• You Don’t Get What You Paid For?

    Posted by on January 22nd, 2007 · Comments (1)

    From J.P. McIntyre at The Hardball Times -

    Net Win Shares Value essentially estimates the “expected” production from a player based on how he was signed (as a free agent, arbitration-eligible or not eligible for arbitration) and how much he was paid, then compares that to how he actually did. The difference is multiplied by the average amount teams paid for each Win Share Above Bench last year. If the number is positive, the player was a relatively good deal for the team; if not, not.

    Let’s now look at a team that was the opposite of the Tigers, the New York Yankees:

    Player ~~~ Net WS Value
    Wang ~~~ 9,689,000
    Karstens ~~~ 1,399,000
    Rasner ~~~ 824,000
    Wright ~~~ -1,184,000
    Ponson ~~~ -1,807,000
    Mussina ~~~ -2,590,000
    Chacon ~~~ -3,930,000
    Johnson ~~~ -6,481,000

    Despite having one of the best values in baseball in Chien-Ming Wang, the Yankees were 11th in the AL in terms of payroll value for their starters, and that is not even including the $9 million they paid Carl Pavano to heal slowly. Mike Mussina had a solid season, but the Yankees were paying him so much that it was not cost effective. The Yankees received 125 starts from Wang, Johnson, Mussina, and Wright, but used eight other pitchers to make the remaining 37 starts, some with some rather inefficient results.

    It’s a good thing the standings are determined by “W’s” and “L’s” and not “ROI’s.”

    Comments on You Don’t Get What You Paid For?

    1. SteveB
      January 22nd, 2007 | 4:47 pm

      I hate analyses like this, because they are completely pointless. Players don’t get paid based on $$$ indexed against projected Win Shares. Players get paid largely for what they have done in the past. The top teams typically also pay a premium to keep good players away from other teams among other things. That might not be the best or smartest way to build a team, but it is the way it’s done.

      Also, the right way to analyze the issue and have it make sense would be to assign a dollar value per win. I’m sure if that hasn’t already been done it wouldn’t be terribly hard to do it.

      So if a franchise wins 100 games that equates to x in revenue. You’d have to make adjustments for market size, broadcast deals etc for each team. But theb you could assign a $ value to each win share. That way you could actually could calculate player ROI.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.