Comments on: AL Central Starters: Value/Salary Ratio http://firegardy.com/2009/01/13/al-central-starters-valuesalary-ratio/ Mismanaging games since 2002 Mon, 07 May 2012 02:37:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: sirsean http://firegardy.com/2009/01/13/al-central-starters-valuesalary-ratio/comment-page-1/#comment-1581 sirsean Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:05:38 +0000 http://firegardy.com/?p=300#comment-1581 <p>This only looked at the starting rotation. I might do bullpens later.</p> <p>I think every team would, overall, get more production than they're "paying" for.</p> <p>The reason for that is that these are "fair market value" based on the number of dollars a win over replacement was "worth" to teams in that year. People are surprised by this, but even A-Rod's ridiculous contract has the same $/Win ratio as the other free agents who signed last year. It's not the same every year, but it's the same within a year. (Of course, that's for their "projected" win value, not for actual. Andruw Jones, for example, was paid as if he was expected to be really good. He wasn't.)</p> <p>But I think every team will have a Salary/Value Ratio of over 1. Because, for one, I think these value figures are pretty inflated, especially for pitchers. If Sabathia had wanted a one year contract for 2009, is there any chance it would have approached $30M? Probably not.</p> <p>Secondly, most teams get at least SOMETHING from pre-arbitration players. Say a win is worth $5M (which is what it was worth in 2008), and you're paying your pre-arbitration player $0.4M, which is right around what everyone pays them. That means you're paying for a little less than 0.1 wins ... and what if that player produces 3 wins above replacement? Then for that player, you've got a Salary/Value Ratio of 30. (Slowey and Baker both fall under this category for 2008. Blackburn was close.)</p> <p>Nobody pays their pre-arbitration players market value; if they did, then most of the teams in the league would simply have to fold. But once they hit arbitration, players that have been producing a lot of value start to get paid for it.</p> <p>This is all part of the reason I said I expected every team to have a ratio in the 2-3 range. Every team gets a contribution from pre-arbitration players, and from guys late in their career who are injury/retirement risks, so they take a $1M contract but contribute $5M value or something. Also, players with long term contracts take lower average annual value in return for security, which of course helps the team's S/V ratio when they get full value from that player but aren't paying them full salary.</p> <p>There are a lot of things that go into it, and a high S/V ratio is definitely a good thing. But the Twins' is unsustainably high, unless the pitching pipeline simply never dries up.</p> This only looked at the starting rotation. I might do bullpens later.

I think every team would, overall, get more production than they’re “paying” for.

The reason for that is that these are “fair market value” based on the number of dollars a win over replacement was “worth” to teams in that year. People are surprised by this, but even A-Rod’s ridiculous contract has the same $/Win ratio as the other free agents who signed last year. It’s not the same every year, but it’s the same within a year. (Of course, that’s for their “projected” win value, not for actual. Andruw Jones, for example, was paid as if he was expected to be really good. He wasn’t.)

But I think every team will have a Salary/Value Ratio of over 1. Because, for one, I think these value figures are pretty inflated, especially for pitchers. If Sabathia had wanted a one year contract for 2009, is there any chance it would have approached $30M? Probably not.

Secondly, most teams get at least SOMETHING from pre-arbitration players. Say a win is worth $5M (which is what it was worth in 2008), and you’re paying your pre-arbitration player $0.4M, which is right around what everyone pays them. That means you’re paying for a little less than 0.1 wins … and what if that player produces 3 wins above replacement? Then for that player, you’ve got a Salary/Value Ratio of 30. (Slowey and Baker both fall under this category for 2008. Blackburn was close.)

Nobody pays their pre-arbitration players market value; if they did, then most of the teams in the league would simply have to fold. But once they hit arbitration, players that have been producing a lot of value start to get paid for it.

This is all part of the reason I said I expected every team to have a ratio in the 2-3 range. Every team gets a contribution from pre-arbitration players, and from guys late in their career who are injury/retirement risks, so they take a $1M contract but contribute $5M value or something. Also, players with long term contracts take lower average annual value in return for security, which of course helps the team’s S/V ratio when they get full value from that player but aren’t paying them full salary.

There are a lot of things that go into it, and a high S/V ratio is definitely a good thing. But the Twins’ is unsustainably high, unless the pitching pipeline simply never dries up.

]]> By: Erica http://firegardy.com/2009/01/13/al-central-starters-valuesalary-ratio/comment-page-1/#comment-1580 Erica Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:53:42 +0000 http://firegardy.com/?p=300#comment-1580 <p>Strange that every single team got more production out of their pitchers than they paid for. I wonder if this is mostly true for all the teams. If so, conventional wisdom that "pitchers only go every fifth day- a position player is more valuable for the cost" might be wrong.</p> <p>Does this include the bullpen value?</p> Strange that every single team got more production out of their pitchers than they paid for. I wonder if this is mostly true for all the teams. If so, conventional wisdom that “pitchers only go every fifth day- a position player is more valuable for the cost” might be wrong.

Does this include the bullpen value?

]]>