Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Notre Dame's Turnaround: How Have The Irish Done It?

Bargain Shopping: Dollars Per Run

After recently going through some of the younger Athletics salaries and realizing the production the A's are getting for bargain prices, it got me to thinking about the importance of taking a player's salary situation into account.

Is there some way to figure out just how valuable having a player like Huston Street or Bobby Crosby on your team?  Talent that is young, cheap and produces at the major league level.  I wondered if there was some metric or way to measure how much of a bargain certain players are.

Since I'm not exactly a mathematician or statistician, I enlisted the help of Richard Brian Wade from the SportsBlog Beyond the Boxscore.

He worked out a calculation using VORP from Baseball Prospectus compared to salary.  VORP is described as:

Value Over Replacement Player. The number of runs contributed beyond what a replacement-level player at the same position would contribute if given the same percentage of team plate appearances. VORP scores do not consider the quality of a player's defense.

So Richard put this equation together to try and figure out who were the best bargains in baseball this year:

( Games Played / 162 * Salary ) / VORP

An example of how it works:

Brian Roberts has a VORP of 51.6, and a salary of $390,000.  The Orioles have played 87 games.

( 87 / 162 * 390000 ) / 51.6 = $4,059.00 Per Run

So then, who tops this list so far in 2005?

Here is the Top 20 position players in Dollars Per Run or DPR.

1 Brian Roberts, BAL
2 Miguel Cabrera, FLO
3 Travis Hafner, CLE
4 Jason Bay, PIT
5 Morgan Ensberg, HOU
6 Chase Utley, PHI
7 Felipe Lopez, CIN
8 Jhonny Peralta, CLE
9 Bill Hall, MIL
10 Joe Mauer, MIN
11 David Wright, NYN
12 Grady Sizemore, CLE
13 Kevin Mench, TEX
14 Clint Barmes, COL
15 Jorge Cantu, TBA
16 Ryan Church, WAS
17 Carl Crawford, TBA
18 Bobby Crosby, OAK
19 Chad Tracy, ARI
20 Coco Crisp, CLE

This list obviously includes some of the brightest young stars in the game, including our own Bobby Crosby.    

One of the caveats is that it's impossible to calculate all of the players because at least 51 players have salaries that Richard couldn't locate.  The first player to show up making a salary over $1 million is Nick Johnson.  At some point, we're going to try and get a more comprehensive list.  I would also guess that the A's Dan Johnson is probably relatively high on the list as well.

Of course, this system isn't perfect because it doesn't take defense into account, but it gives you a sense of who is producing at a bargain level.  Richard also made the point that VORP is marginal runs, but we couldn't do marginal dollars because it would drastically overrate players making the league minimum.

But what makes these players so very valuable is that it allows you to allocate funds in other areas of weakness.  If you have a Bobby Crosby, Nick Swisher and Dan Johnson producing at a ridiculously high DPR level, it allows you to maybe overpay a little to keep a talent like Kotsay (not that the A's overpaid for him).

It's possible there is already some measure or process to figure this out (chances are Beane and company already have it, which is why the draft is the most important day of the year for the A's).  But it's why getting those 0-3 service year players who can produce immediately like Harden, Haren, Blanton, Dan Johnson, Crosby and Street are absolutely necessary to keep this team alive.

Comment 60 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

miguel cabrera
man, i would love to have cabrera on the team!

by gotgreen on Jul 12, 2005 10:42 PM PDT reply actions  

Miguel Cabrera
is awesome i would love to have him on my team

by Oaktown Kid on Jul 13, 2005 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions  

one thing to be careful about
while ideally the a's would have 5-6 of their young players high on this list every year, i don't think it tells the whole story, especially if players like tejada, abreu, and vlad are low on the list.  who wouldn't pay that extra money?

it's kind of like $/win.  it's nice that the a's are always up there, but what does it really mean if the devil rays are near the top, above teams like the red sox?

by xbhaskarx on Jul 12, 2005 10:45 PM PDT reply actions  

It isn't a perfect metric because the
players who have bigger salaries are automatically penalized by a lot.  And a young player like Cabrera who isn't making a lot yet and producing at an unbelievable level is going to be favored.

by Tyler Bleszinski on Jul 12, 2005 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

That's the idea
Players with big salaries are supposed to be penalized a lot.

Here's a suggestion, though - break it up by contractual status (ie, 1-3, arbi 4-6, fa 7+). There's no question that the most efficient team possible would be mad up of the 25 best players in their 1-3 pre arbi years - but that's entirely irrelevent, since no GM could ever assemble a squad even remotely resembling that. (though, if we let Zito walk, our rotation next year might very well achieve historical levels of efficiency) Even a team full of decent, but unspectacular 1-3s would be far and away the most efficient. Every team, though, has room in their payroll for 4-6s and FAs, since 25*$350k=$8.75m and every team is at least $20m higher than that. Since salaries across the three categories are entirely unrelated, it doesn't make sense to compare the salaries of players between them.

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Jul 13, 2005 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions  

good point
that's pretty much where i was trying to go with my comment.

by xbhaskarx on Jul 13, 2005 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions  

Good point...
I'll see about making that change at some point.

by Richard Wade on Jul 13, 2005 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions  

the most efficient team
The late Doug Pappas used to track marginal dollars (the amount of payroll beyond what a team of players making the minimum would cost) vs. marginal wins (the number of wins beyond what you would expect from a team of replacement level players, which I think was set at somewhere around 40) on a team level. Not surprisingly, Oakland and Minnesota, who typically win 90 games with a modest payroll, tended to be toward the top, but for at least one year the most efficient team by this measure was the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, who came close to that ideal of a team of decent but unspectacular 1-3s. This is the downside of value; roster spots and playing time are finite, so you can put together a collection of players who are great values, and end up with a truly rotten team. Getting great players is going to cost a premium, but it's the only way to win.
That's their job. The good thing is that I don't care what they write. - BB

by andeux on Jul 13, 2005 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

Of course
the idea is to get as many A list 1-3s as possible, pay a couple of players real money, and then fill holes with D-Rays caliber 1-3s, instead of paying someone a mil and a half or so to do the same thing.

There's also a statistical problem that comes up when comparing teams/players of vastly different payrolls/salaries.

Just throwing some numbers out there, simple ones, for simple math. We'll pretend that minimum wage is $400k - so a minimum wage team is $10m.

Team A spends $30m and wins 65 games - $20m marginal dollars for 25 marginal games, or 1.2 marginal wins/$million.

Team B spends $80m and wins 95 games - $70m marginal dollars for 55 marginal games, or .8 marginal wins/$million.

Team A is significantly more efficient.

Now watch what happens with Team C, who spends $10.1m and wins 41 games - .1 marginal dollars and 1 marginal win. They post an astounding 10 marginal wins/$million. You see what happened? When one of the numbers is so close to zero, any increase in performance will be seen as an incredible efficiency (or any incredible inefficiency for any drops) when the actual change in performance is barely relevent.

Here's another way to look at it. One could fairly easily determine how many wins, over the last several years a team at any particular payroll (relative to the league) was likely to win. For team A, lets call it 60 games, for team B, lets say that it's 85 games, and, naturally, team C is 40 games.

Under this study, team A would be outperforming their expected record by 5 games, team B by 10 games, and team C by 1 game. By that standard, I think you could fairly conclude that team B is really more efficient than the lower payroll teams.

The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Jul 13, 2005 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well stated...
That's exactly why we didn't use marginal dollars.

by Richard Wade on Jul 13, 2005 9:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well...
that's actualy the point.  Bobby Abreu isn't a bargain.  Alex Rodriguez isn't a bargain.

by Richard Wade on Jul 13, 2005 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

If you compare
Bobby Abreu to Alex Rodriguez, it's practically a fire sale.
The next time I slap a guy's ass, can we all just assume it's because I wish I was a baseball player?

by devo on Jul 13, 2005 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

I already did this...
I'd like to see them do one on all A's position players.  Let's see if they agree with The Fools Count

I guess I'm just ahead of my time.  ;-)

Eric Byrnes - Offensive and defensive dynamo!

by FoolshGame22 on Jul 12, 2005 10:45 PM PDT reply actions  

Ooops... wrong diary
my cost efficiency analysis was in The Case for Trading Kotsay.
Eric Byrnes - Offensive and defensive dynamo!

by FoolshGame22 on Jul 12, 2005 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

Something else interesting
You could pretty much take the top 10 players on this list and possibly make a very, very good team.

C: Joe Mauer
1B: Chase Utley (he's played first)
2B: Brian Roberts
3B: Morgan Ensberg
SS:  Felipe Lopez
LF: Jason Bay
CF: Miguel Cabrera
RF: Travis Hafner (scary proposition)
DH: Jhonny Peralta

by Tyler Bleszinski on Jul 12, 2005 10:59 PM PDT reply actions  

i really like . . .
 
"jhonny"

Love and kisses,

Jheff

by camperdog on Jul 12, 2005 11:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

sorta... (OF)
I think I'd go with...

C: Joe Mauer
1B: Chase Utley
2B: Brian Roberts
3B: Morgan Ensberg
SS: Felipe Lopez
LF: Jhonny Peralta
CF: Jason Bay
RF: Miguel Cabrera
DH: Travis Hafner

Athletics Nation Chatroom! Join us at #AthleticsNation @ irc.zirc.org

by Zonis on Jul 13, 2005 12:31 AM PDT up reply actions  

What about other things like
tricks of the trade?  smart baserunning?  leadership?  Experience?  I think those things are valuable, and though financially they might not be worth a lot alone (like a whole team of veterans is not going to succeed usually), I think a team WITHOUT any of this would be in dire trouble.
Change is for the better. For both the A's and in life.

by WhiteElephantGuy on Jul 13, 2005 12:01 AM PDT reply actions  

That's...
not the point of the measurement.  We are looking specifically for who are the biggest bargains and nothing more.

by Richard Wade on Jul 13, 2005 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions  

Games Played
Is that really the number of games played by the team, not by the player?

Doesn't seem like games played by the team would be much of a factor, since it's close to the same for all teams at any given time.

by iglew on Jul 13, 2005 12:06 AM PDT reply actions  

Cleveland
is the team that really jumps out

by As89 on Jul 13, 2005 12:13 AM PDT reply actions  

Awesome Calculation by My Opinion
Harden, Haren, Blanton, Saarloos, Duke, Street, and Kalero are no doubt top pitchers by Total Worth.

While Crosby, Swisher, Kielty, and Ellis tops our position players and Johnson is worth something, his age and position makes him... well you know.

The only negatives I see in your equation are that the list omitted pitchers, but one thing that really erks me is this:

By using VORP and salaries, you are assuming that every position gets paid the same, but in reality it doesn't, and you don't take into account age which is really important, and what arb year the player is in.

Swisher is obviously worth more than the 5.1 VORP, 316k, because he plays LF, RF, 1B with great defense, he's young, a rookie, and patient for the fastball.

Another statistic could be an anomaly like Dontrell Willis who actually made the Marlins sells out a few games he started in, in his first season, which would make his worth the benchmark.

Of course in order to incorporate all of this, you would need a mathematical model (perhaps a linear model).

Something you might consider adding to your equation would be to divide the players salary to the teams 25 man salary, calculating each players worth to the team, because MLB salaries varies greatly among teams.

But a great calculation none the less, awesome work.

by Instant Replay Umpire on Jul 13, 2005 2:02 AM PDT reply actions  

Not surprisingly...
the calculation gives you a straight-line result, based on salary.  That is, the higher-priced players almost always rank lower on the DPR scale than the lower-priced players in, pretty much, the order of their salaries.  So, I'm not sure it tells you a whole lot.

The only real deviations are Thomas and Ginter, which really proves only one thing...  no matter how inexpensive you are, you can't hit like a piece of crap and hope to rank higher than even the most expensive players.

Eric Byrnes - Offensive and defensive dynamo!

by FoolshGame22 on Jul 13, 2005 2:39 AM PDT up reply actions  

Hmm...
I can see your point, but what if you compare Chavez, with the players with experience.  Compare him with Rolen, Alfonzo, Arod, Chipper Jones, etc.

I think Vorp takes into account ball park effect, but the main weakness I can see would be the injury rate of the player, and age with projected stats.  Defense of course is always hard to calculate as well.

But I hope everyone is begining to find out why we traded Hudson and Mulder, because the difference between a Hudson and Mulder, and Haren and Blanton is not only millions of dollars, but slim compared to Chavez and Kendall vs. Teahen and Melhuse

by Instant Replay Umpire on Jul 13, 2005 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions  

But of Course a Big Market Club
would rather have Hudson and Mulder than Haren and Blanton because they would be able to afford it, and would be much better with a Hudson and Mulder at their primes.

But the A's would rather have Haren and Blanton, and spend the money saved on other things.

by Instant Replay Umpire on Jul 13, 2005 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions  

One thing is certain, however...
Of all position players with 100 or more PA's, Eric Byrnes was #1 on the DPR scale in 2004.
Eric Byrnes - Offensive and defensive dynamo!

by FoolshGame22 on Jul 13, 2005 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

Is everything you say
Byrnes related?  its not like he's Jose canseco whom everybody does not respect anymore and you're trying to change that. Byrnes IS a fan favorite, and you're just blindly in love so stop convincing everyone to like byrnes when they already do.  We just also know a little something about baseball so we know he isn't the best player this side of A-Rod.
Change is for the better. For both the A's and in life.

by WhiteElephantGuy on Jul 13, 2005 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

I just thought it was interesting who the #1 DPR
player on the team was in 2004.  I can't help it if it was Byrnes.
Eric Byrnes - Offensive and defensive dynamo!

by FoolshGame22 on Jul 13, 2005 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

To answer a few of your points...
There is a separate list of pitchers and Blez has it.

I agree that it would be interesting to look at each position individually, but I disagree that it is necessary and also don't believe that age and arbitration year are necessary for determining your best value.  Those would simply give you more context.  There's nothing inherently wrong with applying the same measurement to all players if you accept the idea that there are genuine underlying reasons for some of the differences.  That being said, I intend to produce lists taking into account all of the things you mentioned in the future.

On defense, I've considered using WARP instead of VORP, but am fairly happy with looking only at offensive production, since we have a much better idea of how to measure that than we do defense.  Also, we all know that there are other factors outside the measurement that can be taken in to consideration and should be.  Dollars/Run tell you part of the story, but not all of it as Blez made clear.

It's difficult to determine what brought people to the ballpark, so I don't think that's a reasonable thing to do, though it would be interesting if you could.

On the model, if you have any thoughts on how to go about that, I'd be interested in hearing it.

I also like the idea of the % of team's payroll, but that would tell you something drastically different than what DPR does.

Thanks for the interest and kind words.

by Richard Wade on Jul 13, 2005 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

To Calulate what Brought People to the Ballpark
There are many ways to go about it, but here's one without having to construct a survey or anything.

Just take the starting pitcher, and the team against, followed by the day (mon, sat, etc), discounts or promotions that might have effect, and if there are abnormalities, then you have something like Dontrelle Willis.

You don't really have to take into account wins, because a starting pitcher pitches every five days.

Of course locations are different too, it's a known fact that Pettite and Clemens bolstered the Astros $$$, while Jason Giambi boosted the A's $$$ by just leaving.

Hard calculation to construct, but I think it's do-able.  However in the end, I would think that only a handful of players really make a difference in $$$, (Bonds, Willis, Clemens, Milestones, possibly Ichiro) come to mind.  Nothing more makes a difference than just winning.

As for the age and arbitration year being necessary for determining your best value, I think that might be effective if you want to project future value, and not just present value.

But now that I think about it, the DPR equation you guys constructed is brilliant in terms of being a statistic.  From the DPR statistic, it can be a platform for other statistics.  You could probably incorporate into the ultimate equation (something I can not give here) but it's basically the winning percentage equation for a 162 game season.  Taking into account a stat to predict how many runs you will score, how many runs will be scored on you, and the total amount of money you can spend on your 25 man roster.

by Instant Replay Umpire on Jul 13, 2005 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

Couple of reasons...
First of all, I can calculate VORP.  Actually, that's the only reason that counts so I'll stick with it.

by Richard Wade on Jul 13, 2005 9:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

win shares
I was actually wondering the same thing. thehardballtimes just put up win share totals for the first half. It's not calculatable, but they have it there listed for us.

by brian38 @ Athletics Nation on Jul 13, 2005 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

If you replace VORP with Win Shares...
You get this top 20:
  1. Brian Roberts, BAL
  2. Jason Bay, PIT
  3. Travis Hafner, CLE
  4. David Wright, NYN
  5. Miguel Cabrera, FLO
  6. Morgan Ensberg, HOU
  7. Joe Mauer, MIN
  8. Grady Sizemore, CLE
  9. David DeJesus, KCA
  10. Chase Utley, PHI
  11. Coco Crisp, CLE
  12. Kevin Mench, TEX
  13. Carl Crawford, TBA
  14. Felipe Lopez, CIN
  15. Clint Barmes, COL
  16. Chone Figgins, LAA
  17. Antonio Perez, LAN
  18. Adam LaRoche, ATL
  19. Chad Tracy, ARI
  20. Bill Hall, MIL
I may have omitted someone, but that ought to be accurate there...

by Richard Wade on Jul 14, 2005 12:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

A's in the $/WS Top 100:
  1. Bobby Crosby
  2. Marco Scutaro
  3. Nick Swisher
  4. Mark Ellis
  5. Bobby Kielty

by Richard Wade on Jul 14, 2005 12:59 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well...
I don't actually know that because I only looked at players performing above replacement level, but among players playing above replacement level, Durazo was dead last in DPR.

by Richard Wade on Jul 13, 2005 9:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

Most important sentence
But what makes these players so very valuable is that it allows you to allocate funds in other areas of weakness.

The double-edged sword of this type of statistic is that this type of individual measurement punishes an elite player.  Just how much more should be a player get paid for having a .990 OPS as opposed to one closer to .875?  It's kind of an exponential thing after a certain level is it not?  But, really, the most important thing is how well a team does with the amount of money it pays for its player's services.  And, in that regard, statistical production doesn't mean jack but the amount of wins certainly does.  And, even more important than all of that junk is how profitable a team is (long term) when you truly get down to it.  Baseball, with its revenue sharing schemes and "fan base" rights bestowed upon cities to fend off competition are things that alter the market in such a way so as to mask what a team would be willing to pay to remain profitable and where they'd prefer to locate in order to seek profits.  Beane has shown to be the best GM at maneuvering through baseball's oddities and producing profit for his bosses.  Though profit isn't really the sexy thing that fans want to hear about.

http://www.cafehayek.com ~ a blog for classical liberals

by LowcountryJoe on Jul 13, 2005 10:45 AM PDT reply actions  

Well...
It doesn't punish an elite player because that's not what this is about.  It was about locating the true bargains in baseball.  Alex Rodriguez may be the best player in the game, but he isn't a bargain.  We weren't looking for market value, but bargains.

by Richard Wade on Jul 13, 2005 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions  

Intersecting bell curves
Here's what I see as the crucial issue in this whole megillah: the intersection of two mutually incompatible bell curves.

As everyone knows, the distribution of talent at the ML level is the far right end of a bell curve: huge number of RP-level guys, modest number of slightly-above-RP-level guys, modest-to-shrinking number of superior players, tiny number of elite superfreaks.

I haven't looked at the numbers, but I would make a semi-educated guess that the distribution of ML salaries is itself constituted much more like a complete bell curve: few but not insignificant number of ML-minimum guys, huge number of $4-6M/yr guys, and few but not insignificant number of $8-15M/yr guys.

These two graphs simply don't map onto each other. Based on talent/productivity alone, there should be a lot more guys making ML-minimum level money, and a lot fewer guys making $4-6M/yr.

Exploiting this disparity, more than anything else, is the key to Beane's methodology.

Laugh while you can, monkeyboy!

by monkeyball on Jul 13, 2005 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

very good point
And probably those players who are being over-payed --those making $4-6 mi and producing close to replacement level--are being paid for past performance (see Boone, Kevin Brown, etc).  

I think what Beane talked about in his interview was that the  A's can't afford to pay for past performance, and so they have to find players who will perform above replacement level but be paid the league minimum, which brings us back to Harden, Crosby, Johnson etc.

imho, the beane strategy is pretty clever.  

by wilyc on Jul 13, 2005 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

Precisely
The "paying for past performance" is what induces the salary bell curve.
Laugh while you can, monkeyboy!

by monkeyball on Jul 13, 2005 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

wow, interesting
couple more years and cleveland is going to be scary good.(still won't have all the pitching they need but they are going to be good)
ohio roots

by nickatt7 on Jul 13, 2005 1:20 PM PDT reply actions  

from baseball prospectus, updated today
sorry about the formatting but the number on the far right is VORP...

NAME        H/9    BB/9    SO/9    HR/9    BABIP    ERA    VORP
Barry    Zito    7.4    3.5    6.3    1    0.245    3.91    21.1
Dan    Haren    8.8    2.6    6.7    1    0.288    4.08    13.6
Joe    Blanton    8.4    3.1    4.3    1.2    0.252    4.44    10.4
Kirk    Saarloos    9.2    3    2.5    0.4    0.28    3.87    18.2
Rich    Harden    6.7    3.2    7.7    0.5    0.253    2.53    19.8
Justin    Duchscherer    7.4    1.7    8.6    0.6    0.282    1.49    19.1
Huston    Street    6.1    3.3    9.2    0.2    0.267    1.67    17.6
Keichi    Yabu    9.1    4.3    7.4    0.7    0.318    4.3    1.2
Kiko    Calero    8.3    2.2    7.6    1.4    0.264    4.32    4.1
Juan    Cruz    11.2    7.3    10.4    1.5    0.385    8.49    -13
Ricardo    Rincon    8.3    3.7    6.2    1.2    0.266    4.15    2.9
Seth    Etherton    8.2    2.5    5.1    2    0.222    6.62    -1.6
Ryan    Glynn    12.7    3.7    7.9    2.6    0.345    6.88    -5
Octavio    Dotel    5.9    6.5    9.4    1.2    0.222    3.52    3.9
Tim    Harikkala    11.4    2.8    5    2.1    0.31    6.39    -0.9
Britt    Reames    15.9    3.2    6.4    3.2    0.421    7.94    -2.4
Ron    Flores    2.7    0    5.4    0    0.111    0    2.1
Jairo    Garcia    9    0    0    0    0.25    0    0.6

by wilyc on Jul 13, 2005 1:21 PM PDT reply actions  

i don't have the salaries in front of me
but i bet Saarloos, Harden, Duke, and Street are all really high in VORP/$!

And Cruz is really low....

by wilyc on Jul 13, 2005 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

i don't really understand VORP though
i just don't understand it. could someone explain it for me a little better please. i'm not stupid but i just don't understand the replacement player and such, any help would be great
ohio roots

by nickatt7 on Jul 13, 2005 1:24 PM PDT reply actions  

replacement level and VORP
Conceptually, a replacement level player should be thought of as the kind of player that every team has in their minor league system (or could pick up cheaply), who can fill in as a backup in the majors, but isn't really good enough to play their full time - players like Ryan Glynn, Esteban German, Matt Watson, etc.
Baseball Prospectus defines replacement level for a position to be about 75% of the league average offensive performance at that position, and VORP is a measure of how many extra runs a player has contributed to the team's offense compared to a replacement level player given the same playing time. So, for example, they estimate that the A's have scored about 19 more runs with Crosby in the lineup than they would have if his playing time had been given to German or some other scrub.
That's their job. The good thing is that I don't care what they write. - BB

by andeux on Jul 13, 2005 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

Vorp
Stands for Value over Replacemant Player.  The idea is that every team should be able to find a player to in effect put up replacement level stats.  One way to think about it as a average AAA type player, if you brought him up and gave him AB's he is going to produce some numbers they won't be very good but he would not have OB and Slg. of .000 he would produce something.

Next what the formula is supposed to determine is what value a specefic player has compared to the benchmark replacement player.  

ogallalabob

by ogallalabob on Jul 13, 2005 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

Thanx guys
i get it now...dumb cloud has risin!
ohio roots

by nickatt7 on Jul 14, 2005 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

One might say:
It's not the bang for the buck that counts...it's just the bang, period.  I support Beane's moves, philosophy, and organization, and I think he has done an incredible job given the budget.  But even he realizes it's not the production per dollar that is the bottom line.  It is the production itself that wins divisions.
Fearing Mecir since 2000.

by salb918 on Jul 13, 2005 3:30 PM PDT reply actions  

bang for buck...
Exactly, you can be as efficient with your dollars as you want, but you still need to get a much production as possible.  The goal is in knowing how much you need, and how to get there in the budget constraints with which one has to deal.

Baseball teams have done a horrible job paying for future performance, being able to accurately predict future performance, and pay for that vs past performance is what sets aside the good teams from the bad teams.  

Here is a graph of a player's VORP and their respective salary.  Data is for the 2004 season, in an ideal world, the points on this graph would follow the same line, but the salaries are all over the place...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v421/Strng1dah/untitled.jpg

by chri5 on Jul 14, 2005 8:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

eh
thinking about it, probably would be better to do this based upon service time, but I dont have that info with me...

by chri5 on Jul 14, 2005 8:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

Can you believe they traded their #1 DPR player
of 2004?  I guess no one is safe!  ;-)
Rich Harden - Cy Young 2005!

by FoolshGame22 on Jul 14, 2005 12:56 AM PDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Oakland Athletics.

Community Guidelines ANcillary Terms

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Aperture_logo_small
Community Prospect List #4
Img_2672_small
Long-Term Outlook

Recent FanPosts

Fubarcloud_small
Wolf being told to spend money
Small
The wRC+ Challenge
Pumpkin_small
Maybe this is a stupid stats question
Small
A's reportedly sign Cespedes
Unknown_small
Is It Really Worth It: Three Veterans Who May Be Playing Oakland Next Year, But Shouldn't Be
Small
Manny's Contract
Small
fantasy baseball league for A's fans!
Small
NYY Proposal
Small
Roy Oswalt = opportunity

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Front Page Writers

Maya_papi_small Tyler Bleszinski

08-_the_author_small 67MARQUEZ

Josefav2_small danmerqury

Baseball_small baseballgirl

Poochini-butt_in_box_2_small Nico

Img_0653_small dwishinsky

Front Page Writers

Smiley_face_small gigglingone

Venasfans_small OaklandSi

60-minutes-clock_small cuppingmaster

Patpicturebucky2_small YonYonson

Img_3830_small David Fung

Moderators

Photofunia-5c770b_small coffee roaster

Denver_small Colorado Fan

Ls_logo100_small LoneStranger

Thumbs_up_small LongTimeFan

Marty_profile_in_green_small mrod

Img_1877_small Billy Frijoles

Babycomputergeek_small paris7

Img_0115_small Tutu-late