CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com

Baseball Prospectus home
  
  
Click here to log in Click here for forgotten password Click here to subscribe

World Series time! Enjoy Premium-level access to most features through the end of the Series!

<< Previous Article
The Week in Quotes: We... (05/10)
<< Previous Column
Premium Article Ahead in the Count: Mo... (05/07)
Next Column >>
Premium Article Ahead in the Count: Th... (05/17)
Next Article >>
Premium Article Future Shock: Monday T... (05/10)

May 10, 2010

Ahead in the Count

If They Stay or If They Go

by Matt Swartz

the archives are now free.

All Baseball Prospectus Premium and Fantasy articles more than a year old are now free as a thank you to the entire Internet for making our work possible.

Not a subscriber? Get exclusive content like this delivered hot to your inbox every weekday. Click here for more information on Baseball Prospectus subscriptions or use the buttons to the right to subscribe and get instant access to the best baseball content on the web.

Subscribe for $4.95 per month
Recurring subscription - cancel anytime.


a 33% savings over the monthly price!

Purchase a $39.95 gift subscription
a 33% savings over the monthly price!

Already a subscriber? Click here and use the blue login bar to log in.

In February, I wrote an article evaluating multi-year dealsgiven out to players with at least six years of service time, and I discovered something interesting. I found that players who re-signed with their current teams aged better than players who signed contracts with new teams, and not by a small margin. This finding gained some extra attention (and extra scrutiny) when I used it to question whether the Phillies might not have erred as terriblyas sabermetricians had suggested when they extended Ryan Howard's contract for five years and $125 million last month.  The primary question that people asked was whether there was any bias in the ages of players who signed multi-year contracts with their current teams versus the ages of players who signed multi-year contracts with new teams.  In fact, there is some difference in the ages of these groups of players.

 

 

#

Avg. Age

Two-Year Deals' WARP3

Year 1

Year 2

39

34.1

Re-Signings

39%

61%

32

35.3

Signed w/New Teams

63%

37%

 

 

#

Avg. Age

Three-Year Deals' WARP3

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

15

30.7

Re-Signings

36%

34%

30%

35

32.3

Signed w/New Teams

45%

39%

16%

 

 

#

Avg. Age

Four-Year Deals' WARP3

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

6

31.3

Re-Signings

20%

33%

29%

17%

13

30.9

Signed w/New Teams

29%

25%

21%

24%

 

While not a particularly large difference, the re-signed players were younger on average in the two-year and three-year deals, which were the contracts that showed major differences in aging.  Does this explain the effect?

TWO-YEAR DEALS

Let’s first focus on two-year contracts.  This was the group where the aging difference was the most lopsided, with the re-signed players actually improving during their deals.  I split this group of two-year contracts into different age ranges.  Most players who signed two-year deals were older, so it was difficult to get very large sample sizes.  I split them into a group of 14 players who were between 26-31 years old during the first year of their two-year contracts, a group of 23 players who were between 32-34 years old, a group of 20 players who were between 35-37 years old, and a group of 14 players who were between 38-47 years old.

 

#

Avg. Age

Two-Year Deals' WARP3, ages 26-31

Year 1

Year 2

9

29.0

Re-Signings

40%

60%

5

29.8

Signed w/New Teams

65%

35%

 

 

#

Avg. Age

Two-Year Deals' WARP3, ages 32-34

Year 1

Year 2

12

33.1

Re-Signings

41%

59%

11

33.4

Signed w/New Teams

46%

54%

 

 

#

Avg. Age

Two-Year Deals' WARP3, ages 35-37

Year 1

Year 2

13

35.8

Re-Signings

38%

62%

7

35.7

Signed w/New Teams

62%

38%

 

 

#

Avg. Age

Two-Year Deals' WARP3, age 38-47

Year 1

Year 2

5

41.0

Re-Signings

36%

64%

9

40.4

Signed w/New Teams

72%

28%

 

Even in very small samples, we see a very large difference.  Players who were re-signed by their current teams aged better than those players who signed deals with new clubs.  In fact, each re-signed subgroup actually improved during their contracts, while three of four sub-groups of the newly signed players regressed during their contracts.

THREE-YEAR DEALS

 

Does this hold for three-year contracts?  The answer appears to be yes.

 

#

Avg. Age

Three-Year Deals' WARP3, ages 27-30

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

9

28.9

Re-Signings

35%

37%

28%

12

29.2

Signed w/New Teams

34%

43%

22%

 

 

#

Avg. Age

Three-Year Deals' WARP3, ages 31-34

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

4

32.8

Re-Signings

36%

32%

32%

15

32.3

Signed w/New Teams

41%

48%

10%

 

 

#

Avg. Age

Three-Year Deals' WARP3, ages 35-38

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

2

35.0

Re-Signings

40%

31%

29%

8

36.6

Signed w/New Teams

67%

17%

16%

 

Even in a small sample size, we still see the same effects.  Additionally, the older players who received three-year contracts appeared to drop off even more suddenly at the end.

FOUR-YEAR DEALS

Last time, we found that four-year contracts appeared to show little evidence of re-signed players aging better.  Does breaking this down into players in different age groups reveal an affect?

 

 

#

Avg. Age

Four-Year Deals' WARP3, ages 27-30

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

3

30.0

Re-Signings

15%

44%

30%

11%

6

29.2

Signed w/New Teams

22%

28%

26%

23%

 

 

#

Avg. Age

Four-Year Deals' WARP3, ages 31-34

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

3

32.7

Re-Signings

25%

23%

28%

24%

7

32.4

Signed w/New Teams

33%

24%

19%

24%

 

This does not appear to provide any evidence either way, as we are now dealing with such small sample sizes that we cannot find any effect beyond the noise. Of course, this does not mean that there is no such effect on four-year deals, but it is certainly does not prove that there is.

CONCLUSION

Recently, well-respected sabermetrician Mitchel “MGL” Lichtman has stated that if this effect were true, it would be the “one of the most interesting and significant things to come out of sabermetrics since DIPS.”  Of course, Lichtman also professed a profound skepticism of whether the results could be interpreted as true. 

To me, this is not a matter of true and false.  The results above are reflective of past events.  They happened.  Inasmuch as the contracts’ terms are reported to the media truthfully and WARP3 is computed in the way it is (and the results were the same for FanGraphs’ WAR), these results happened.  The teams that re-signed their players did think that their knowledge of the players indicated they would be good bets, and they turned out to be just that. Thus, it is true that re-signed players aged well, as their teams believed.  That does not imply that the future will necessarily show this same effect.  In fact, the very publication of this series of articles might change this outcome, as other teams might target players more aggressively if their know those players' current teams are bidding for their services.  All I can say conclusively is that this happened on average for the 140 contracts that ranged from two-four years long and concluded after the 2007-09 seasons. 

Whether it will continue is not clear, because it is a market outcome, not a baseball outcome.  When Lichtman alludes to DIPS, he is referring to a baseball outcome.  If pitchers are unable to exert much control over BABIP, that will remain true as long as pitchers are trying to get hitters out (of course, if pitchers minimized their FIPs, this might not remain true).  Once a market effect is discovered, it can be changed.  While this market inefficiency is at least based on inside information and therefore stands a larger chance to stand the test of time, general managers can react to the market and make different decisions about signing other teams’ free agents.

In fact, this effect may not have existed in earlier years as re-signings may have been based on factors that no longer control clubs’ decision-making process.  All we can say for sure is that these outcomes in the tables above are real for the years tested, and the effect appears to be large enough to suggest it is not random.

I will continue looking at this topic, and invite others to do the same.  Determining this effect is no small issue, and may be a huge step in understanding a side of baseball economics that is not based on information you can find on Retrosheet.  Sabermetrics has largely focused on aiding teams to make better decisions based on data generated on the field, but has remained unenlightened about data generated off the field.  This could be a significant bridge to that information.

Matt Swartz is an author of Baseball Prospectus. 
Click here to see Matt's other articles. You can contact Matt by clicking here

Related Content:  The Who,  Managers Of The Year,  Contracts

22 comments have been left for this article.

<< Previous Article
The Week in Quotes: We... (05/10)
<< Previous Column
Premium Article Ahead in the Count: Mo... (05/07)
Next Column >>
Premium Article Ahead in the Count: Th... (05/17)
Next Article >>
Premium Article Future Shock: Monday T... (05/10)

RECENTLY AT BASEBALL PROSPECTUS
Minor League Update: Games of Thursday, Octo...
Pebble Hunting: An Illustrated Guide to the ...
Raising Aces: Ghosts of World Series Past
Playoff Prospectus: PECOTA Odds and Game 3 P...
Playoff Prospectus: A Decade of Planning an ...
Playoff Prospectus: Never-Wrong Ned?
Playoff Prospectus: PECOTA Odds and Game Fou...

MORE FROM MAY 10, 2010
Premium Article Under The Knife: Beltran's Moment of Truth
Premium Article Transaction Action: Senior Shuffling
Premium Article On the Beat: New Blood, Same Result
Premium Article Future Shock: Monday Ten Pack
The Week in Quotes: Week of May 3-9

MORE BY MATT SWARTZ
2010-05-18 - Premium Article Contractual Matters: Werth The Funds
2010-05-17 - Premium Article Ahead in the Count: The Cost of OPP
2010-05-16 - Premium Article Between The Numbers: Least Net Valuable Play...
2010-05-10 - Premium Article Ahead in the Count: If They Stay or If They ...
2010-05-07 - Premium Article Ahead in the Count: Most Net Valuable Player
2010-04-29 - Premium Article Ahead in the Count: The Source of the AL's S...
2010-04-27 - Premium Article Ahead in the Count: Ryan Howard and the New ...
More...

MORE AHEAD IN THE COUNT
2010-06-04 - Premium Article Ahead in the Count: No Turnover Standings Br...
2010-05-28 - Premium Article Ahead in the Count: Hometown Discounts
2010-05-17 - Premium Article Ahead in the Count: The Cost of OPP
2010-05-10 - Premium Article Ahead in the Count: If They Stay or If They ...
2010-05-07 - Premium Article Ahead in the Count: Most Net Valuable Player
2010-04-29 - Premium Article Ahead in the Count: The Source of the AL's S...
2010-04-27 - Premium Article Ahead in the Count: Ryan Howard and the New ...
More...

INCOMING ARTICLE LINKS
2010-05-17 - Premium Article Ahead in the Count: The Cost of OPP