Aside from the Extremes, Pricing for Run Creators in 2011 is Pretty Volatile

(Click here to enlarge)
- On Friday I posted a visual of 62 positional free agents that have been signed for 2011 and how cost effective they are likely to be in terms of projected wRC. As I mentioned, assessing who the biggest steals are likely to be in 2011 isn't as straight forward as looking at the graphic I posted. Why?
- As mentioned on Friday, about 44% of the variation in $/wRC is explained by projected wRC--so to some extent the market is dictating that the better run creators command a higher premium for the runs they create. So a better way to assess bargains may be to look at players segmented by the range of runs they are projected to create. When we do that, we see some interesting patterns. More specifically, it looks like for 2011 the greatest uncertainty in terms of pricing potential run creation falls in between the extremes of below average and elite players*. The graph above plots the standard deviation of $/wRC for free agent position players for each of eight segments.
- As you can see, the variation jumps dramatically for free agents projected to create between 50-89 runs (admittedly, the sample for each segment is small). To some extent this is intuitive, as we would assume it is easier to identify the below average talent and the star players--it's when we start trying to determine between C+, B-, B, and B+ players that it gets much harder.
- And when it comes to identifying and signing players in the middle of the wRC spectrum, some teams appear better at it than others.
(Click here to enlarge)
If we look at teams that signed two or more free agent position players this year, Milwaukee and Tampa Bay are projected to have obtained runs at the cheapest price, and they did so very differently.
Milwaukee signed three players all of whom are projected to produce under 50 runs next year (Mark Kotsay, Craig Counsel, and Wil Nieves). On the other hand, Tampa Bay signed the third best bargain in the 70-79 wRC range (Johnny Damon) and the second biggest bargain in the 60-69 wRC range (Manny Ramirez).
On the opposite end of the spectrum, the Detroit Tigers signed the second most expensive 70-79 wRC player (Victor Martinez), the third most expensive 60-69 wRC player (Jhonny Peralta), and the most expensive 60-69 wRC player (Magglio Ordonez).
For some prospective, Manny Ramirez should produce more runs than Ordonez and do so for a fifth of the price ($29K/wRC vs. $156K/wRC).
Now this doesn't tell the whole story, and of course this is all contingent on players performing up to Tango's projections. But I don't think anyone is surprised to see a team like Tampa Bay poised to capitalize on under priced talent.
----------
*Defensive value isn't captured in wRC, so some of the apparent variation may be attributed to that for players like Beltre and Crawford.
7 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The AL Central's results are very telling, I think:
KCR and CLE at the top, CWS and DET at the bottom.
I mean, it makes sense, though
Sox spent big on Dunn, Konerko and Crain. Tigers spent big on Martinez, Ordonez and Benoit.
The Indians and Royals have done practically nothing. Cleveland’s added Kearns and Cabrera, and Kansas City has added Francoeur, Melky, Francis and Chen.
Baseball is my preferred sport. It should be yours, too.
I'm a columnist for Beyond the Box Score, an SB Nation blog.
Oh, I'm on Twitter, too.
by Satchel Price on Feb 15, 2011 11:49 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
I think that's why you have to look at the segmentation
Some (mostly non-competitive) teams didn’t really go after higher profile free agents, so the way to compare front offices is to look at what they paid for players that project to similar wRC in 2011.
Part of this is skewed by age, service time, and defensive ability, but in general I think you have to look at what people paid for essentially the same “product”.
Writer at Beyond the Box Score and tortured Mets fan (is there any other kind?)
Theory...
It certainly makes sense to me that high wRC players command more dollars per wRC since teams are constrained by roster spots, lineups, aggregate team plate appearances, etc. One player with 80 wRC is worth more than two players who each contribute 40 wRC because the better player is generating that production while only occupying one lineup slot and ~10-12% of the teams (somewhat fixed) plate appearances. The two 40 wRC players generate the same production, but consume roughly double the plate appearances, leaving fewer opportunities for the rest of the lineup to generate runs. Playing time is a limited resource and its consumption should be reflected in $/wRC.
Totally agree
Which helps explain why, in general, we should see a positive correlation between wRC and salary.
Writer at Beyond the Box Score and tortured Mets fan (is there any other kind?)
Even more than that
It not only explains the positive correlation between wRC and salary, but it explains why this relationship would not be linear as well. Salary would rise more than proportional to an increase in wRC. In other words the function Salary = f(wRC) would be convex.
Even more than that
It not only explains the positive correlation between wRC and salary, but it explains why this relationship would not be linear as well. Salary would rise more than proportional to an increase in wRC. In other words the function Salary = f(wRC) would be convex.

by 
































