SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Possible 2019/2020 rule changes
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 16, 2019 14:35:08 GMT -5
I didn’t miss your point; I fully get it but I have still yet to hear a solution. “Use actual statistical evaluations of players as they start to produce to value them properly” isn’t really a solution. How do you practically do that? Do players give up long term fixed contracts and trade them in for year to year variable rate contracts that are based on what they did that year? What happens with an injury? How’s a team supposed to budget? How do you come up with a players value thru a statistical model? Fangraphs says Mookie was worth 83m last year that’s obviously insane. Whatever the solution is it can’t have huge cost uncertainty for the teams from year to year. That would kill teams especially the smaller market ones. I hate to go down this road again but the Fangraphs value numbers are not in any way suggested player salaries. What it's telling you is that you would expect to pay $80m on average free agents to return value equal to what Mookie produced last year. The reason the number is insane is because it reflects an insane system. Fangraphs literally says it a convert scale as to what a player would make in free agency, not what his war would cost. It's a crap number that means nothing, less than nothing because a free agent fwar isn't even 8 million. It was closer to 10 to 11 million last report I read. So either they haven't updated it in years or it's based off something else.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 16, 2019 14:40:08 GMT -5
I hate to go down this road again but the Fangraphs value numbers are not in any way suggested player salaries. What it's telling you is that you would expect to pay $80m on average free agents to return value equal to what Mookie produced last year. The reason the number is insane is because it reflects an insane system. Fangraphs literally says it a convert scale as to what a player would make in free agency, not what his war would cost. It's a crap number that means nothing, less than nothing because a free agent fwar isn't even 8 million. It was closer to 10 to 11 million last report I read. So either they haven't updated it in years or it's based off something else. Where?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 16, 2019 14:42:13 GMT -5
Just make teams try and win and force them to spend a certain percentage of what they make. The rest will work itself out. I don't see Basketball doing all these reports on how bad free agency is and I'm sure it's just as bad.
It's the lack of competition killing the market, not smarter owners or teams. Someone has to explain Harpers deal to me with data mining for it to make sense. He's the perfect example of a deal that shouldn't have been made if owners were actually getting smarter, instead of just not trying and being cheap.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 16, 2019 14:44:06 GMT -5
Fangraphs literally says it a convert scale as to what a player would make in free agency, not what his war would cost. It's a crap number that means nothing, less than nothing because a free agent fwar isn't even 8 million. It was closer to 10 to 11 million last report I read. So either they haven't updated it in years or it's based off something else. Where? Click on where it says dollars on the top, it explains what it is. "Dollars-WAR converted to a dollar scale based on what a player would make in free agency"
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 16, 2019 15:03:51 GMT -5
Click on where it says dollars on the top, it explains what it is. "Dollars-WAR converted to a dollar scale based on what a player would make in free agency" I think that's just badly worded. It doesn't jibe at all with how the stat is calculated.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 16, 2019 15:15:57 GMT -5
You miss my point. Data has shown the owners how f****d up their business model was. They've responded accordingly. The players need to respond accordingly or there will be more than a few who will not ever get fair market value for their services. Data mining has done this to so many businesses it's almost impossible to keep track of, and we're just getting started. And no offense to you, but that kind of talk dates to the introduction of networked computing power. So you can toss the first million or so of those things you've heard out the window. The solution is in what I wrote. Use actual statistical evaluations of players as they start to produce to value them properly. As is always the case, this is not about technology. That's been in place since Bill James, Pete Palmer, Nate Silver and their predecessors and descendants took us down this road and digital technology put it into overdrive. The owners are cutting back on their contracts to players past their prime because they're using those very evaluations. They've even said so. It's time for a countermove that is data-driven. I didn’t miss your point; I fully get it but I have still yet to hear a solution. “Use actual statistical evaluations of players as they start to produce to value them properly” isn’t really a solution. How do you practically do that? Do players give up long term fixed contracts and trade them in for year to year variable rate contracts that are based on what they did that year? What happens with an injury? How’s a team supposed to budget? How do you come up with a players value thru a statistical model? Fangraphs says Mookie was worth 83m last year that’s obviously insane. Whatever the solution is it can’t have huge cost uncertainty for the teams from year to year. That would kill teams especially the smaller market ones. Sounds a lot like arbitration, huh? Maybe they need arbitration after every season. How about for every player? And signing players as free agents would just be buying years of control in the form of signing bonuses with arbitration deciding that player's salary.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 16, 2019 15:20:13 GMT -5
I didn’t miss your point; I fully get it but I have still yet to hear a solution. “Use actual statistical evaluations of players as they start to produce to value them properly” isn’t really a solution. How do you practically do that? Do players give up long term fixed contracts and trade them in for year to year variable rate contracts that are based on what they did that year? What happens with an injury? How’s a team supposed to budget? How do you come up with a players value thru a statistical model? Fangraphs says Mookie was worth 83m last year that’s obviously insane. Whatever the solution is it can’t have huge cost uncertainty for the teams from year to year. That would kill teams especially the smaller market ones. I hate to go down this road again but the Fangraphs value numbers are not in any way suggested player salaries. What it's telling you is that you would expect to pay $80m on average free agents to return value equal to what Mookie produced last year. The reason the number is insane is because it reflects an insane system. I know my point was you need to come up with a true statistical model and how do you go about doing that? I wasn’t suggesting that’d be the one used.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 16, 2019 15:35:52 GMT -5
I didn’t miss your point; I fully get it but I have still yet to hear a solution. “Use actual statistical evaluations of players as they start to produce to value them properly” isn’t really a solution. How do you practically do that? Do players give up long term fixed contracts and trade them in for year to year variable rate contracts that are based on what they did that year? What happens with an injury? How’s a team supposed to budget? How do you come up with a players value thru a statistical model? Fangraphs says Mookie was worth 83m last year that’s obviously insane. Whatever the solution is it can’t have huge cost uncertainty for the teams from year to year. That would kill teams especially the smaller market ones. Sounds a lot like arbitration, huh? Maybe they need arbitration after every season. How about for every player? And signing players as free agents would just be buying years of control in the form of signing bonuses with arbitration deciding that player's salary. Assuming you’re talking every year of their careers, there is too much cost uncertainty year to year for both player and team. Players only like going year to year because they are tying to get to free agency where they can lock in a contract with competition for their service. Adding a signing bonus into the equation is going to have to drastically alter how you calculate yearly values. The best and fairest all around is probably something along the lines of: 1. Remove any Luxury taxes 2. Create a salary floor for teams 3. Don’t incentivize tanking with higher draft picks (actual structure whole other discussion) 4. Raise minimum salaries for years 1 and 2 5. Year 2 is a big jump (maybe start at 1m and then jump to 2m for a second year player then make 2.5 million a vet minimum - total spitball) 6. Start arbitration in year 3 7. Free agency after 5 years instead of 6 8. Create some sort of grievance system where players can file if they feel like they are being kept in the minors for service time manipulation. (Like Vlad Jr clearly is but someone like Feltman isn’t necessarily)
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 17, 2019 0:35:33 GMT -5
Click on where it says dollars on the top, it explains what it is. "Dollars-WAR converted to a dollar scale based on what a player would make in free agency" I think that's just badly worded. It doesn't jibe at all with how the stat is calculated. Yes it is. Fivethirtyeight has a good explanation: fivethirtyeight.com/features/bryce-harper-nl-mvp-mlb/It's what teams are willing to pay for each increment of WAR. That's how WAR ends up being a multiplier for dollars. That doesn't mean it's what teams pay the player. It's a marginal calculation - it's what they're willing to pay extra. One thing they mention in here is the rising average salary when the article was published in 2015. That's stopped, so the value of a win may have dropped. Then again, if teams aren't paying as much for average performance, that may give a higher estimate for the extra wins. And you've got Machado and Harper who may jack that number up.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 17, 2019 11:54:50 GMT -5
I hate to go down this road again but the Fangraphs value numbers are not in any way suggested player salaries. What it's telling you is that you would expect to pay $80m on average free agents to return value equal to what Mookie produced last year. The reason the number is insane is because it reflects an insane system. I know my point was you need to come up with a true statistical model and how do you go about doing that? I wasn’t suggesting that’d be the one used. I'm not really sure what you're asking. Actually determining player value is largely a solved problem. The problems with implementing a new compensation model are almost entirely political.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 17, 2019 12:14:02 GMT -5
My suggestion was a running average of some indicator... WAR, wOBA, OPS+... whatever. That could be indexed to take into account the player's age, experience, and anything else deemed pertinent. That would then inform the salary structure. It's one idea, certainly not the only one. It's not a matter of data anymore, it's about baseball politics and economic inertia.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Mar 17, 2019 13:25:16 GMT -5
Unless I misunderstand the new rule there will still be many opportunities for pitchers to face only one batter. For example a pitcher starts an inning and gets two out and faces at least one other batter (HBP, walk, error, hit, passed ball on strike three, etc.). So with two outs and a runner, or runners, on a new pitcher comes in to face one batter and finishes the half inning. This could hypothetically happen a half dozen times in one game. The one change I would love to see is electronic calls and strikes. No mention of it. The Yankees would never allow it.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 18, 2019 9:24:26 GMT -5
I think I've changed my mind on the 3 batter rule. I'd really hate to see a team lose a playoff game because some relief pitcher comes in for the 8th inning of a tied Game 7 in the World Series and walks two guys on 8 pitches and can't be removed because of the rule. Yeah it's an extreme example, but I really hope it's not a postseason rule.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 18, 2019 9:59:20 GMT -5
I think I've changed my mind on the 3 batter rule. I'd really hate to see a team lose a playoff game because some relief pitcher comes in for the 8th inning of a tied Game 7 in the World Series and walks two guys on 8 pitches and can't be removed because of the rule. Yeah it's an extreme example, but I really hope it's not a postseason rule. I'm the opposite: I'm pretty ambivalent on the three-batter rule in general, but I think a team deserves to lose if they bring in a trash reliever who you can't trust to face three dudes in a close Game 7 of the World Series.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 18, 2019 10:58:49 GMT -5
I think I've changed my mind on the 3 batter rule. I'd really hate to see a team lose a playoff game because some relief pitcher comes in for the 8th inning of a tied Game 7 in the World Series and walks two guys on 8 pitches and can't be removed because of the rule. Yeah it's an extreme example, but I really hope it's not a postseason rule. I'm the opposite: I'm pretty ambivalent on the three-batter rule in general, but I think a team deserves to lose if they bring in a trash reliever who you can't trust to face three dudes in a close Game 7 of the World Series. I'm also guessing that doesn't actually matter. The predictive power of those two hypothetical walks most likely is in the range of negligible to non-existent*. The winning manager always looks like a genius in retrospect, but these guys are all basically playing Russian roulette out there. *I don't know if people have looked at this for relievers, but there have been studies on starting pitchers "cruising" and it doesn't seem to be a real thing. The way a pitcher performed against his last five hitters is never meaningful compared to how he did against his last 500.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 18, 2019 12:01:04 GMT -5
My suggestion was a running average of some indicator... WAR, wOBA, OPS+... whatever. That could be indexed to take into account the player's age, experience, and anything else deemed pertinent. That would then inform the salary structure. It's one idea, certainly not the only one. It's not a matter of data anymore, it's about baseball politics and economic inertia. So an updated arbitration calculator basically, right? Yet that won't solve Snell's case, as he'd only get a lot more the next year. Also if you want to be really fair it needs to go up and down. None of this you get the same even if you're the worse player in the game crap like arbitration now. Hasn't the super two rules and increased arbitration rates really fixed those problems? No sport pays rookies top of the market rates. So why should Snell get it? Last season will be a big reason why his arbitration numbers are going to be massive. I'm all for players getting their fair share. I just think looking at rookies is kinda crazy. Every job you take will likely underpay you at first. After studying the NFL system I really like it. Set up an account for guys on the minimum and payout bonus money. I also think RJP's point about Snell being able to sign a big contract has to be part of the discussion. He could easily get 50 to 75 million right now, no? If he wants to go the Betts route to maximize future earnings is that really an issue for Baseball? I just think looking at guys like Snell takes away from the big issue. Good solid Veterans taking minor league deals. Guys coming off 2 bwar seasons can't get more than a minor league deal? That isn't data mining an aging cure, it's cheap owners not trying to compete, so there's no competition for players. Thus dragging down the contracts.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,765
|
Post by mobaz on Mar 18, 2019 12:09:39 GMT -5
I just think looking at guys like Snell takes away from the big issue. Good solid Veterans taking minor league deals. Guys coming off 2 bwar seasons can't get more than a minor league deal? That isn't data mining an aging cure, it's cheap owners not trying to compete, so there's no competition for players. Thus dragging down the contracts. This is definitely a problem. There are too many good major leaguers who can help a team and "should" be getting in the $2M-$7M range. I think the players are more outraged at the quality veterans being left on the scrap heap even more than the youngsters kept from their true value.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 18, 2019 12:16:57 GMT -5
I'm the opposite: I'm pretty ambivalent on the three-batter rule in general, but I think a team deserves to lose if they bring in a trash reliever who you can't trust to face three dudes in a close Game 7 of the World Series. I'm also guessing that doesn't actually matter. The predictive power of those two hypothetical walks most likely is in the range of negligible to non-existent*. The winning manager always looks like a genius in retrospect, but these guys are all basically playing Russian roulette out there. *I don't know if people have looked at this for relievers, but there have been studies on starting pitchers "cruising" and it doesn't seem to be a real thing. The way a pitcher performed against his last five hitters is never meaningful compared to how he did against his last 500. However, if a guy has "lost it" in a game, it seems to be predictive.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 18, 2019 13:52:15 GMT -5
My suggestion was a running average of some indicator... WAR, wOBA, OPS+... whatever. That could be indexed to take into account the player's age, experience, and anything else deemed pertinent. That would then inform the salary structure. It's one idea, certainly not the only one. It's not a matter of data anymore, it's about baseball politics and economic inertia. So an updated arbitration calculator basically, right? Yet that won't solve Snell's case, as he'd only get a lot more the next year. Also if you want to be really fair it needs to go up and down. None of this you get the same even if you're the worse player in the game crap like arbitration now. Hasn't the super two rules and increased arbitration rates really fixed those problems? No sport pays rookies top of the market rates. So why should Snell get it? Last season will be a big reason why his arbitration numbers are going to be massive. I'm all for players getting their fair share. I just think looking at rookies is kinda crazy. Every job you take will likely underpay you at first. After studying the NFL system I really like it. Set up an account for guys on the minimum and payout bonus money. I also think RJP's point about Snell being able to sign a big contract has to be part of the discussion. He could easily get 50 to 75 million right now, no? If he wants to go the Betts route to maximize future earnings is that really an issue for Baseball? I just think looking at guys like Snell takes away from the big issue. Good solid Veterans taking minor league deals. Guys coming off 2 bwar seasons can't get more than a minor league deal? That isn't data mining an aging cure, it's cheap owners not trying to compete, so there's no competition for players. Thus dragging down the contracts. A) That's bad. B) "MLB ace" is pretty far off from "any job". C) "Underpaid" is not a binary. Being paid half your worth is different from being paid 3% of your worth.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 18, 2019 14:46:40 GMT -5
So an updated arbitration calculator basically, right? Yet that won't solve Snell's case, as he'd only get a lot more the next year. Also if you want to be really fair it needs to go up and down. None of this you get the same even if you're the worse player in the game crap like arbitration now. Hasn't the super two rules and increased arbitration rates really fixed those problems? No sport pays rookies top of the market rates. So why should Snell get it? Last season will be a big reason why his arbitration numbers are going to be massive. I'm all for players getting their fair share. I just think looking at rookies is kinda crazy. Every job you take will likely underpay you at first. After studying the NFL system I really like it. Set up an account for guys on the minimum and payout bonus money. I also think RJP's point about Snell being able to sign a big contract has to be part of the discussion. He could easily get 50 to 75 million right now, no? If he wants to go the Betts route to maximize future earnings is that really an issue for Baseball? I just think looking at guys like Snell takes away from the big issue. Good solid Veterans taking minor league deals. Guys coming off 2 bwar seasons can't get more than a minor league deal? That isn't data mining an aging cure, it's cheap owners not trying to compete, so there's no competition for players. Thus dragging down the contracts. A) That's bad. B) "MLB ace" is pretty far off from "any job". C) "Underpaid" is not a binary. Being paid half your worth is different from being paid 3% of your worth. No it's just reality, you need to prove yourself first to get big money. You get experience gain bargaining power and get paid more. Snell can now move into the top 1% earners in this Country if he wants to after one year. Which is why he's such a horrible choice to be even talking about. It's a job and what was collectively bargained. Just like with Unions the rookies make by far the least amount of money. You have to remember it's a business grounded in an economic system. It's no different than him being a top rookie in any other field in this Country. Except for the fact that no matter how he performs he'll make a ton of money. Employers don't pay workers based on worth. It's a nice concept but it doesn't happen in reality. They pay you the least amount possible for you to do your job. I mean your arguing value and worth while overlooking Snell is in the what top 5-10% earners in the Country. While totally overlooking the years of developmental time the team put into him to make him a great player. The conversation needs to be the players getting their fair share, not their actually worth. You can't create a working model based on actual worth because you can't set labor costs. You can't run a business if you have no clue what the labor costs are going to be. So yea you want to reward Snell with a bonus, that sounds great, but actual worth is a crazy pipe dream. You talk about worth, so in your system does Sandoval have to pay the Red Sox? There's two sides to that coin.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 18, 2019 14:53:01 GMT -5
"Employers don't pay workers based on worth."
Especially when they have a monopoly with an anti-trust exemption. They also don't don't pay workers 3% of their value unless they have a monopoly with an anti-trust exemption.
There is no basis for comparing MLB to any other industry. Other industries don't own you and they actually have to pay you competitively or you'll leave. MLB doesn't have that problem. They won't pay you competitively and you can only quit forever if you don't like it.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 18, 2019 17:27:01 GMT -5
Snell won the Cy Young. He may never do that again. He's getting a $17K raise. By any definition he just proved himself ...and he won't be getting the big money.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 18, 2019 19:18:03 GMT -5
Snell won the Cy Young. He may never do that again. He's getting a $17K raise. By any definition he just proved himself ...and he won't be getting the big money. So he can't sign an extension for 50 to 75 million right now? He only gets a 17,000 raise if he bets on himself and goes for a David Price contract. The Rays have a long history of giving out early extensions if the player is willing.
|
|
|
Post by sportnik on Mar 22, 2020 11:35:10 GMT -5
The MLB Network has been playing the 78 Sox/Yankees playoff game this weekend. Starving for sports, I've watched the game about three times. I forgot how much better a product baseball was in the 70's and it all has to do with the pace of play. The game was played in 2 hrs and 52 minutes, which is just about perfect.
When the NFL games started running over 3 hours, the league made rule changes to fix the product. MLB has ignored the issue and seen the popularity of it's product drop off a cliff. Just look at what's happened to TV ratings
- The 78 Superbowl earned a 47 rating with a 67 share. Ratings for last year's Super Bowl were similar (41 rating/70 share). - The 78 Series did a 33 rating with a 56 share. This year's series did an 8 (!) with a 16 share.
In watching the game, I see three major issues: 1) Time between pitches - After the first pitch of an at bat, the time between pitches was around 20 seconds. Which is about half of what it is now.
2) Defenese shfits - there weren't any. Part of this is that the hitters seemed capable of hitting to the opposite field.
3) Most importantly - the hitters were up there to f'n hit - There were very few called strikes in the game. If the ball was in the strke zone, the batter was looking to hit it.
This made for an excellent product with a good pace. I understand the strategic importance of running up pitch counts and OBP, but the behavior it is driving is absolutely killing the product.
On top of putting in a pitch clock (20 seconds is probably fine & more reasonable than the 12 seconds proposed) & eliminating all the shifts and pitching changes, if they really want to fix baseball, they are going to have think much more out of the box and reward hitters for swinging the bat.
My suggestion would be to make a swinging strike or a foul ball equal to one strike, and a called strike equal to two strikes. Take the first pitch and it's right down the middle, you're down 0-2. This would completely transform the game & make it much more like the game that captivated the nation in the 70s.
|
|
|