Player value to a Team

[GregAlso]

There are a lot of threads about players to trade for and what we could send to get whom. There have been a lot about players we could’ve signed that have been discussed ad naseum. Below is a recent post on fangraphs about the cost of a win and how teams are valuing players and I believe it adds a bit understanding to all these decisions being made across baseball. 
 

I think this piece helps to explain why teams would waive certain players nobody historically would expect to be waived. It also helps explain the value of players to be exchanged in trades. It is a short read.
 

Basically, until 2016 the value of a player could be seen based on a dollar amount per the number of wins they were projected to add to a team, expressed in WAR. The value was static whether you provided a small boost or a large boost it was similar for average and above average players. 1 win got you $9 million and 3 got you $27 million in free agency. Over the past 3 years that is changing. If you provide 2+ wins per year you are still very very valuable, but if you provide less than 2 your value drops off.

Teams seem to feel like getting an average guy to fill a spot in free agency isn’t that difficult and is frankly cheaper in the market now. They still value getting a legitimately above average guy to fill a spot but he better really be above average. Another note, above average relievers are valued on a bit different scale. 
 

Going forward it could help provide an idea how teams value our prospects and what they are looking for in a trade. For example, an above average player is worth more than just a bunch of average players that are equal in seeming value because of the value the single player adds to one roster spot, i.e. a 3 win player is worth a lot more than two 1.5 win players. Just interesting stuff here applicable to all the other threads about player trades and signings on the board. 
 

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/is-the-cost-of-a-win-in-free-agency-still-linear/

 

[Drink More Yakult]

That makes sense. Why spend $36 million on four 1war guys when you could spend $36 on two 2war guys and have two chances at someone providing value on a league minimum contract.

The way to win is having young cost controlled guys play well. 

[Cosmo_Kramer]

I thought people understood it wasn't linear a long time ago.

Next they'll say people finally understand that reliever war isn't particularly useful...

[GregAlso]

9 minutes ago, Cosmo_Kramer said:

I thought people understood it wasn't linear a long time ago.

Next they'll say people finally understand that reliever war isn't particularly useful...

It was behaving linearly until 2016. Many teams were behaving in a way that wasn’t optimal. Statisticians knew that wasn’t right but teams were behaving as they always behaved. But now teams are catching on and the markets starting to reflect that. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

The value of a win has always been and will continue to be generally linear. What teams are learning is that the associated risk factors and opportunity costs are not. 
 

A 4 war player is twice as valuable as a 2 war player when the stats are already on the books, but before the games are played that 2 war player is far more likely to play at a level that adds nothing to the team above what a ‘free’ player already on the roster might provide.

[Cosmo_Kramer]

5 hours ago, GregAlso said:

It was behaving linearly until 2016. Many teams were behaving in a way that wasn’t optimal. Statisticians knew that wasn’t right but teams were behaving as they always behaved. But now teams are catching on and the markets starting to reflect that. 

Oh I see now. I read his old articles on fg. Yes, teams have acted as you described.

[Cosmo_Kramer]

5 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

The value of a win has always been and will continue to be generally linear. What teams are learning is that the associated risk factors and opportunity costs are not. 
 

It's a curve. But it is also "generally" linear.

[Cosmo_Kramer]

41 minutes ago, calscuf said:

Curved lines are still lines.

Correct

But linear is a line that's straight

And curve is a line that's not straight

[Drink More Yakult]

51 minutes ago, calscuf said:

To me a straight line is a line that has no breaks, it’s straight because it’s continuous.  If you’re thinking of the type of line you draw with a ruler?  I’d call that invariable.

Invariable would be a line that has no slope. The definition of straight is has no curve. You are arguing against the dictionary.

[Docwaukee]

classic AW

[Drink More Yakult]

34 minutes ago, calscuf said:

Oh crap, I’m sorry, I thought I mentioned it.  I don’t believe in the dictionary.  
 

Language is fluid and trying to put arbitrary definitions for words and to say “that is right” and “you are wrong if your definition doesn’t match what we say it is” doesn’t make sense and is (not trying to sound like a pansy, but..) a bit offensive.  
 

Arguing against the dictionary? Heck, I’ll do that all day long.  If you read the thing, you probably would, too.

You trying to tell us something else isn’t straight besides the line mapping player WAR to value?

[arch stanton]

This thread is fucking profound

[Lou]

This thread is why I prefer college football.

[Angel Oracle]

The most important thing to me today is pitching health.   The almost epidemic pitching injuries today seems to really affect how teams now build their pitching staffs.

Are we getting closer to an era where starters rarely ever exceed 5 innings?   Not just because of the two times through the batting order thought process, but to also preserve better pitching health?

 

[Angel Oracle]

3 hours ago, Lou said:

This thread is why I prefer college football.

Patience grasshopper, only three days until LSU vs Clemson