Kapler re-signs in Tampa and further proof Fangraphs is ridiculous

[Baldkin]

Is defensive positioning factored in (where the outfielder was positioned prior to the ball being put into play)? I could see numerous close games causing a fielder's zone rating to suffer depending on whether they are playing shallow/deep or in/dp dept.

Considering they make over 300 plays, it really should even out over the course of a season.

[rluzinski]

Just looking around the site at the leaderboards, many FA players are signed to deals that are around 60-75 percent of their fangraphs' value.

 

Perhaps that's because a player's projection is regressed from his performance? fangraphs doesn't think players should be paid their "value"; there isn't a 1:1 correlation.

 

Every year 3 or 4 players really get paid, and they get paid so much that it pulls the average up so high that the value fangraphs is putting out there is actually significantly higher than than player's FA contract value, even for a guy that performs like Sheets does when he's healthy. No one is giving him $18 million per year, just like no one is paying Kapler $5.2 or whatever. I'm just talking players that performed well here and excluding players that have had down seasons since signing their contracts.

 

No one is giving Sheets $18 mil a year because value = projected production rate x projected playing time. Sheets will probably be projected to pitch less than 100 innings next year. Kapler didn't get $5 mil for next year because he's not projected to give $5 mil worth of performance.

 

One big reason why "only" 3-4 guys each year might get paid huge contracts each year because there aren't that many 3+ WAR players on the free agent market each year to begin with. Guys like CC don't come around very often. He's worth $25 mil a year. That's what he's worth to any team but only some teams can assume the risk of tying up so much value to one player. If CC is a 5 WAR player, the Brewers might instead sign 2 two WAR players and 1, one WAR player for the same price. And they won't sign those guys to 7 year deals.

 

It's true that a win is worth more money to the Yankees than other teams. As a result, we won't expect every free agent to be signed to a deal exactly in line with their "free agent value". There are lot's a of reasons why a player might get more or less than their projected free agent value. The model is far from being able to consider all variables.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Jumping in late here, but I do have a few points......

 

I love fangraphs, I'm on the site all the time. I understand the methodology, I don't have an issue with that.

 

I think most people's problems with fangraphs is due to baseball's brutally archaic salary structure. You don't get to 'get paid' for the first 6 years you're in the league, and then most guy that reach that point are overpaid from then on out.

 

I think the issue with fangraphs dollar value is that most teams are aware that they're overpaying for any free agents they sign, but it's justifiable by being able to pay a 3rd year starting shortstop peanuts.

 

There's no way to come to a true value for a player (or his production) when the system is fatally broken to begin with.

 

Let me preface my next statement by saying that I don't want baseball to be like football or basketball, but if baseball's salary structure was more like either of those leagues, the dollar values might make a little more sense.

[Thurston Fluff]

All a stat like WAR is doing is weighting defense vs offense vs position. That more or less sums up the entire process. Sure you can do the same thing by just discussing all 3 areas separately but I think it is pretty obvious that it is important to include all 3 in every discussion of a positional player. While we might not always agree on how much to value each of the 3 I think WAR is an ok starting point to most discussions.

 

There is nothing I disagree with in this as long as it is the starting point of the discussion not the definitive end of it. As Russ astutely pointed out these are models being tested and tweaked. That by definition means they are not conclusive even if it is using the best information available. Though it may not seem like it I use fangraphs. not as a end all be all but another tool in the arsenal. I like it for established players like Cameron not as much for part timers or young ones.

I think the big question I have with some of these models are how they weight the various components. UZR seems to be the fashion these days. It's useful information to have as it gives us some amount of objective information in a very subjective area. It is far from being as definitive an indicator of defensive ability as it is being used in fangraphs IMO. I think they need to tweak that area. Maybe use an escalating weight of value assigned according to the amount of data available. Seems odd to me to say you need three years of information for it to be valuable then give one years worth of information the same wiegth in the calculation as 5 years. It is bound to give you some odd results.

[sheethead]

I think most people's problems with fangraphs is due to baseball's brutally archaic salary structure. You don't get to 'get paid' for the first 6 years you're in the league, and then most guy that reach that point are overpaid from then on out.

 

Stephen Strasburg received $50m for 6 years without having to throw a pitch in an MLB game. I would equate that to getting paid. I'm not saying this is the norm, but for many first round picks, they are overpaid from the beginning.

[Tedaldtada]

Stephen Strasburg received $50m for 6 years without having to throw a pitch in an MLB game. I would equate that to getting paid. I'm not saying this is the norm, but for many first round picks, they are overpaid from the beginning.

 

What? I thought it was a 15 million dollar deal?

[cwolf2012]

"Stephen Strasburg received $50m for 6 years without having to throw a pitch in an MLB game. I would equate that to getting paid. I'm not saying this is the norm, but for many first round picks, they are overpaid from the beginning"

 

I'm pretty sure the 50m was just a number they were throwing out before the draft. The actual contract is for $15.1 million.

 

EDIT: Here's a better link: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4403920

[DuWayne Steurer]

I think most people's problems with fangraphs is due to baseball's brutally archaic salary structure. You don't get to 'get paid' for the first 6 years you're in the league, and then most guy that reach that point are overpaid from then on out.

 

Stephen Strasburg received $50m for 6 years without having to throw a pitch in an MLB game. I would equate that to getting paid. I'm not saying this is the norm, but for many first round picks, they are overpaid from the beginning.

That's first rounders. The bulk of the guys coming up and playing for $400K aren't guys making Strasburg money.

[thebruce44]

Stephen Strasburg received $50m for 6 years without having to throw a pitch in an MLB game. I would equate that to getting paid. I'm not saying this is the norm, but for many first round picks, they are overpaid from the beginning.

 

That outlier of a contract (along with Weeks and whoever else gets a MLB contract each year) doesn't have much to do with the general salary structure of the game.

[sheethead]

Yep, four-year, $15.1M. Don't know what I was looking at.

[nate82]

When I look at the dollar value I don't look at it as what the player should be getting or what they could get anymore that is just way to confusing and causes way to much controversy. When I look at the dollar value I see what it would cost to replace that players production in free agency. That maybe one player or multiple players. Lets take Jack Wilson for example. While Wilson is not a great offensive player yet he is a rather good defensive player and that is where his value lies. With the dollar value stat it says he is worth $8.7m.

 

How I look at it is that Wilson was worth $8.7m for his wins that means if a team would replace Wilson they would have to replace him with a player(s) that will bring as much value back. How much will it cost? It should cost about $8.7m in free agency to replace Wilson's production both offensively and defensively.

 

Does this mean the player is worth that? No what it means is that the production that the player provided to the team was worth this amount in free agency and this is what it would cost to replace that production.

 

Another example is Albert Pujols. Now imagine for whatever reason the Cardinals get rid of Albert Pujols that is a lot of production the Cardinals would have to replace. The amount of money that they would have to find in free agency to replace Pujols in would be $38m. That means the Cardinals would have to find a player or players in free agency to replace Pujols at $38m. In all likelihood it would take more than one player to replace Pujols so you are looking at 3 or 4 free agent signings to get up to that amount of $38m (per year).

 

If you look at the dollar figure not as a figure that what the player could get in free agency but what it would cost for a team to replace that player in free agency it makes a lot more sense at least to me it does.

[joepepsi]

OK, I get it. But it's still too high. It's like it's based on what the Yankees would pay to get that production.

[Ennder]

It is also how much someone would be worth over a single season. If Pujols signed a 1 year deal how much do you think it would be for, something silly like $32M probably right?

When you start talking multi year deals you have to assume players production will split and that there is a lot of risk of them getting hurt etc and the average salary per year goes down and down.

[endaround]

OK, I get it. But it's still too high. It's like it's based on what the Yankees would pay to get that production.

 

Its based on the entire league. After all the Brewers spent $20m this season on basically replacement level production.

[joepepsi]

Do you think the Brewers intended to pay $20 million for just replacement level results?

[thebruce44]

Do you think the Brewers intended to pay $20 million for just replacement level results?

 

Obviously not.

[endaround]

Of course they didn't, but they paid Looper $6.5 million based on him being worth about 1.8 wins right in lien with fangraphs's valuation of a free agent. Looper just collapsed.