|
Post by TheCoronaManCometh on Jan 16, 2019 21:28:00 GMT -5
I didn’t. I was only implying that teams don’t pay guys with a .760 ops and 111 wRC+ $185 million contracts, unless they believe those numbers will improve. Heyward is just one example of why teams are now weary of handing out big contracts. My point would be that Heyward had given people plenty of reason to think he could hit at a really good level in the big leagues, he had produced seasons with a wRC+ of 134, 121 twice and 120 in another season. There was actual tangible proof that he could hit. Dansby, not so much. Either way, I wasn’t comparing Swanson to heyward.
|
|
|
Post by Fumbduckery on Jan 16, 2019 21:43:01 GMT -5
I'd have to say the realistic value of WAR is closer to $5 million than it is $9 million. On the low end (1.0 to 2.0 WAR players), maybe it's close to $9 million, but not on the top end, unless you believe that Trout is worth $90 million per year. Trout is worth $90 million in value, not in actual dollars, if a team considers him a 10.0 War player, on average. I calculated it the other day and Trout is on average a 9.2 or 9.3 WAR player according to Fangraphs.
I apologize if I'm being ignorant, and there's a solid chance I am....and you may have tried to explain this....but if they're going to say a guy has $90M in value, but not in actual dollars.....why don't they make it simple for us tards and just come up with an actual dollars number? That's my problem, I've been trying to relate it to actual dollars so it has made no sense to me. You've posted material so we could read up on this, and I just haven't had the time or enough interest to do it. That's on me, and if you'd rather not try to explain it just tell I'm being a tard and I'll give you a +1 and we'll move on! But at least I'll understand now there's meant to be a difference in that dollar value and actual dollars.
|
|
|
Post by Fumbduckery on Jan 16, 2019 21:52:19 GMT -5
My point would be that Heyward had given people plenty of reason to think he could hit at a really good level in the big leagues, he had produced seasons with a wRC+ of 134, 121 twice and 120 in another season. There was actual tangible proof that he could hit. Dansby, not so much. Either way, I wasn’t comparing Swanson to heyward. I believe you. But I will compare them in the sense that despite Dansby's great improvement with the glove he better start showing he can be better than a lightweight slap hitter who strikes out a ton or he's not going to get any big contracts or end up playing for any contending teams.
|
|
|
Post by TheCoronaManCometh on Jan 16, 2019 22:02:45 GMT -5
Trout is worth $90 million in value, not in actual dollars, if a team considers him a 10.0 War player, on average. I calculated it the other day and Trout is on average a 9.2 or 9.3 WAR player according to Fangraphs.
I apologize if I'm being ignorant, and there's a solid chance I am....and you may have tried to explain this....but if they're going to say a guy has $90M in value, but not in actual dollars.....why don't they make it simple for us tards and just come up with an actual dollars number? That's my problem, I've been trying to relate it to actual dollars so it has made no sense to me. You've posted material so we could read up on this, and I just haven't had the time or enough interest to do it. That's on me, and if you'd rather not try to explain it just tell I'm being a tard and I'll give you a +1 and we'll move on! But at least I'll understand now there's meant to be a difference in that dollar value and actual dollars.
I believe the main reason is because GMs and Owners aren’t a known quantity like stats are. Here’s an example...There’s a free agent who’s put up a 3 War average over the last few years. He’s been consistent, but there’s still some growth, potentially to be a 4 War player. One GM would look at him and say, “$/War is 9 million, he’s a 3 war player. I’ll offer 4-years $108 million.” There’s another GM who would say, “He’s a 3 War player, but I got this GM offering $108 mil, and I think he could be a 4 war player, so I’ll offer 4-years $120 million.” Then you got Dave Stewart saying, “This guy is the best, I have to have him! I’ll offer 5-years $160 million!!!” $/War is great for finding surplus value in trades. A lot of times when you see a lopsided deal, the basis for it being lopsided is because of surplus values that were exchanged. Those surplus values were found based on $/War. The reason it’s still a thing is because over time it’s proven to be effective. So, in other words, when you see $/War don’t think of it as what a player will or should be paid. If all teams acted on that baseball would cease to exist because how many teams could afford to pay Trout $80-90 million a year? None, of course.
|
|
|
Post by keystone61 on Jan 17, 2019 9:05:47 GMT -5
I don't think Trout is gonna get even $50 million, much less $90. One player, no matter how good, simply can't turn a baseball team around. It takes 25 guys, plus at some point, there are diminishing returns. Is Trout the best player in the game? I don't think there's any doubt about that. Can he win by himself? Obviously not. What's the point of having the best player if you can't put enough good players around him to field a championship team? There is no point. An outlandish salary makes some sense in basketball because 7-8 guys can win a championship. That simply isn't the case in baseball.
|
|
|
Post by Fumbduckery on Jan 17, 2019 12:00:57 GMT -5
I calculated it the other day and Trout is on average a 9.2 or 9.3 WAR player according to Fangraphs.
I apologize if I'm being ignorant, and there's a solid chance I am....and you may have tried to explain this....but if they're going to say a guy has $90M in value, but not in actual dollars.....why don't they make it simple for us tards and just come up with an actual dollars number? That's my problem, I've been trying to relate it to actual dollars so it has made no sense to me. You've posted material so we could read up on this, and I just haven't had the time or enough interest to do it. That's on me, and if you'd rather not try to explain it just tell I'm being a tard and I'll give you a +1 and we'll move on! But at least I'll understand now there's meant to be a difference in that dollar value and actual dollars.
I believe the main reason is because GMs and Owners aren’t a known quantity like stats are. Here’s an example...There’s a free agent who’s put up a 3 War average over the last few years. He’s been consistent, but there’s still some growth, potentially to be a 4 War player. One GM would look at him and say, “$/War is 9 million, he’s a 3 war player. I’ll offer 4-years $108 million.” There’s another GM who would say, “He’s a 3 War player, but I got this GM offering $108 mil, and I think he could be a 4 war player, so I’ll offer 4-years $120 million.” Then you got Dave Stewart saying, “This guy is the best, I have to have him! I’ll offer 5-years $160 million!!!” $/War is great for finding surplus value in trades. A lot of times when you see a lopsided deal, the basis for it being lopsided is because of surplus values that were exchanged. Those surplus values were found based on $/War. The reason it’s still a thing is because over time it’s proven to be effective. So, in other words, when you see $/War don’t think of it as what a player will or should be paid. If all teams acted on that baseball would cease to exist because how many teams could afford to pay Trout $80-90 million a year? None, of course. Thanks for the info. I've also heard that almost every team has it's own system of evaluating players, so I think another factor would be that they aren't all necessarily going off the standard WAR numbers the rest of us see. That would create more variables and maybe unknowns or non specifics in worth.
|
|
|
Post by TheCoronaManCometh on Jan 18, 2019 0:22:41 GMT -5
I believe the main reason is because GMs and Owners aren’t a known quantity like stats are. Here’s an example...There’s a free agent who’s put up a 3 War average over the last few years. He’s been consistent, but there’s still some growth, potentially to be a 4 War player. One GM would look at him and say, “$/War is 9 million, he’s a 3 war player. I’ll offer 4-years $108 million.” There’s another GM who would say, “He’s a 3 War player, but I got this GM offering $108 mil, and I think he could be a 4 war player, so I’ll offer 4-years $120 million.” Then you got Dave Stewart saying, “This guy is the best, I have to have him! I’ll offer 5-years $160 million!!!” $/War is great for finding surplus value in trades. A lot of times when you see a lopsided deal, the basis for it being lopsided is because of surplus values that were exchanged. Those surplus values were found based on $/War. The reason it’s still a thing is because over time it’s proven to be effective. So, in other words, when you see $/War don’t think of it as what a player will or should be paid. If all teams acted on that baseball would cease to exist because how many teams could afford to pay Trout $80-90 million a year? None, of course. Thanks for the info. I've also heard that almost every team has it's own system of evaluating players, so I think another factor would be that they aren't all necessarily going off the standard WAR numbers the rest of us see. That would create more variables and maybe unknowns or non specifics in worth. You definitely see it more when it comes to trades. All one has to do is look at the deals Dave Stewart made, or more recently jerry dipoto.
|
|
|
Post by PABraveFan on Jan 22, 2019 17:13:59 GMT -5
How does Nick's $4M and $6M next year compare with this $/WAR?
|
|
|
Post by TheCoronaManCometh on Jan 22, 2019 22:47:57 GMT -5
How does Nick's $4M and $6M next year compare with this $/WAR? I believe his Zips projection has him at 1 War, so $9 mil and a positive for the Braves, but they could have, and should have, been able to do better.
|
|
|
Post by PABraveFan on Jan 22, 2019 22:50:35 GMT -5
How does Nick's $4M and $6M next year compare with this $/WAR? I believe his Zips projection has him at 1 War, so $9 mil and a positive for the Braves, but they could have, and should have, been able to do better. If he stay two years we nearly get a TWOfer!
|
|
|
Post by Fumbduckery on Jan 22, 2019 23:07:42 GMT -5
I believe his Zips projection has him at 1 War, so $9 mil and a positive for the Braves, but they could have, and should have, been able to do better. If he stay two years we nearly get a TWOfer! 2 WAR over 2 seasons.
|
|
|
Post by TheCoronaManCometh on Jan 23, 2019 0:20:00 GMT -5
I believe his Zips projection has him at 1 War, so $9 mil and a positive for the Braves, but they could have, and should have, been able to do better. If he stay two years we nearly get a TWOfer! A TWOfer of league average. YIPEE!!!!!
|
|