

Furthermore, there’s a regression toward the mean component, which is league average.  But, he is 41 years old.  And, he should be regressed toward a different population mean: that of 41 year olds.  The outlook for that is not good. 

The optimistic forecast is to call him a -1.5 win as a hitter.  But, given what I said about forecasting an older hitter with heavier weight to his recent performance (disasterous for Vizquel), and giving an older hitter an even sharper decline, I think a -2.0 wins as a hitter would be appropriate.

On the other hand, his fielding is still stellar!  Not only do the Fans have him as one of the best in the league (+2 wins!), but Dewan’s Plus/Minus has him very high as well.  But, a 41-yr old SS has got to age faster than we’d allow.  Don’t forget, an IF relies on his legs alot, and speed is the fastest declining tool to a player.  And Fans are notoriously biased with aging stars.  Calling him a +0.5 win SS is as low as I could go, fielding-wise.  +1.0 might be more reasonable.  Somewhere in there.

SS also get a +0.5 win premium just for being SS. 

So, his WAR over 162 games would be something like +1 win, maybe +1.5. 

Again, at his age, how much playing time can we expect?  130 games means 80% of the season, so that puts him at +0.8 to +1.2 wins.

So, my take is that he would deserve a 1/4.4 deal.

It may be worthwhile to put this discussion topic at the top of the page as long as the off-season goes. Like the postseason strategy thread during the postseason.

Tango, I’m correct in assuming that you’re supposed to try to find the players true talent level before using your scale, right? It looks like that’s what you’re doing, but I just wanted to make sure (I’ve already used it a couple of times on my blog/message boards ... thanks for it, as usual!)

It looks like to me the Schilling and Maddux deals are going to be fine ones, especially for pitchers.

The suspected Vizquel deal took a lot of flak over at BTF as I was reading through that thread, but as you show here, I don’t think it’s as bad as some people think (mostly due to Vizquel’s still very good defense).

Well, as a general rule, I don’t want to pay free agent prices, since all those players are paid double what they should be paid.

But, if you HAVE to go the free agent route, that’s the going rate.

Now, you don’t HAVE to go get a free agent who is a 1 WAR player.  But, teams still seem to pay those prices.  Go figure.

And yes, you are paying for true talent, always and forever.

23/Tango: Thanks.

So, basically if a deal lines up with your chart, it’s in line with what the market is paying for free agents. I think I got it…

And I agree with you on your second point there, of course. I’m sure many teams overlook younger/cheaper players in their organization to pay a “proven” free agent. Even if they get a fair deal on the market, it doesn’t always mean that it’s a good decision.

Please, please don’t forget that if a team signs a player at his market rate according to Tango’s numbers, they are exactly as “smart” as the average major league team, which ain’t too smart.  Before you start congratulating a team on a signing that is around the proper value, keep that in mind.  Not to say that a team should never sign a player at or above this value.  That is not what a team should be looking for anyway.  The ONLY thing a team should care about is how much revenue they will draw compared to how much they spend, and as we know, that is complicated.  Very complicated.

But, as a rule of thumb, any smart team (smarter than the average team) should look to be signing FA, on average, for quite a bit less than 4.4m per win.

So, as a general rule, if a team signs a player for around what they SHOULD get paid according to the “4.4 per rule”, you are entitled to say, “O.K., they are just as smart or dumb as the average team.” Before you say that something is a “good signing” wait for it to be well under market value!  This is not like most businesses where market value is the proper baseline. Not even close. In baseball, market value is the sum total of 5 really smart teams, 10 slightly smart ones, 10 dumb ones, and 5 really dumb ones.  If you can’t beat market value (on the average) for FA signings, you ain’t a sabermetric team.  Don’t forget that for every overpaid player (one who signs for 6 or 7 mil per), and there will be many, there HAS TO BE equivalently underpaid ones.  The smarter teams are likley to gobble up these underpaid players.  As well, these smart teams are not likely to overpay (much) for anyone, especially if they are not large market (high revenue) smart teams, like the BoSox (who can pay anything for any player as long as that player will give them at least as muich marginal revenue as they pay for him).

Marginal revenue… or blood.

"I expect him to sign for: 2/30, 3/43, 4/55, 5/65 deal.  What’s the word on the street?”

There haven’t been a lot of specific numbers associated with Lowell.  An early rumor was that NYY was willing to go 5yrs/70M which scared Sox fans, but is pretty close to your 5 year number.

Sox have said that they would go 3 guaranteed years and Lowell has reportedly indicated he was open to a hometown discount.  My initial feeling was that the Sox would max out at 3/42, but some other team would get him for 4/56.  Recent reports have speculated that the Lowell market is a bit soft, however.

Honestly those were my numbers before I saw yours.  So from what I can tell it looks like the rumored Lowell market is surprisingly rational for an aging WS MVP with great clubhouse intangibles.

Tango, I forgot where you get your 4.4 per from, but in any case, don’t teams spend considerably more for pitching wins than batting wins (as you would expect them to, as they overrate pitching as compared to offense), in which case, they must be evaluated separately?

philly: good stuff.

MGL: I used 4MM last year, and simply bumped it up by 10%.  I based it on studes’ work on Net Win Shares Value, which is an annual must read.  (Where is studes anyway?)

I don’t think they necessarily spend more for pitching (esp with the repl level I use: .380 for starters, and .470 for relievers).  It seemed to work out fairly ok last year, with all those pretty good pitchers.

Tango/14.

My bad.  We’ve actually emailed each other a few times.  I definitely remember you talking about arbitration value before, but I forgot about the numbers.  Thanks for posting them.

While we use the $4 or $4.4 million per win value for FA now and the 20/40/60/80 arbitration values, if we were able to calculate the exact value of a marginal win for each team, would the former two numbers used to calculate a player’s dollar value still be necessary?  Thinking out-loud here, I guess if we knew the exact value of a marginal win for each team, then we could really evaluate each contract signing as “good” or “bad,” because as MGL pointed out, the $4-4.4 mil/win value is merely what the average market price is nowadays, not the optimal price each team should/can be spending.  Just something to think about I guess…

I like these threads because the 4.4 per win is from the perspective of a fan.

If you look at marginal revenue you’ll probably get a figure around 2 millon.  Maybe a bit more since that was studied awhile ago, but certainly not 4 million.  A team that looked to profit maximize would refuse to pay market rate for free agents, miss out on almost all of them, and lose a lot of games.  But at least they’d make money.

I’m glad I don’t root for one of the teams that takes that approach.  Teams can afford to spend 4 to 4.5 million per win, and most of them do. I’m happy when my team buys a good expensive player at 4.4 per win, because it means they will win more, though it may not be great for their bottom line.

When a team overpays, like in the Carlos Lee example, fans should be upset, because the team is using its resources inefficiently and will not win as many games because of it.

Juan Uribe: signed for 1/4.5, paying for 1 WAR.

Both my sources list his service time as 6y, 89 days, meaning he would have otherwise qualified for free agency, if not for his contract.  The Sox has a 5MM option for him, and they renegotiated down to 4.5MM. 

Uribe is not a good hitter, despite his HR.  He’s a -1.5 win hitter.

The Fans saw him as an average fielding SS last year (0 wins), a substantial drop from his 2005/06 evaluation (+1 win). Dewan’s Plus/Minus concurs with the change, showing a nearly 1 win difference.  However, Dewan had him lower to begin with.  I’ll stick with 0.

He gets the 0.5 win adjustment as a SS.

Aging doesn’t really apply here. 

That puts him at -1 WAA, or +1 WAR.

Basically, a perfect signing.  I was at first surprised that Uribe negotiated himself down, thinking that he must be much better than a 1 WAR player.  But, his fielding must have taken a big tumble last year.

Torii Hunter:

He’s a +1 win as a hitter.  Fans have him as a bit above +1 win as a fielder, while Dewan has him at +0.5 wins.  Fans are also notorious for overvaluing aging stars, though they decked him pretty good between 2005 and 2006.  Let’s give him the +1 as a fielder.  He gets his +0.5 as a CF.  And we drop him 0.5 for his age.  That puts him at +4 WAR.

Expect him to sign for 3/51, 4/65, 5/78, 6/89.

Any word on the street?

A little technical note for nonpitchers.  When I present the WAA, it’s based per 162 GP (or 700 PA).  The replacement level is -2.25 per 162 GP (which is the same as -2 per 144 G, or -2 per 620 PA).

So if you have a guy forecasted for 600 PA (86% of a season), and if his WAA is +1 per 162, then his WAR per 162 is +3.25.  And 86% of that is +2.8.

I’ll sometimes fly through and simply do +1 +2 = +3.  I should be a bit more careful here.

Hmmm… I see Torii rejected a 3/45 deal in August, in favor of a longer term deal.  This means the Twins were paying him to be a 3.6 WAR player.  Torii also wants a long-term deal (5 or 6 years).  At the 3.6 WAR level, that means the Twins would have offered 5/65, 6/72 (i.e., according to the Twins implied value, 3/45 is the same as 5/65).  It seems to me that if the Twins opening offer was that close (3.6 WAR, compared to my 4.0 WAR), that they should be able to meet the free agent price.  Unless of course they are in rebuilding mode.

Maybe Torii is looking at being more favorably compared to Wells and Ichiro.

#31, this whole idea of what constitutes a good or bad signing is a complicated one with few definitive answers.  I don’t pretend that I have much insight although I have thought about it a lot (usually to little avail).

The average dollars per marginal win for FA (which is what the 4.4m is supposed to represent for this year including anticipated inflation) is as good as any as a frame of reference or starting point to analyze signings.  On the other hand, it doesn’t mean a whole lot on a team by team and player by player basis.

Not to mention the fact (and I have mentioned this a lot over the years), what do we mean by “good” or “bad” and from whose perspesctive?  For example, the persepctive of a fan who just wants to give his team the best chance of winning the WS or winning as many games as possible (and even that is ignoring the long-term) is COMPLETELY different from the perspective of an owner who wants to make as much money as possible in the short and long term.  And what about the GM who is usually given a set budget to spend and must field and develop the best team possible in the short AND long run as well as keep his job and in some cases, LOOK GOOD to the fans, media, owners, etc. (let’s face it, part of human motivation is “looking good” even if that is not an especially optimal strategy from other persepctives).

Now, there are other considerations, such as the likely non-linear value of the marginal win across the population of players.  Because of supply and demand, the more marginal wins a player’s talent represents, the higher value (in terms of market value strictly) each marginal win.  Let’s say that there were one player worth 5 WAR and all the rest were exactly average (say, 2 WAR).  Well, there would be NO competition among teams for all of those average players; there would be enough to go around.  They would all get paid something less (maybe 75%) than the amount of revenue they provided their team, assuming that all teams/owners were rationale and only in business to make money.

What about that good player (assuming that everyone knows he is the only good player).  Presumably, at least according to the linear model, he would be worth and paid 2.5 times that of the other players (5 WAR versus 2).  But that is not what will happen of course.

In a rational market where every team has the same revenue, that one player’s price will be “bid up” by all 30 teams because he is the only way that one lucky team can be an above average team.  Let’s forget about playoff potential and sweet spots for a second.  What would be be “bid up to” in a rational market?  Not higher than the revenue he produces.  But, somewhat higher than the other players per marginal win.  If the other players were paid 75% of their revenue value, this one premium player would be paid 80% or 85%.

Now let’s throw in the fact that some teams’ marginal wins are worth a lot more than others, which is indeed the case.  All the other players would still be paid the same amount, more or less.  The rich teams would not have to pay any more than any other teams for these players because there are plenty of them to go around. 

But what about this one premium player?  Well, obviously the rich teams can and will afford to pay much more for him per marginal win than for the other players.  And because of the competition among those rich teams, his price will be bid up enormously.

Now, throw into the mix the fact that teams/owners are not rational (from a bottom line perspective).  Many owners don’t care (or they say they do, but they don’t operate like they do, or the people that work for them don’t operate that way and the owner does not know it) how much money they make.  A team, as Tango says, is like a Picasso to them.  And the more they win, the prettier and more prestigous that painting is to them.  What happens then?  Well, that premium player is going to get bid up even more as teams who cannot really “afford” him will enter into the mix, and teams that WANT him no matter what will actually bid more than they can “afford” as well.

That is why premium FA’s are worth more per WAR than non-premium ones.  Simply because there are fewer of them and the law of supply and demand is part of the valuing equation.  Basically the valuing equation for a marginal win is: value in marginal dollars plus the effect of supply and demand.  If you think that the first thing takes care of the second, you are wrong as my example clearly illustrates.

There are many other issues and complications of this “is a signing worth it or not” equation.  I will comment further, not the least of which is that each team (at least each category of team in terms of revenue) is COMPLETELY different in terms of evaluating FA contracts.

I mean it is mildly interesting (and that is a stretch) to evaluate a player signing in terms of his projected WAR (you can use any one of a number of equally good forecasting systems) and then see how much he “should” get paid according to a “4.4m per” standard.  That is going to get old quickly.

Boston paper today reports Sox have a 3 year $12M to $15M deal on the table for Lowel - or 3 year $36M to $45M. The high end being very close to your 3/43 Tango.

Cool, thanks.  I see in the paper they qualify it as a “strong offer”; what the h-ck does that mean??

***

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/jon_heyman/11/08/scoop.thursday/?eref=mostpop

Jon Heyman is doing his free agent analysis, too.  Let me compare.  He called for ARod for 8/256, and now is saying 10/320.  I said 8/252 (or 10/306).  Looks like we both think the same thing here.

He says Torii 6/90.  I said 6/89.  Awfully close!

He says Lowell 4/52.  I said 4/55.  Another tight one.

I didn’t look at his numbers for the other players I haven’t done yet.  Not that this would bias me anyway, since I spend all of 5 minutes on each player, and what I do is fairly verifiable.

With many evolutions, you wake up one morning and notice that everything has changed. That is not necessarily due to a “tipping point” but sometimes it is.  Sometimes it is just the illusion of a tipping point.  Like when you lose your hair a little at a time and you wake up one day and notice that you are bald!

Anyway, I think we may have reached the point where teams and even the media know pretty much how to evaluate and pay players.  Not completely, but alot more than just a few years ago.

Either that, or this guy and others are just copying Tango’s numbers…

The 2008 forecasts from Bill James (BIS) are up:
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=841&position=C

***

Jorge Posada:

Bill James has him forecast for his career average, which makes him a +2 win hitter (per 162 games).  I don’t have my Marcels for him (or anyone) yet, but that’s probably what I’d have, prior to aging.  Fielding-wise, probably an average catcher.  Give him the +1 win bonus for being a catcher, and -0.5 wins for aging, and he’s +2.5 WAA (per 162).  Add in the 2.25 for replacement, per 162, then reduce the total (4.75) by 25% for playing time, and he’s a +3.5 WAR player going into 2008.

That puts him in the same salary class as Mike Lowell: 3/43, 4/55.

Let me look at Heyman..... 4/52.

Yeesh.  What’s the point!  I think MGL is right…

Interestingly enough, Cashman has stated he will sweeten the 3 year $40M deal currently on the table - Perhaps to 4 years $55M. Tipping point indeed

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/11/08/yankees.posada/

Omar signed for 1/5.3, compared to my expectation of 1/4.4.  His implied value of 1.2 WAR, which is a bit on the optimistic side.  Fair signing.

Pedro Feliz:

His fielding is sensational, Gold-Glove caliber.  And I say this without ever having seen him (or noticing him).  I’m no expert, which is why I rely on Giants fans.  Fans call him +1.5 wins as a fielder.  John Dewan has him as the top 3B from 2005-2007 (+61 runs).  Clearly, he’s fantastic with the glove.

His hitting on the other hand is at the -1.0 or -1.5 win level.

Overall, he’s somewhere between a league average 3B to a somewhat above.  Add in the aging, and he’s at league average, or a bit below.

That puts him right around a +2 WAR player.

I’d sign him for 2/16, or 3/21.

My guess is that good fielding, no-hitting 3B are undervalued.  Let’s see who goes for him.

I agree that he and his ilk are likely to be undervalued.

Let’s play this game with John McDonald. Signed for $3.8 for 2008/2009. He became really, for the first time in his career, the everyday regular at short in June. By several measures he appeared to have an outstanding defensive season in 2007, UZR had him at +21/150, PMR at +21, the Fielding Bible gave us 3 year data sample, so I used it, extrapolated to 1440 innings from 2005-2007 he comes in at +20.7 runs. The Fans had him as the second best shortstop in the game behind Everett. He’s a hard guy to get a handle on historically because of previously being a utility/spot starter, the sample size is not great. Still I think there’s enough data out there to call him a 2 win defensive player ( I’m not sure how much age will effect his performance moving forward, especially considering how Omar has aged, a 2-3% decline per year?).

Hitting wise he’s abysmal. Using B.R’s base runs and factoring him up to 650 plate appearances, he’s -35.3 runs compared to the league. I actually took all A.L. starting shortstops, factored them to 650 P.A’s and determined the average production to be -14.5 Base runs for the shortstops. So he’s basically a minus 2 win hitter at his position.

This is where things get murky for me. Going forward if he’s a full time player he’s a - 2 WAA hitter, given aging he’s a + 1.5 WAA defender, this takes him to +1.5 WAR ( I won’t add the SS premium since I’ve factored this in all ready by comparing his offence to the average SS) (Is this right?)

Basically he’s performing at the level of Omar (+1 .5 WAR). If he played everyday you’d pay such a player $ 6.75 million. Now he’s never been a regular, and it remains to be seen if he can maintain his 2007 fielding at the 2007 level over the course of a full year. Spending $1.9 million/year for this level of performance, even as a utility player seems good bang for the buck.

I think you are giving him too much defensive credit.  Even using your numbers (Dewan), you have to regress and keep in mind that only the best SS in the prime of their defensive careers (young) are in the +20 (2 win) range.

Plus, my numbers for him are not even close.  He was +14 (per 150 games) this year, but in prior years, he was minus.  The fans will tend to rate a player on how he has done lately if he is new at a position (and on his repuation if he is old at a position), so I would not put TOO much credence in the fan rating for him.

I would put him at 1 win, 1.5 win tops, and that is using Dewan’s data and not mine.  Using mine, I would have to put him at 1 win tops.

Plus, figure 2 runs a year loss at SS with age.

Hitting-wise, you are probably right on the money, maybe a little too pessimistic because you are not considering regression toward the mean since he does not have that many ML PA.

He is, as you say, an awful hitter.  Truly awful.  He has been (in actual performance) well below replacement level even for a SS.

However, with regression, I would have to put him at 1.5 wins below average or around .5 above replacement, at best.  Considering that I don’t quite use 2 wins below average for replacement, I am going to comfortably call him a replacement hitter at SS.

So, that makes him 1.5 wins above replacement, but I think it is more like 1 win, using my defensive assessment.

I agree that it is probably a decent deal.  The fact that it is not widely known that he is a very good defensive player and his abysmal hitting, probably makes him an undervalued player.  Who, other than a team that “knows him,” would want to pay this guy anything at all?

Then again, since there is fine line between replacement and a win above replacement, and there are a lot of players in that category, you are going to find a lot of “bargians” in that area.

Plus, it is debatable that a .5 win (above repalcement) player is actually worth 2 or 3 mil, as Tango’s formula would suggest.  Remember the issue of supply and demand and the non-linear relationship between marginal wins and value among players I mentioned in a previous post?

#47, Exactly.

I think the formula works very well for players average and better.  For players between replacement and average, they’ll get paid the 2-3 million the formula says they should if they are well liked, but if you try to save money in that area you can probably get a player just as good very cheap.

You can buy a billion players that are between average and replacement, but no number of such players will win you 81 games.

Here’s my take on this year’s Japanese prize, Kosuke Fukudome:

http://lanaheimangelfan.blogspot.com/2007/11/kosuke-fukudome.html#links

Nate Silver at BPro developed a statistic called MORP (market value over replacement player) about two years ago. It applied exponential rather than linear growth to a player’s market value. The formula is:

(WARP^2 * $212,730) + (WARP * 402,530)

The issue with the stat, of course, is that WARP is a lousy stat with its bogus handling of replacement level and the limitations of the fielding component in it. WARP saw John McDonald as a 4.3 WAR player largely because it sees a +20 defender as a +40 defender based on FRAR. Of course, it should either use straight FRAA or maybe FRAA + 5, at most, as FRAR. So while the input is flawed, the intuition behind it is correct as it agrees with what MGL has been saying. According to MORP, here is the appropriate compensation for the following players (based on 2006 off-season $$).

2 WARP - $1.7M
3 WARP - $3.1M
4 WARP - $5.0M
5 WARP - $7.3M
6 WARP - $10.1M

Again, I don’t like WARP and the dollar figures are outdated, but the scale of growth in dollars as you move up the table seems right.

Michael I appreciate your viewpoint. I have to wonder however, if there’s a salutary effect moving from being a spot starter/ ninth inning defensive replacement , to that of being an everyday regular as was the case for McDonald this season. You’d think it would help your hitting, and likewise your fielding if you knew you’d be in there everyday. Certainly from a subjective viewpoint his defence seemed to improve when put in there day in/out and wasn’t worried about “screwing up”, which is the bane of most part time players.

I’m not sure his strong 2007 defensive season can be casually disregarded because of this factor. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, I can see him being a + 1 defender. Paying $1.9 million for this level of ability is not particularly outrageous, although the point is taken that teamate Ray Olmedo could well provide roughly the same performance for a lot cheaper. I suppose the old adage “ a bird in hand is worth two in the bush” sums up the teams thinking in this matter.

I tried playing around with the Morp formula, using a more realistic replacement level, modifying the dollar amounts until an average player (2.0 wins) gets paid around 8 million.  But when I do then a Pujols like player (7 wins) 64 million.

I could try to come up with a different formula, but the linear one works well enough.

Rally: Please email me this formula immediately.

Re: MAcDonald.  I actually played this “game” here at post 12:
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/the_greatest_fielder_ever_who_couldnt_hit_a_lick/#12

I had him at a 1 WAR player.

If you had to come up with a list of say 10 players that UZR misses the boat on, Ichiro and MacDonald are probably two of them.  I provide some simple evidence in post 15, plus the Fans assessment.  It’s just too impossible that a player this atrocious as a hitter could carve out such a long MLB career across several managers to be anything but a great glove. Either that, or he must have some fantastic clubhouse chemistry.  In any case, you have to give that some respect.

I discussed MORP in this blog somewhere.  Use the search.

What it comes down to us that because of the incredibly poor baseline that WARP uses, you need to make an “exponential” formula to gte the salary right.

In fact, for most cases, as I showed in that thread, WARP+exponentialSalaryConverter gives you exactly the same values as LWTS+linearSalaryConverter.

Here’s the thread showing how two wrongs make a right (WARP/MORP):
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/supervorp/

That still does not “solve” the problem of a player’s value likely not being linear with his WAR because of supply and demand as I already mentioined (and gave a good example of an extreme, hypothetical case).

I think that using an exponential model preserves reasonable salaries of players like pujols and A-Rod, but makes the salaries of players in the 1 WAR range much less than 5 mm (4.4mm plus MLB minimum).

The problem is if you fit an exponential model to do exactly that, you are going to be way low on the 2-3 win over replacement guys.

MGL: I don’t believe that your model actually exists in MLB.  Even if you want to overpay because of the supply/demand, there is still going to be a fear that you are putting so much money into one player.  Plus as the money goes up, the number of teams bidding goes down.  The end result is that you will end up with a linear link between WAR and salary. 

Since ARod is the top-end player, and is very durable, this will be tested.  If I’m right, he will be signed at 8/252 (or whatever the salary calculator says at WAR = 7).  Unless you have him at some other WAR level, of course.  I think you will find that if you take the top 5 WAR players out there, they will get paid according to a linear method.

***

Romero: signed for 3/12, paying for 1.36 WAR.

Talk about getting lucky!  He stranded 90% of his runners last year!  Santana, Peavy et al don’t do this.  I could look at this splits with men on base, but I already know what it’s going to tell me.  What the heck:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/psplit.cgi?n1=romerj.01&year=2007

With men on, a .208 SLUGGING!

With bases empty: .250/.378/.446.

His career splits:
men on: .275/.375/.408
empty:  .235/.333/.364

(You have to take some care because of the IBB.)

On the other hand, he’s got great WPA.  If you look at those numbers, he’s a .600 reliever.

If you look at his FIP, he’s probably a .500 reliever. 

He pitches under 60 innings a year, which means you get 6 full games out of him, maybe 7.

With replacement level at .470, his implied WAR of +1.36 gives him an implied winning % of .670 to .700.  He’s definitely overpaid.

His WAR is 0.2 to 0.9, depending on how much faith you put in his WPA.  The most you should pay this guy is a 2/6 deal.

Mariano Rivera:

He’s the kinda pitcher where his career totals is what his current talent level is.  Very impressive for someone about to turn 38.

If you want to call him a .650 pitcher, I won’t argue.  .700?  No argument.  .750?  No argument still. 

A replacement reliever is .470.  And following Guy’s method, any win about the .570 level is multiplied by the pitcher’s Leverage Index (i.e., doubled).

Therefore, Mo’s wins are worth anywhere from +.30 wins per 9IP to +.50 wins per 9IP, above replacement.

We give him 8 full games, so he’s a +2.4 to +4.0 WAR pitcher.  For a three year deal, that’s 27 to 51. And for a 4 yr deal, that’s: 32 to 65.  I basically won’t have a problem with whatever he signs. 

If I had to bet, I’ll presume he’s a 3 WAR pitcher (implies a .700 pitcher), then look for 3/36, 4/45.

Heyman said 3/42, which implies a 3.4 WAR pitcher, or .710 (if 81 IP) or .730 (if 72 IP) reliever.

Tango pegs Posada at 4/55.  Heyman says 4/52.  The Yankees say…

...4/52.

Scary.  Or boring.  Not sure which.

I’m kinda slow, so let me see if I get this.  Todd Jones just signed a 1 year deal for 7 million implying 1.6 wins.

His FIP last year was 3.77 and the AL FIP was 4.51 making Jones a .580 pitcher.

He threw 61.1 innings so we call it 7 games.

He gets .110 wins for being above replacement as a reliever, and then a small chunk more for being a closer(.010*2.22) so his wins would be .132*7 games making him a .9 to 1 win pitcher.  And the Tigers significantly overpaid.

Billfer: thanks for doing my work!

I should caution that you don’t just look at one year’s work.  We are after true talent, so you look at the last few years, and include aging.

Note that his 3.77 FIP is actually is Bill James forecast for 2008 (which is actually a better thing to take than his 2007 FIP).

Not that it matter for him, since he gets little value out of it, but I would just give a blanket 2.0 LI for any closer.

***

Jones: signed 1/7 paying for 1.6 wins; over 7 full games, and LI=2 implies .635 win%.

Over his last 4 years, his WPA/LI has been: 3.54 over 280 innings, or +.114 per 9 IP, or .614.

(Note: I’m not positive that Fangraphs has the baseline correct, which makes a big difference.  It might overvalue all pitchers.  This has been discussed elsewhere in this blog.)

In any case, his .614 performance is from age 36 to 39, and he’ll be 40. 

I think it’s reasonable to call him a .575 pitcher, which is what billfer basically did.

He’s a 1 WAR pitcher, meaning he should get 4.8 MM.

(I just realized. I forgot to add the minimum salary to all the players, and to the salary chart.  I’ll fix that.)

Dan #65,

Welcome to Carmax style free agent pricing.  No need to haggle or negotiate.

Mike Cameron:

A slightly above average hitter.
An above average fielder
A CF.

Fielding: From 2006-2007, Dewan has him as +16 runs total.  From 2003-mid07, MGL has him as +13 runs per 150 G.  The Fans have him as a “76” (CF avg is “60"), which makes him +11 runs.  All agree: he’s +1 win.

Dude plays in a killer pitcher’s park.  He’s probably +0.5 wins as a hitter (maybe someone can help me out here).

He gets his 0.5 win bonus for being a CF, and loses it for aging.

Add it up, and we get: +1.5 WAA, or +3.5 WAR.

He’s in the same class as Posada and Lowell.

Of course, he’s got the suspension.

Tango - where do you see Bay and Freddy Sanchez?

Bay:

What happened to him in 2007?  Was he injured? 

Not only did his batting numbers plunge, but the Fans thought his fielding plunged by about 15 runs.  Dewan’s numbers also plunged by 21 plays (about 15 runs).

I don’t think it’s worth doing him, since I’d have to know how real 2007 was, and how persistent that will be.  This is one to be decided by the scouts, not the performance analysts.

***

Freddy Sanchez: 4+ MLB service time (meaning he would get 60% of the free agent value).

Average fielder, a bit above average hitter, average position, no aging to apply.  Probably +0.5 WAA and +2.5 WAR.

2/15, 3/23.  What’s the word on the street?

I had Sanchez -.5 wins fielding staying at second and +1.5 wins hitting. Toss in -0.5 coming off shoulder surgery playing up the middle and that makes him a +0.5 WAA guy like you suggested. It’s hard to sign him more than one not knowing if the injury bug is going to bite him.

1/4 in Pittsburgh with Coonelly at the helm.

I’ve pretty much done my Slwts projections for 08.  I’ve got Cameron and Bay as 3 wins above replacement (WAR) before positional adjustments and Sanchez at 2 WAR.  Sanchez gets nothing as a 3B, Bay gets deducted almost 1 win as a LF and Cameron gets .5 wins, so:

Bay 2 WAR
Cameron 3.5
Sanchez 2

1.5 win difference between LF and CF is rather large.  Didn’t you confirm my findings that the difference was roughly 10 runs?  Or are you figuring that LF was especially poor fielding-wise in 2007/08?

Mitchel - follow me a second.

Take A-Rod last three. If he averaged 97% playing time (95% and above to me is 100%) averaging 50.7 earned runs above average per year (players with 90 or more PA, MLB 2005-2007), that tells me he’s a raw 5.1 win guy in the box. Taking it one step further for this forum, if I add Tango’s 2.25 wins above replacement (97% = 2.18) that puts him at 7.4 WAR offensively. I don’t have BiP defensive metrics worth a can of corn but I’ll suggest A-Rod is +.5 defensively putting him at +7.9 WAR, and I’ll add a tick for his speed game putting him right around +8 WAR.

Jason Bay averaged 95% playing time last three and averaged +42 earned runs above average, or +4.2 WAA. Add Tango’s 2.25 (2.14) and that puts him +6.3 WAR offensively. Bay’s speed game is disfuntional anymore so no credit there, and his defense, again as a guess, was -.5 last three making him +5.8 WAR overall.

You have Bay +3 WAR and then hit him another -1 WAR as a LF.

Am I that far apart in my projections, or are you seriously discouting Bay because of 2007’s production?

First, you are ignoring regression.  Secondly, you are ignoring aging.  Finally, you are not weighting the most recent season more.  In short, you broke the only three rules Marcel adheres to!

And the run-to-win is more like 10.5 or 11.0 to 1.

Kenny Rogers is exploring his options now.  Bill James projects a 4.57 FIP in 145 innings (over 23 starts).  Essentially Rogers is an average pitcher.

Over that many innings Rogers looks to be 1.9 WAR.

If you dock him -.5 wins for being old, that puts him at 1.4 at $6.5 million.

Now what is the view here on incentives?  If Rogers actually does achieve the projections should he have a right to earn back that half win age deduction?  Is the deduction more due to the risk of not acheiving the projected talent level, or is it due to teams perceiving less value for an old player in the market place?

If Rogers stays healthy and productive for 30 starts (another 44 innings) that’s another .6 wins above replacement.  Does it make sense to have another 2.5 million kicker for achieving that?

The 0.5 wins drop is the natural progression of aging.  Basically, if you have a 2.5 WAR player between Apr 1, 2007 and Oct 1, 2007, then you should expect a 2.0 WAR player in 2008, 1.5 in 2009, 1.0 in 2010, 0.5 in 2011, and out of baseball in 2012.  That’s a general rule.  Guys at 30 age better than guys at 40.

I’m a big fan of incentives.  It makes life easy, since you are mitigating the risk.

Curous, ditto exactly what Tango said.  Obviously for A-Rod the weighting of the seasons raises his 3-year average, but the aging and regressio is a lot.  Plus his defense has been bad at 3B for 3 years now.  I have him projected at -3 runs per 150 in defense.  His baserunning “tick” is only 2 runs.

Tango, I probably have like -7 runs for LF and +3 runs for CF, so that if we round up each one, it looks like a 1.5 win diff but it is really 1 win.

Also, I keep forgetting about the arms.  For UZR, LF is better by a few runs.  With arms, it is about even between LF and RF.

Also, I agree that the poitional adjustments should not be based on average hitting at each position, as you told me many years ago, but…

If we don’t have any data on players who switch positions, we have to use hitting data to figure out the poitional adjustments.  Since the data we have on players switching positions is wrought with problems (selectve sampling, sample size, aging, etc.), we have to use the batting data at least somewhat in doing the adjustments.  At least that is my thinking.

I agree with the “somewhat”, but I’m thinking “not at all” when it comes to the three OF positions.  Those three positions all use the same skills for the most part (their ankles, feet, legs, and hands), and the arms to a varying degree.  We should know exactly how a CF would perform in LF or RF.

As for 2B/SS/3B, that is a bit more problematic, so I’m willing to accept some hitting numbers to use.  But, not much.  The talent level at 2B and 3B fielding-wise is so close, nowhere near the gap in their hitting. 

But, for IF/OF, I will have to accept alot of the hitting numbers.  If the average 2B/SS/3B is say -6 runs and the LF/CF/RF is +6 runs (no idea what it is, just guessing), but my positional adjustments say the difference should be only 5 runs, I’ll have to give a great deal of weight to the 12 run gap (or whatever it happens to be).  As you’ve pointed out, and I now accept, position switches between IF/OF are almost entirely IF to OF.  Any OF to IF switches are almost entirely done by OF who were IF in the minors (Melvin Mora and a few others excepted).  While I don’t think it’s a big deal to go from OF to IF (seeing that plenty of OF become 1B), I’ll have to concede some reality to that.

For Catchers, I have to let the offensive numbers drive almost the whole thing, because they are so different.

Tango, real quick: On SOSH you said “what should cost 800 million$ based on their intrinsic value, teams are actually paying 1.6 billion$.” I was just curious...but does this mean that MLB teams as a whole are spending around $400 million per year on FA(400*2=800)?

If you look at studes’ article, 1.6 billion$ in payroll are paid out to players with 6 or more years of service.

Gotcha.  And don’t you guys think that if we were to use average offensive values for each position (normalized to league average), we should use the median offensive value over the mean? That might help in accuracy.

The mean and median are very similar, as hard as it is to believe.

Mean and median weighted to playing time re almost exactly equal.  Mean and median by players is not.

Someone sent me an email asking for more explanation of regression.  I recommend the three links at post #1 here:
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/selective_sampling_how_not_to_choose_players/#1

The Mets have reportedly signed Luis Castillo to a four-year deal for $25M.  No report that any of the years are option years.  Castillo was 31 last year, but seemed older to me, probably because of his reported leg problems.  He is not longer an above-average fielder (if he ever was one) and his entire value is in his speed and bat control (groundballs, bunts).

By WSAB, he was one WAR this year, almost two WAR last year.  Tango’s chart doesn’t go four years for one WAR, but for two WAR, it shows a value of $24M for four years, close to Castillo’s contract.

But this deal is riskier than the average deal, perhaps much riskier, because Castillo’s value is almost entirely in his legs, which will probably decline quickly the next four years.  Omar’s record is a mix of smart and “huh?” deals—I put this one in the “huh?” bucket.

That is excessive.  There seems to be a good supply of over 30 second basemen who are about league average.  There was last year too.  The Cards spent about 10 million on Adam Kennedy.  While he had a bad year that deal looks like a bargain compared to Castillo.  But when the dust settled there was still Ronnie Belliard looking for a job, with a track record certainly not inferior to Kennedy’s.  He signed a one year deal for under a million.

Castillo: 4/25, paying for 2.0 WAR.

The Fans have Castillo at +1 win fielding.  UZR 03-mid07 has him at a smidge above 0.  Dewan has him like UZR.  Let’s call him even, maybe +0.5 wins fielding-wise.  2B gets no positional adjustment.  Offensively he’s league average.  Add in -0.5 for aging, and he’s league average, maybe a smidge below. 

He’s 2 WAR in full-time play, but it’s likely he won’t play that much, so 1.5 WAR would be fairer.  A 3/15 deal would have been appropriate.  It’s an ok deal.

Kennedy last year signed for 3/10, which would have implied a 1.2 WAR at the time.

The Castillo deal is defensible, but that’s pretty much the most he could have cost.

I have Castillo as exactly league average, which is around 2 WAR for a full-season (162 games).  (I give a 2B .5 win for position.) With playing time considered, I agree that he is a 1.5 WAR player.

I agree that there does seem to be a lot of average to mediocre second basemen around, leading to some real bargains being signed or that can be signed.  I have Belliard as 1.5 WAR and Kennedy at 1 WAR.

Lowell just signed a 3/37.5.  To me that is the first big overpayment of the off-season (I think).  I am not as high on Lowell as the other forecasters.  He has had a weird last 4 years offense-wise.

Here are his offesnive lwts per 150
04 21
05 -23
06 0
07 20

If he was significantly injured in 05 then I probably underrate him a little.  (Injured seasons should NOT be discarded in doing a projection as they are part of a player’s chance of playing injured in the future.)

Anyway, I have him as an average third baseman overall, so 2 WAR.  He is .5 in defense, zero in offense, and almost -.5 in running.  I think he got overpaid for 3 reasons:  One, his great 07 campaign, both in garbage stats and context-neutral saber stats.  Two, he was signed by Boston, who really wanted him.  Three, he gets all the hype, including being a great “clubhouse guy.”

"There seems to be a good supply of over 30 second basemen who are about league average.”

Isn’t this a contradiction in terms?

Lowell: 3/37, paying for 3.0 WAR.  In post 19, I had him as a 3.5 WAR, meaning 3/44.  I see it as a good signing.

***

MGL, how do you have him as 0 for offense?  The numbers you post gives you a simple average of +4.5 per 150.  If you weight on a 5/4/3/2 basis, you get +5.0 per 150.  That’s +0.5 in hitting, +0.5 in fielding, and -0.5 on baserunning (which I hadn’t considered), making him +2.5 WAR using your numbers.  Also note that because you have a higher replacement level, then the $ per win for you is higher.  I think it was 5.5 or 6.0 MM per win for you, making it a fine deal.

I think for you to make the comparisons as I’m doing, you should tell us what the average team’s wins above replacement is for you.  I’m presuming that it’s +24.3 for you (.350).

I’m using +32.4 wins (.300).

As you can see, each mglWin costs 33% more than each tangoWin.  If I’m using 4.4MM per win, you need to be using 5.87.

I agree with Tango regarding the Lowell signing.  The Red Sox are my favorite team and I follow them the most and given that Lowell is a FA (and will be overpaid no matter what, technically), signing him for 3 years (rather than 4) and less than $40 million is about as good as we were going to get.  There’s no way in hell Lowell would take $30 million or less as a FA.  Will he produce the same numbers as last year? Probably not, but I don’t see him putting up numbers similar to his last year in Florida either given that he plays half his home games at Fenway Park.  The only thing about Lowell is his defense...last year he made more errors and didn’t seem to be as “solid” as the year before (subjectively speaking), but if he can play slightly above average defense I think we’ll be fine.

Isn’t MGL’s replacement level like 17 or 18 runs below average? Does that constitute a 5.5 or 6.0 MM per win number? If so that’s definitely surprising given that just a few years ago we were at $3 mil/win.  Interesting.

You may be right.  You calculated it so that a replacement level team has a .300 winning pct (48.6 wins).  With a replacement level team playing at a .300 winning pct. and an ~ $11 million payroll, and with the average MLB payroll about $80 million, the extra $69 million will buy a team 32.4 wins ((.500-.300)*162), or ~ $2 million per win.  And then you just got the 4.4 for FA from there.  So, MGL’s may have to be higher…

Aaron Rowand:

He had a hitting season opposite of Andruw.  Bill James is forecasting a 2008 just a shade above his career average.  Including aging, let’s make him +0.5 offense.

Fielding-wise, Fans have him as an average CF (the same fans that think that Victorino is a fantastic fielder, and Bourn almost as good… imagine, having three CF, and you put the worst one there). 

UZR of course had a love affair with Rowand for a while, with him being +16/162 from 03-mid07.  However, since 2006, he’s been a bit below average.

Dewan had him as the best CF in 2005, and one of the worst in 2006, and below average in 2007.

Clearly, The Crash has had an effect on him, according to Fans, UZR, and Plus/Minus (but not his manager).

Including aging, calling him a bit below-average fielding CF is the right thing here.

That puts him right around average, plus the 0.5 for the CF positional adjustment, and he’s +2.5 WAR in full-time play.

3/30, 4/36.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a team will be signing for both his legacy as a great fielder, and his great hitting in 2007.  aka, he’ll get the Gutsy White Guy contract.  Who gets the Underachieving Black Guy contract?  Because, obviously, you can’t have the converse. 

(For your P.C. types, this was said with full sarcasm, poking a finger at the double-standard faced by Black athletes by White America.  Being White doesn’t mean you are part of White America.)

Speaking of which…

Eckstein:

Hitting: -0.5 wins
Fielding: -1.0 wins (Fans), +1.0 wins (UZR), 0 to -0.5 (Dewan).  Let’s go with -0.5.
Position: +0.5.
Aging: -0.5.

Overall: -1.0 WAA, +1.0 WAR.

Sign for 2/8.  Close to your last chance to see this guy.

Btw, moving him to 2B makes no difference.  He ends up going from -0.5 as a SS, to league average as a 2B.  And he gets no bonus for being a 2B.  So, his pos+fld = -0.5 either way.

Orlando Cabrera:
Fans think he’s a great fielder (+1.5 wins)
UZR thinks he’s a bit above average
Dewan thinks he’s a bit below average

As a hitter, he’s a bit below average.

His aging and his position cancel out.  So, you can argue for him as being anywhere from -0.5 WAA to +1.0 WAA, or +1.5 WAR to +3.0 WAR.  It really depends on what you think of his glove. 

***

Jon Garland: he’s a bit above average, say a .525 pitcher.  He eats innings, making him say 20-22 full games.  So, over the .380 repl level, that makes him a 3.0 WAR player.

***

Garland is 5 years younger, but he’s a pitcher.  In terms of future value over the next say 3 years, I don’t know what’s better: a pitcher that is 3.0 WAR now, or a nonpitcher who is 1.5 to 3.0 WAR now.

***

In order to analyze this deal, you have to know the mortgage value of each player. 

Garland is due 12MM in 2008, then he’s a free agent.  This has an implied 2.6 WAR, so he’s actually being paid just about right, maybe a bit too low.

Cabrera is due 9MM in 2008, then he’s a free agent.  This has an implied 2.0 WAR, so again, depending on how you see him, he’s right around where he should be.

***

As a 1-yr deal, this is fairly break-even.  If each team has other strengths to leverage (allows say someone else to play SS for the Angels, and opens the door for another pitcher for the Sox), then this is good.

This has got to be as fair a trade as you’ll find.  And since it’s only for 1 year, as low risk as it gets.

I moved all the replacement-level posts to a new thread here:
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/this_weeks_replacement_thread/

Please continue those discussions there.  This thread should focus on the player movements, and/or finances related to the moves.

Here are my thoughts on the Garland/Cabrera trade, FWIW. The best I can tell, Cabrera and Uribe are about as even both offensively and defensively as you will find. The Sox were fooled into thinking that Cabrera is a nice upgrade because his style/shape is more like a classical SS. It is strongly expected that the Sox will now trade Uribe for a couple prospects, and promote a prospect to take Garland’s place (after chaining, of course).

Assuming that Cabrera vs Uribe is a wash, and that Garland’s replacement(s) will post a 5.00 ERA, the Sox will wind up with a couple prospects and 9 million and lose 1.8 expected wins. Assuming they spend the 9 mil on FA wins at 4.4 per, they end up with a couple prospects and +.25 wins. That seems OK until you consider that if they had simply kept Uribe and traded Garland for a couple prospects, they would have saved around 11.6 mil instead of 9, and probably gotten better prospects, to boot.

But, there is another layer to consider. Uribe is not a favorite with the Chicago media because he bats .240 and is a bit paunchy. Cabrera, OTOH, is flashier and apparently more of a leader type. So, the swap should stimulate more fan interest, which should show up in the bottom line.

So, Ken Williams is essentially treading water, while boosting his own image as a motivated and active GM.

I talked about Uribe in post 32.  He’s a 1 WAR player, and costs the Sox 4.5MM.  Cabrera will give the Sox an extra win over that, maybe more, and are going to pay the extra 4.5MM for it.  The problem of course is that they are paying Uribe too.  They definitely now need to trade Uribe, or move him to 2B.  Who do the Sox have there?

The B James projections for 2008 has Cabrera at 709 OPS and Uribe at 723 OPS. Cabrera is expected to play 5 extra games, so overall it’s about a wash on offense. On defense, all I have is some of the Dewan plus/minus numbers. In 2007, neither Cabrera nor Uribe is on the 11 best list, or on the 6 worst list. For 2004-2006, Uribe is in 10th place at +20, while Cabrera is somewhere out of the top 10. And for 2003-05, both Cabrera and Uribe are dead even at +25. I don’t see any advantage for Cabrera with the glove. And, Uribe is 4 years younger.

So, where does the extra win for Cabrera come from? Remember, Cabrera is being paid twice what Uribe is being paid.

It certainly depends on whose projections you use. I would think that one should combine everyone who is good.  Trying to get a sample of all the different methodologies would be good too.  It wouldn’t help to combine 3 forecasts that all essentially use the same methodology.  I would NOT include the Bill James (whoever does them) projections in the group of “good projections.”

I would also NOT include any defensive projections other than those based on PBP metrics, like UZR, PMR, Dewan, etc., or at least the “quasi-PBP” ones, which seem to be almost as good as the PBP ones.  And when baserunning is likely to be an issue, that must be included as well.

I have Uribe as a solid 2 WAR and Cabrera as 1.5.  I have them both almost exactly the same hitting-wise, Cabrera maybe a bit higher. I also have Uribe as .5 win better than Cabrera defensively.  I have Uribe as around .75 wins in defense and around 7 runs worse than an average SS in hitting, or around dead even (average) overall.  Cabrera is only .3 wins in defense and around the same as Uribe offensively.  They would have been MUCH better off keeping Uribe, but I agree that the perception is that Cabrera is the more valuable player and the fans do like him much better than Uribe.  However, I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think that player popularity with fans has much to do team revenue, at least not for players like that (maybe for players like Bonds, Ichiro, etc.).  I don’t think that K. Williams is a good GM in terms of being able to value established player talent.  Then again, for ANY G.M. to be able to do that, he NEEDS some kind of sabermetric model which includes a sabermetric projection.  I don’t think the WS have any interest in using sabermetric models.  Without it (saber analysis), a team simply CANNOT be nearly as good as it could be with it.

---"I would NOT include the Bill James projections in the group of “good projections”.
_______________

Maybe not, MGL, but at least they are available, and available now...hint, hint.

I’d also mention that yes, in the abstract, Cabrera will not affect attendence in the same way as Bonds, Ichiro. But given the Sox situation--an unexpectedly bad year, with lowered fan interest, they need to renew some of that with CHANGE. Cabrera is change, while Uribe is the same old, same old. And the newspapers are helping by playing up Cabrera as a gold-glove SS who scored 100 runs last year…

The Mets acquired Estrada for Mota (LoDuca is a FA).  Mota makes 2.5 next year, probably about right, maybe a little on the cheap side.

Estrada is arb-eligble for one more year and then is a FA.  He’ll probably get around 5 mil, which is around right for a FA (high for arb), as he is 1 WAR.  LoDuca is also 1 WAR, although the Mets don’t like/want him for some reason.

I don’t know who is slated to catch for the Brewers, but this basically is a kiss-your-sister deal so far.

Uribe’s OPS last year was .678, the year before it was .698, and before that, it was.712.  How the heck does Bill James forecast .723?  He forecasts 132 hits, which is higher than any of his last 3 seasons by 11!  Did they go DIPS on his ass?

Over the last 3 years, total 1000 PA, here are the SS:
http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/4QGv

Cnt Player OPS+ PA From To
+----+-----------------+----+-----+----+----+
1 Hanley Ramirez 130 1408 2005 2007
2 Carlos Guillen 126 1613 2005 2007
3 Derek Jeter 126 2181 2005 2007
4 Miguel Tejada 122 1981 2005 2007
5 Michael Young 116 2172 2005 2007
6 Jimmy Rollins 106 2268 2005 2007
7 Jhonny Peralta 105 1849 2005 2007
8 Edgar Renteria 104 1908 2005 2007
9 Jose Reyes 99 2201 2005 2007
10 Khalil Greene 98 1595 2005 2007
11 Rafael Furcal 96 2067 2005 2007
12 Felipe Lopez 94 2033 2005 2007
13 J.J. Hardy 92 1204 2005 2007
14 David Eckstein 91 1749 2005 2007
15 Marco Scutaro 90 1225 2005 2007
16 Jason Bartlett 89 1194 2005 2007
17 Orlando Cabrera 89 1963 2005 2007 ***
18 Yuniesky Betancou 88 1371 2005 2007
19 Julio Lugo 88 1806 2005 2007
20 Alex Gonzalez 86 1337 2005 2007
21 Jack Wilson 84 1768 2005 2007
22 Bobby Crosby 81 1143 2005 2007
23 Omar Vizquel 80 1885 2005 2007
24 Juan Uribe 78 1598 2005 2007 ***
25 Royce Clayton 71 1291 2005 2007
26 Angel Berroa 67 1168 2005 2007
27 Adam Everett 65 1397 2005 2007
28 Cesar Izturis 62 1023 2005 2007

Every 11.5 OPS+ points = 1 win.  As far as I see it, there’s a 1 win gap between the two hitters.

I’m sure you didn’t mean to do it, but leaving out 2004 happens to leave out Uribe’s, by far, best year, and one of Cabrera’s worst, not to mention that OPS+ is crap.

Here are both player’s MGL lwts over the last 4 years:

Uribe
7, -13, -20, -18, weighted average of around -14.

Cabrera
-20, -21, -12, -5, weighted average of around -13.

And Uribe is 5 years younger.  Hmmm....

I’d say they were dead even in offense.  Tango, I think you blew this one!

VEry interesting.  Yes, OPS+ is crap because it still undervalues OBP.  And Uribe has one of, if not the, biggest gaps in OBP/SLG.  This guy’s HR/BB ratio is off the charts.

I may have blew it, which is why I should wait until I run the Marcels before doing this stuff.