Money In the Bank Pt. 5
by Tommy Rancel on Jan 15, 2009 9:25 AM EST
21 comments
Today, I take a look at the signings/trades of 2007.
A few ground rules here.
- To qualify using "worth", The player must have been acquired by Friedman prior or during the 2007 season and must have had at least 50 IP as a starter or 20 IP as a reliever with the team during the year.
- Several players were acquired by Friedman, but did not qualify for worth. However, since they received a salary, I included them in the salary portion of the chart. Call them "sunk costs."
|
2007 |
SP IP |
RP IP |
FIP |
WAR |
Salary |
Worth |
|
Camp |
N/A |
39.1 |
5.29 |
-0.1 |
0.4 |
-0.4 |
|
Howell |
51 |
|
4.77 |
0.7 |
0.4 |
2.8 |
|
|
160.2 |
0.1 |
4.9 |
2 |
0.4 |
8.1 |
|
Seo |
50 |
2 |
6.07 |
0.1 |
1.2 |
0.4 |
|
Glover |
N/A |
77.1 |
5.02 |
0.1 |
0.6 |
0.4 |
|
Reyes |
N/A |
60.2 |
4.85 |
0.3 |
0.8 |
1 |
|
Dohmann |
N/A |
32.2 |
4.49 |
0.2 |
0.4 |
0.7 |
|
Wheeler |
N/A |
25 |
4.04 |
0.5 |
2.1 |
1.9 |
|
Balfour |
N/A |
22 |
3.56 |
0.3 |
0.4 |
1.2 |
|
|
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
0.4 |
N/A |
|
Witasick |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
0.5 |
N/A |
This is the fifth part of this series and the worst salary to worth ratio yet(2.1:1 worth to dollar). We all knew the 2007 bullpen was one of the worst historically and this just adds to that fact. If you take away the starting pitchers (Howell, Jackson, Seo) and the late season acquisitions of Wheeler and Balfour, the remaining pitchers combined for 0.5 wins and that doesn't include guys like Brian Stokes or Casey Fossum. The Rays "lost" money on Camp, Seo, Glover and Wheeler. Al Reyes was good, but not nearly as valuable as he was perceived.
The saving grace in all of this was Edwin Jackson, who some how was worth $8.1 million dollars and 2 wins. It's weird, but Jackson was actually worth more in 2007 than in 2008. Also weird, is how Jae Seo with a 6.07 FIP was worth a positive 0.1 win.
0 recs |
21 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I have to question a set of calculations that says Jackson was worth more in 2007 than in 2008
I mean, doesn’t real world results count for anything? I realize that on a theoretical basis Jackson might have been better in 2007 but the defense let him down that year and helped him too much in 2008, but the shouldn’t the fact that the 2008 roster was constructed in a way to prevent his more harmful tendencies from leading to too many runs mean that inherently he was more valuable in 2008?
It would be like having an extreme groundball pitcher where in one year he struck out more and walked less, but the infield defense sucked, and then in the next year he struck out fewer, walked more, but allowed far less runs because the defense behind him was much better. Even though he was a better pitcher in the first year, I’d have to say he had more value in the second year, simply because he was put in a position where his strengths could help the team rather than hurt the team.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Jan 15, 2009 11:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Grammar fail
“don’t”, not doesn’t.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Jan 15, 2009 11:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Grammar fail #1
Comma inside the quotes
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Jan 15, 2009 11:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Counting fail
That should have been Grammar fail #2.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Jan 15, 2009 11:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is how I take it and maybe it's wrong, but
Its Wins above Replacement Level. So if a guy’s periphials are better in year 1, but his W/L ERA are better in year 2 due to a better defense, but his periphials are worse, then the he isn’t actually better.
Therefore since he was a better indivual pitcher in year 1, he would be worth more that year than a replacement level pitcher.
by Tommy Rancel on Jan 15, 2009 11:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dave Cameron is explaing the process in detail on fangraphs.com
I just haven’t had a chance to sit and read through all the details
by Tommy Rancel on Jan 15, 2009 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We're using FIP in these calculations.
And we’re also league/park adjusting them. So, that’s why.
by R.J. Anderson on Jan 15, 2009 11:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess what I'm saying
Is that is we’re trying to determine “value”, which is real world and not hypothetical, then maybe FIP isn’t the best baseline to use in making that determination.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Jan 15, 2009 11:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is the problem.
You’re not isolating the pitcher from the team/defense, and thus you’re not properly valuing the pitcher. You’re instead giving Edwin value for walking more and striking out less, and frankly that’s just not right.
by R.J. Anderson on Jan 15, 2009 12:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But pitching, in reality, doesn't happen in isolation
And thus the actual value to a team, which is hopefully greater than the sum of its parts, shouldn’t use a measure that shows it in isolation.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Jan 15, 2009 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Assuming a pitcher can "use his defense,:
which seems logical. How did Jackson do that? Yes his Ks were down but, intuitively, wouldn’t he strive to give-up more GBs and less FB/LDs? The issue is stripping defense from the equation. If assessing real value than we shouldn’t attribute what his teammates did. If there was a way to accurately strip luck/defense without looking solely at K,BB, HR, etc. I’d gladly except it. The only other method I know of id tRA, and he did improve in that aspect. So, maybe the .02 decrease isn’t the end-all-beat-all, but I’d say it’s closer than the 1.3 run drop in ERA.
by rglass44 on Jan 15, 2009 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Add in the park/league adjustments....
And I can see a decline.
by R.J. Anderson on Jan 15, 2009 2:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's true.
His tRA+ improved by a small margin. One measure says he got a little worse, one says he got a little better, one says he VASTLY improved. Hmmmm…. One of these is not like the other….
by rglass44 on Jan 15, 2009 3:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well we know he didn't vastly improve.
I’d say he remained static.
by R.J. Anderson on Jan 15, 2009 3:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but a pitcher isn't being penalized for putting grounders into play, ask Bradford.
He’s being penalized for walking a ton and allowing homeruns.
by R.J. Anderson on Jan 15, 2009 2:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Back to Brick's point...
Was Jackson a more valuable pitcher in 2008 than 2007? Of course he was. Maybe it was luck, maybe it was defense, but he was more valuable in 2008 because his results were better.
It isn’t results based analysis. No one is saying Jackson is a better pitcher than someone else. It’s stating that he was more valuable because his results were better. A pitcher that achieved his results last year is more valuable than a pitcher with the other results from 2007.
Let’s say two people purchased a lottery ticket, one person won and one person lost, which ticket is more valuable? Obviously the value is based in the results.
If a team had two pitchers with all equal except that one allowed a BABIP of .100 and one who allowed a BABIP of .400. Which one was more valuable to the team in that given year?
by tallyray on Jan 15, 2009 8:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
