Comments on: Valuing Meche http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/valuing-meche/ Daily baseball statistical analysis and commentary Mon, 22 Mar 2010 03:34:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Eric Seidman http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/valuing-meche/#comment-54966 Eric Seidman Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:42:18 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=1436#comment-54966 Travis, I definitely agree, but this was really just more of looking at what his accomplishments in 2007-2008 deem him worth on the open market. As in, say he was a free agent right now and any team could sign him, what would the appropriate fee be? According to this, his market value right now would exceed the the value of the deal once deemed ludicrous. It's different because we know he is signed with the Royals for the next three years at an AAV of 11 mil/season. If, however, he were to sign a multiyear deal right now, his market value would be an AAV of 12.4 mil. Now, for a team like the Yankees, getting wins 92-95 would be worth more than 70-73 because the difference between 91 and 92-95 could be a playoff spot. I would tend to think that for a team like the Royals, Meche would be valued at the lower end of the dollars per win range; so he would be valued at something like 4 mil/win for KC and 5 mil/win for the Yankees. Again, I'm not positive how we would firmly adjust for the team context, but I do agree it would make the analyses like this more interesting. Again, though, when Dave and I do these, we are really just looking at what someone should get given what they have done, free of team context. Travis,

I definitely agree, but this was really just more of looking at what his accomplishments in 2007-2008 deem him worth on the open market. As in, say he was a free agent right now and any team could sign him, what would the appropriate fee be? According to this, his market value right now would exceed the the value of the deal once deemed ludicrous.

It’s different because we know he is signed with the Royals for the next three years at an AAV of 11 mil/season. If, however, he were to sign a multiyear deal right now, his market value would be an AAV of 12.4 mil.

Now, for a team like the Yankees, getting wins 92-95 would be worth more than 70-73 because the difference between 91 and 92-95 could be a playoff spot. I would tend to think that for a team like the Royals, Meche would be valued at the lower end of the dollars per win range; so he would be valued at something like 4 mil/win for KC and 5 mil/win for the Yankees.

Again, I’m not positive how we would firmly adjust for the team context, but I do agree it would make the analyses like this more interesting.

Again, though, when Dave and I do these, we are really just looking at what someone should get given what they have done, free of team context.

]]> By: Travis Leleu http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/valuing-meche/#comment-54965 Travis Leleu Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:35:57 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=1436#comment-54965 Eric, Nice post -- you just got some traffic from Neyer's coverage today, I'm guessing! One issue that I have with much analysis like this is that they are not adjusted for team context. While we make all kinds of statistical adjustments for parks, etc., we rarely make adjustments for team context. I'm borrowing the idea from "Diamond Dollars," but the basic premise is that wins 92-95 are worth more than 70-73. Also, 3 wins are worth more to the Yankees than the Royals. The question, then, is this: given that the Royals will suck again, isn't one win really worth significantly less to them than to a borderline playoff team? I have to think that it is. Again, this is off-field stuff, but once you start talking dollars, you have to account for team context (and situation in the projected standings). Thanks for the great post! Eric,

Nice post — you just got some traffic from Neyer’s coverage today, I’m guessing! One issue that I have with much analysis like this is that they are not adjusted for team context. While we make all kinds of statistical adjustments for parks, etc., we rarely make adjustments for team context. I’m borrowing the idea from “Diamond Dollars,” but the basic premise is that wins 92-95 are worth more than 70-73. Also, 3 wins are worth more to the Yankees than the Royals. The question, then, is this: given that the Royals will suck again, isn’t one win really worth significantly less to them than to a borderline playoff team? I have to think that it is.

Again, this is off-field stuff, but once you start talking dollars, you have to account for team context (and situation in the projected standings).

Thanks for the great post!

]]> By: Eric Seidman http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/valuing-meche/#comment-54948 Eric Seidman Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:44:55 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=1436#comment-54948 Correction made in the article. Correction made in the article.

]]> By: Eric Seidman http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/valuing-meche/#comment-54944 Eric Seidman Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:02:51 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=1436#comment-54944 Cannatar, at most, that would add a half-win to his total. I would probably be more comfortable adding a quarter of a win, making Meche a 2.75-win pitcher. Regardless, the point remains the same: he's worth the same, or more than, the deal he signed. Cannatar, at most, that would add a half-win to his total. I would probably be more comfortable adding a quarter of a win, making Meche a 2.75-win pitcher. Regardless, the point remains the same: he’s worth the same, or more than, the deal he signed.

]]> By: cannatar http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/valuing-meche/#comment-54941 cannatar Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:26:00 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=1436#comment-54941 This doesn't affect your premise much, but I think there's a small flaw in your methodology: you don't account for the value of reducing the bullpen's workload by 49 innings. I'm not sure what the best way to value it is, but reduced bullpen innings have value to major league teams because they have a limited roster size. Think about this example - compare a team that has 5 starters who all have 4.50 FIPs and average 6 innings per start versus a team that has 5 starters who all have 4.50 FIPs and average 5 innings per start. Your methodology would value the two staffs equally, but the latter team is going to need 162 extra innings out of their bullpen, which means they are probably going to need to squeeze an extra 2 relievers onto their 25-man roster. This doesn’t affect your premise much, but I think there’s a small flaw in your methodology: you don’t account for the value of reducing the bullpen’s workload by 49 innings. I’m not sure what the best way to value it is, but reduced bullpen innings have value to major league teams because they have a limited roster size.
Think about this example – compare a team that has 5 starters who all have 4.50 FIPs and average 6 innings per start versus a team that has 5 starters who all have 4.50 FIPs and average 5 innings per start. Your methodology would value the two staffs equally, but the latter team is going to need 162 extra innings out of their bullpen, which means they are probably going to need to squeeze an extra 2 relievers onto their 25-man roster.

]]>