CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com
New! Search comments:
(NOTE: Relevance, Author, and Article are not applicable for comment searches)
Great stuff. When should we expect the dynasty top 101?
The problem with your Goins example is that Goins is so bad that losing him for two weeks does, in fact, maximize wins.
Oops. Never mind. Should have scrolled down the home page.
Good stuff. Will there also be a top 50 midseason dynasty update?
Let's assume greedy motives on ownership's part, and that this was just to line their pockets. I think we can also assume that, if those are their motives, they'd rationally try to line those pockets as much as possible. So, we can assume that they offered salary dumps to other teams, and this was the best deal they got. If the industry valued Toussaint more than the Braves did, then the Diamondbacks could have gotten back more than Gosselin, or they could have also dumped <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=48486">Cliff Pennington</a></span> or some other salary. They didn't, so this was the market for Toussaint.
The market for minor leaguers is obviously different from the market for Carribean players. First, in most cases, Caribbean players are signing contracts that include their salary -- Toussaint has to be paid on top of the $10 million that was effectively transferred to the Dbacks. So, this is more like a Japanese posting fee which, for a 19 year old, would also be lower than a Caribbean player would be paid. Second, even if you assume that he'd be worth something more than a $10 million "posting fee" in an open market, this isn't one. The Braves wouldn't be allowed just to stroke a check to the Dbacks for an extra $10 million, and the Dbacks may not think they have an extra $10 million in deadweight contracts sitting around. (Plus, as already addressed, one can assume that the market wouldn't have required them to include extra deadweight contracts, since they didn't do that in fact.)
Even if there were no "demoralization" effects, the study would still have value to GMs. If faced with players with similar value profiles, take the one who has put up the value with the better team. He's more likely to retain his value. Perhaps you've found the root of the "wilts under the bright lights of the big city" free agent phenomenon.
I wonder how much of this is due to roster construction differences for teams treading water. A team like the Astros may be more likely to give a shot to a player who has enough strengths to generate some value, but enough weaknesses that the weaknesses ultimately either (a) will be exploited or (b) will cause him to lose significant playing time on a better team (let's call this player "Chris Carter"). In a couple of years, I expect Carter will have a drastic decline in value. But it won't be because he's demoralized. It will be because he will be unable to keep putting up 3.0 WARP, or nobody will give him the chance to do it.
If we're counting extensions, then Jason Kendall's six-year $60-million extension easily wins.
You now have David Huff projected to go 18-19 and pitch 187 innings in 16 games, which is a pretty neat trick.
I agree that transparency is the issue here. You guys clearly are still tinkering with PECOTA. Many of the projections on the weighted means sheet are still moving. Between 3/16 and today, virtually every pitcher's rate stats have changed, and many of them have changed dramatically. To pick just one example, Scott Baker's innings pitched haven't changed, but his projected ERA has moved from 3.92 to 4.11. So, you're making other adjustments to the projections, and it would be nice to know what they are.