tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-250683060520895629.post3423764436628731759..comments2023-12-30T17:22:47.650-06:00Comments on Tales from Aisle 424 - A Cubs Blog: Viewing Transactions Like a Drunken GamblerSixRowBrewCohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15384682912021974745noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-250683060520895629.post-3769907800335248102011-02-18T19:13:30.686-06:002011-02-18T19:13:30.686-06:00You did a great job, Tim. The gambling comparison...You did a great job, Tim. The gambling comparisons were perfect and I think something that a lot of people can understand. <br /><br />I agree that arguments can be made Soriano's deal wasn't bad when it was signed and really that's all I care about. What happened after the fact is either fortunate or unfortunate. Jim Hendry shouldn't get any more credit for signing Lilly (terrible contract at the time it was signed by the way) than he should be bashed for signing Soriano. <br /><br />Very well done.mb21http://www.anothercubsblog.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-250683060520895629.post-29902995366445476862011-02-18T18:31:22.599-06:002011-02-18T18:31:22.599-06:00Sorry, berselius. This blog is becoming almost as ...Sorry, berselius. This blog is becoming almost as discredited as ACB.<br /><br />Good points, MB. I wasn't trying to really make a judgement on Hendry based on one isolated incident, but rather showing how we can get wrapped up in emotion or conventional wisdom when discussing trades and signings, much like one can get wrapped up in Vegas when you're on a roll, or desperately trying to win back money because your luck "has to" change soon. It's not logical, but most people do it to some degree.<br /><br />I just wanted to point out that having these 4 years of Soriano doesn't change the factors that were in play at the time Hendry made the decision. I used that one because his contract is pretty universally accepted as terrible, but depending on how one would assign value and projected worth, there is an argument to be made that the deal was not bad inherently, it just turned out that way.Aisle 424http://424tales.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-250683060520895629.post-36171338396379445392011-02-18T17:09:09.345-06:002011-02-18T17:09:09.345-06:00Excellent stuff, Tim.
The article about Soriano&#...Excellent stuff, Tim.<br /><br />The article about Soriano's value was written by berselius for what it's worth. I'll take credit for something he wrote though.<br /><br />Anonymous, you're absolutely right that the talent level of the player affects how much he'll decline. A player who has been worth about 3-5 WAR on average over the last few seasons will decline at about -.5 WAR per season. A player who has been worth something like 2 WAR (league average) will not decline by -.5 WAR, but rather something like -.4, -.3 and so on. So yeah, a percentage would be better. Actually, it would just be better if we did something like this:<br /><br />Previous 3-year average: 4 WAR (that's our 2011 projection)<br />You The next year your average WAR is again 4 so he'll be projected at 3.5 in 2012.<br />Now are average is a bit below 4 of course.<br /><br />Anyway, you'd be best to re-calculate the 3-year average and use that number, but for someone of Soriano's caliber the -.5 WAR works out almost perfectly.<br /><br />There is also some recent evidence to suggest that when players hit 32 the drop is more like -.7 WAR. In other words, the drop from 29-32 is more like the -.5, but after that it's a big more. I haven't seen that evidence tested thoroughly yet so I only occasionally use that. Plus, at the time Soriano signed the thinking in the sabermetric community was that the player would decline by about half a win each season. We can't expect a front office to know something that isn't yet known.<br /><br />I should also point out that every organization is going to have their own projection system so what I like to do anymore is to use the overall value of the contract to figure out how much a team was expecting from the player. Then you look at that and see if the projection is reasonable based on what those of use who do not work for teams know. <br /><br />I disagree with berselius somewhat. I've come out with Soriano being worth about 7 years and $17 million less. Basically, the Cubs signed him for one year too long based on what I've come up with. Then we factor in that we know McDonough took over for Hendry because Hendry wasn't going to go to 8 years. McDonough did. I think that's our extra year.<br /><br />I'd also add that looking at one contract as evidence of someone being a poor GM is incorrect. Tim alluded to that as far as injuries go, but people make mistakes. We cannot reasonably expect a GM to have nothing but good signings. If that were the case, the value of the win would be less than it is. GMs, like every human, makes mistakes and his worth isn't defined by one good or bad decision, but the sum of those decisions. <br /><br />I think some people have decided to say that no GM would give Soriano that contract (or Grabow) and therefore he's terrible. But what about the first Ramirez deal, the 3 deals for Dempster, Derrek Lee, Ted Lilly, Mark DeRosa and others?mb21http://www.anothercubsblog.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-250683060520895629.post-42432078688481446952011-02-18T16:31:05.510-06:002011-02-18T16:31:05.510-06:00This is a great post,and i loved the way you used ...This is a great post,and i loved the way you used blackjack to prove your point.braunhttp://myfavoriterecipesonline.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-250683060520895629.post-69440406561377046892011-02-18T15:37:20.156-06:002011-02-18T15:37:20.156-06:00You always bring such a voice of reason to all the...You always bring such a voice of reason to all the craziness out there. I love the math!GirlieViewhttp://viewfromthebleachers.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-250683060520895629.post-38082154635411849062011-02-18T13:50:13.149-06:002011-02-18T13:50:13.149-06:00Yes, you can argue about how an expected value was...Yes, you can argue about how an expected value was reached, but you would still be debating the decision based on information at the time of the transaction - which was my point.<br /><br />I used MB's computations because I was too lazy to do them myself and he's, frankly, smarter than I am.Aisle 424http://424tales.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-250683060520895629.post-59941047899892137562011-02-18T13:00:47.372-06:002011-02-18T13:00:47.372-06:00I certainly agree that decisions need to be evalua...I certainly agree that decisions need to be evaluated based on expected value rather than how the results actually turn out. However, in the gambling instances referenced above those odds are well established. I don't really think that's as much the case here.<br /><br />I will assume that the average player regresses .5 WAR per year after a certain age. There's enough data out there that we can assume that's reasonably accurate. However, the "average" player is worth 2 WAR to begin with, correct? So what do those numbers look like when you run them based on a 25% reduction the first year, 33% the second year, etc - which would be the case of an average player declining by .5 each year? Why are you using a fixed number decline rather than a percentage?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-250683060520895629.post-54103832704115928762011-02-18T12:03:39.896-06:002011-02-18T12:03:39.896-06:00This is good stuff.This is good stuff.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00229981018680117757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-250683060520895629.post-5989760064048989232011-02-18T11:40:19.793-06:002011-02-18T11:40:19.793-06:00Thanks, guys. I'm still not happy with how I ...Thanks, guys. I'm still not happy with how I threw this together, but I haven't been able to concentrate on this much lately with other stuff going on. So I just went with what I had since, you know, I hadn't posted much lately.Aisle 424http://424tales.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-250683060520895629.post-15058922027778802252011-02-18T11:28:56.130-06:002011-02-18T11:28:56.130-06:00This was a fantastic piece, Tim. Thanks for writin...This was a fantastic piece, Tim. Thanks for writing it.Berseliushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18152264687269202340noreply@blogger.com