Joey Votto: "The stat I value most is wRC+"

[gruber92]

I think you're arguing the same thing as I am now lol. He's dumb and that's his "talent". If he comes across a talent change mentally it can change his talent at the plate.

 

I wish the Rangers the best of luck.

[reedjohnsonfan]

Fine, I will bite.

 

People are paid to fulfill the job they are employed to do. Baseball players are employed to win baseball games. The better they are at the job they are paid to do, the better the compensation. Therefore, more wins provided equals more money paid. That's why we don't pay Maicer Izturis the same as Miguel Cabrera.

 

I'm more looking for why you think a contract of x dollars is given out. Sure it has something to do with the amount of wins they could/expect to add, but there's a lot more to it, no? How inconsistent they are should come into play, for example. Intangible stuff that probably has a very small effect on wins probably gets over-compensated or something. I'm not looking for "bites". I'm wondering if you actually have a real explanation vs. just assuming it's completely based on wins.

[reedjohnsonfan]

I can't believe you actually needed to explain this.

 

You idiots think I'm actually trolling. I'm looking for why a certain contract is given out, there's way more to it than "we pay better players more money".

[reedjohnsonfan]

Some think intangibles create wins. In the end it's all for wins.

 

Okay so, what about inconsistency/injury risk? Do you pay for how many wins you expect them to add or are there some GM's who prefer more risk based on where there team is, or how big there budget is? Maybe some players get a huge premium for being reliable? That's all part of what I'm asking, what do players really get paid for?

[TRM]

That's all part of what I'm asking, what do players really get paid for?

 

They get paid for the amount of wins they are expected to create. God you are slow. We told this to you 4 pages ago. I'm happy I didn't have to teach you to read.

[reedjohnsonfan]

They get paid for the amount of wins they are expected to create. God you are slow. We told this to you 4 pages ago. I'm happy I didn't have to teach you to read.

 

But how do you know this? Maybe there's some element of front offices being risk averse or something? You'd think lower budget teams would be more afraid of players like Ubaldo whereas a team like the Jays might want to take on a risky guy like Ubaldo. Why am I slow? Because you think my question is really simple? Maybe you are slow to realize there's not an easy answer.

[reedjohnsonfan]

You really don't see how all of this comes down to the amount of wins you can project the player to provide?

 

There's projected wins and also some variance element which you'd think would play a huge role in the contract you offer, no?

[LunchBox]

It's totally petty, but the forum should adopt the QUAL+ metric to assign the "prospect, blue chip prospect, big leaguer ect" labels rather than just post count. It never concerned me before, but the last four pages of this thread make it seem like an egregious error.

[reedjohnsonfan]

"Durability" creates more wins because of more playing time. Ergo, paid for wins.

 

I don't think you see my point. Durability could reduce the range of wins an extra player could provide is what I'm saying. Isn't that a huge part of what players are paid for?

[gruber92]

You idiots think I'm actually trolling. I'm looking for why a certain contract is given out, there's way more to it than "we pay better players more money".

 

It's a business bro.

 

More wins = increased ticket sales and fan base = bolstered GM's resume = possible playoff money = HAPPY OWNER.

[reedjohnsonfan]

So projecting wins using a confidence interval and paying a player accordingly isn't paying for projected wins? Aren't you an economist or something?

 

Let me make this more clear- this isn't a real world example but might make things easier to see:

Player A: Could provide somewhere between 0 and 10 wins with mean 5

Player B: Could provide somewhere between 4 and 6 wins with mean 5

 

they should get very different contracts, shouldn't they? Or that's part of my question anyways.

[reedjohnsonfan]

What a f***ing pedant.

 

Can someone please just

 

http://i.imgur.com/eIR1M1v.gif

 

See my last post. That actually makes a big deal for the Ubaldo contract that's coming up, so it's very relevant for the Jays.

[reedjohnsonfan]

An organization less averse to risk may prefer player B, while an organization that can tolerate risk may prefer player A. They're still going to make an offer based on their internal evaluation on the worth of a win, and whether or not they're OK with the error bars on the projected number of wins the player is going to provide. They're still buying wins.

 

Ok but I would say if we assume some symmetric dist. then it would be player A getting the larger contract. Teams desperate for a world series and willing to pay big would take larger risks, and if it's not paying off in June they make the appropriate moves. Of course this depends on many other things like minor league depth, etc. I'm not sure what would be the answer in terms of contract signings which is why I'm asking. The whole risk aversion thing is just one element but in terms of this offseason it's a pretty big deal. I think you'd agree Ubaldo is someone very volatile so more in the player A camp.

 

Essentially saying a player gets paid for expected wins from the franchise doesn't really make a lot of sense- I know you said they get paid for wins which is pretty general. I'd guess inconsistency plays a huge role too.

[reedjohnsonfan]

You've now framed this as a debate about whether or not a player gets paid based on his mean projected number of wins. I understand why you're doing that now that you've backed yourself into a corner, but that isn't how the conversation started.

 

I'm asking what a player gets paid for. You answered with "to provide wins". But do they get paid for some more sure level of wins? Like I said that's only ONE element, so that's not what the whole conversation is about. I was wondering if you actually knew what players got paid for. It turns out that it seems like it's still treated as a black box unfortunately.

 

The conversation started with me saying it's a good point to say "Votto gets paid to drive in runs" because I think there's a some merit there. No, that's not what they gave him a contract off of, but it's a big reason why they paid him so I don't think it's a terrible post.

 

Anyways, it's late for me. I thought you might have more insight on how contracts are given out. It's not chirping you that you don't know anything more, maybe some studies on fangraphs will look closer at this at some point so you can share.

[reedjohnsonfan]

Also I'm not sure how I'm in a corner. I'm asking a question that you don't actually have a clue what the answer is, which is fine and it's not an insult to you. But just because you're not sure of the answer, doesn't mean you need to speak down to people and quote sarcastic things they posted, but that's cool if it's your thing. No worries on that front.

[Nox]

Wtf is going on here?

 

RJF - You're awful, even for an aspiring economist. A closed, tightly regulated system like MLB is about the one area where your illegitimate education should help you. Others in your field get it and have contributed to the knowledge here. Educate yourself and read some Matt Swartz posts on The Book Blog. Otherwise shut the f*** up.

 

The market pays for wins. What goes in to projecting a win varies team to team. How much a team should pay for a win varies as well based on other factors (roster constraints, win curve, budget being the 3 dominant ones).

 

(Side note: If anyone wants to see a book-length version of BTS's infamous "I ran a regression" thread, you should read Greenspan's "The Map and the Territory". It's utterly terrifying that that man was in the position he was.)

[Nox]

It bothers me that you don't understand that a team considering the error bars on a win projection is still going to make a contract offer based on a confidence interval of projected wins.

 

You mean their might be a PDF associated with each player's projection!!?!?! Hold the god damn phone!!

[Nox]

Wait, did I really need to be brought into this post?

 

It wasn't meant to highlight your moment of shame. The beating you took for that was so overblown it's become a meme. Embrace it at this point.

 

More so it was to make fun of the most prominent economist of the last 25 years who explicitly exposed himself as having no f***ing clue as to what he's doing. He just did it in a similar fashion to you, that's all.

[TwistedLogic]

I'm asking what a player gets paid for. You answered with "to provide wins". But do they get paid for some more sure level of wins?

 

You are quite literally the dumbest poster I have ever come across on the internet. Either that, or you are one of the greatest trolls I've ever seen because of how many people you reeled in with your bait.

[Dirty SlobberKnocker]

Wtf is going on in here? Reading this thread you'd think we were back on the old mlb.com forum. I've been watching a science evolution vs creationism debate the last hour and somehow this thread is giving me the pull your hair out of your head WTF moments way more.

[jays_fever]

Wtf is going on in here? Reading this thread you'd think we were back on the old mlb.com forum. I've been watching a science evolution vs creationism debate the last hour and somehow this thread is giving me the pull your hair out of your head WTF moments way more.

 

Billy vs that othr dude? Yea this is defntetly more cringe worthy.

 

Disclaimer: this is the same person who thought trading away all his best players for garbage to his real life friend in a 20 team fantasy league was okay

[GD]

Wow. Just wow. This is a terrifying thread from the usual suspects.

 

"do you even play baseball winz dnt m@tter hurr"

[Angrioter]

I should also point out any wRC+ of 120 or better is considered excellent, 100 being great, and 60 being average.

 

One other consideration is that the + in the wRC+ also is park and league adjusted. Guys like Chris Davis, Joey Votto, David Ortiz and Paul Goldschmidt likely see their wRC+ inflated/deflated by the ballparks they play in, and playing in the AL or NL.

 

 

Agree -100%

 

wRC+ is a matter of balance, is all that matters.

 

Votto: 100 -156 = [56 wRC+]

JP: 100 - 57 = [43 wRC+]

 

Very similar. Votto with slight advantage over JP

[BlueJayWay]

Votto is awesome. Wish he was ours.

[reedjohnsonfan]

Wtf is going on here?

 

RJF - You're awful, even for an aspiring economist. A closed, tightly regulated system like MLB is about the one area where your illegitimate education should help you. Others in your field get it and have contributed to the knowledge here. Educate yourself and read some Matt Swartz posts on The Book Blog. Otherwise shut the f*** up.

 

The market pays for wins. What goes in to projecting a win varies team to team. How much a team should pay for a win varies as well based on other factors (roster constraints, win curve, budget being the 3 dominant ones).

 

(Side note: If anyone wants to see a book-length version of BTS's infamous "I ran a regression" thread, you should read Greenspan's "The Map and the Territory". It's utterly terrifying that that man was in the position he was.)

 

Right, I'm not arguing that there's not many factors that go into projecting wins. Ok so let's go back to the one question I had that BTS wasn't able to answer. Do you know if players that are probably more volatile get paid more than other players with similar projections? Yes there's lots to go into it but there could be a general rule of thumb. I ask a question and you don't know the answer to it so you tell me off through a screen, I see not much has changed since last time I was a frequent poster .

[Smedley Butler]

So I guess we're all going to gloss over the fact that he chose to play in Cincy than for us now, right? :-/

[G-Snarls]

[G-Snarls]

So I guess we're all going to gloss over the fact that he chose to play in Cincy than for us now, right? :-/

 

As easy as it is to get upset by it, he came right out and said he didn't want to play here and the Jays didn't seem to have that kind of money 2 years ago either. So there was never any chance. Oh, and we already had Silver Slugger Adam Lind.

[AdamGreenwood]

This doesn't make Votto smart. It makes him self-interested.

 

Players look at their own statistical rankings, and then decide which statistic is most important based on which stats make them look the best when it comes to contract negotiation time.

I'd like to see a guy with a terrible wRC+ say the same thing. Then it's legit.

 

But nothing new here.

 

The guys with terrible advanced stats, but lots of RBI's and home runs, say RBI's and home runs are the most important.

The guys with great advanced stats, are all Sabermetric wizards.

[G-Snarls]

This doesn't make Votto smart. It makes him self-interested.

 

Players look at their own statistical rankings, and then decide which statistic is most important based on which stats make them look the best when it comes to contract negotiation time.

I'd like to see a guy with a terrible wRC+ say the same thing. Then it's legit.

 

But nothing new here.

 

The guys with terrible advanced stats, but lots of RBI's and home runs, say RBI's and home runs are the most important.

The guys with great advanced stats, are all Sabermetric wizards.

 

Other than his sub par 2012, he has been good in every offensive statistic every year. It's not like he's cherry picking the one stat that makes him look good.

 

Unlike JPA who only cares about "RBIs relative to other American League catchers"