De Aza Arbitration Hearing Winner (Orioles Win)(H. Russell Smouse 8-0)

[weams]

Much more important than winning the case is how De Aza will be affected after listening to Smouse tear him apart.

He is ecstatic to have 5 million. And he will either be...wait for it..."we heard he was a little lazy" ... or he will work real hard to get a nice FA contract his choice. Next man up.

[Crazysilver03]

Much more important than winning the case is how De Aza will be affected after listening to Smouse tear him apart.

Was DeAza actually there? And does his English allow him to understand?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[weams]

Was DeAza actually there? And does his English allow him to understand?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He speaks excellent deep throated accented English. Players are required to attend.

[weams]

It's a very valid point -- though it shouldn't be. This stuff isn't rocket science. I think you also have to consider that the quality of the presentations matter a lot, and Smouse clearly is the Clarence Darrow of baseball arbitration. Maybe Angelos could make some money by hiring Smouse out to other teams at $10,000 an hour.

With his record, he should just charge $250K per trial. Or the threat of trial.

[weams]

It's a very valid point -- though it shouldn't be. This stuff isn't rocket science. I think you also have to consider that the quality of the presentations matter a lot, and Smouse clearly is the Clarence Darrow of baseball arbitration. Maybe Angelos could make some money by hiring Smouse out to other teams at $10,000 an hour.

"I have suffered from being misunderstood, but I would have suffered a hell of a lot more if I had been understood."

[Frobby]

Same arbiter?

OK, I've looked into this. First of all, these are decided by a three-arbitrator panel, not a single arbitrator. That in and of itself should remove some of the individual variations. But further, two of the three arbitrators were the same in both cases. So, let me review this again:

Alvarez:

- Hit .233/.296/.473 with 36 HR and 100 RBI in 2013, and was worth 3.7 rWAR.

- Earned $4.25 mm in 2014, his first year of arbitration eligibility.

- Hit .231/.312/.405 in 2014 with 18 HR and 56 RBI, and was worth 0.8 rWAR.

- The team offered $5.25 mm for 2015, he demanded $5.75.

- Alvarez won, and thus gets a $1.5 mm raise in his second year of arbitration eligibility, to $5.75 mm.

De Aza:

- Hit .264/.323/.405 with 17 HR and 62 RBI in 2013, and was worth -0.3 rWAR

- Earned $4.25 mm in 2014, his second year of arbitration eligibility.

- Hit .252/.314/.386 with 8 HR and 41 RBI in 2014, and was worth 0.7 rWAR

- The team offered $5.0 mm for 2015, and he demanded $5.65 mm

- The team won, and thus De Aza gets a $0.75 mm raise in his third year of arbitration eligibility, to $5.0 mm.

So, Alvarez sees his OPS drop by 52 points and his rWAR drop by 2.9, and he gets a $1.5 mm raise. De Aza sees his OPS drop by 28 points, and his rWAR goes up by 1.0, and he gets a $750 k raise.

Now, I guess you could look at this as the arbitrators feeling that Alvarez was underpaid in 2014, while De Aza was overpaid that year. And on the whole, I think Alvarez is the more desirable player. But since service time counts for so much in these arbitration cases, I really don't think these decisions are very consistent.

[weams]

OK, I've looked into this. First of all, these are decided by a three-arbitrator panel, not a single arbitrator. That in and of itself should remove some of the individual variations. But further, two of the three arbitrators were the same in both cases. So, let me review this again:

Alvarez:

- Hit .233/.296/.473 with 36 HR and 100 RBI in 2013, and was worth 3.7 rWAR.

- Earned $4.25 mm in 2014, his first year of arbitration eligibility.

- Hit .231/.312/.405 in 2014 with 18 HR and 56 RBI, and was worth 0.8 rWAR.

- The team offered $5.25 mm for 2015, he demanded $5.75.

- Alvarez won, and thus gets a $1.5 mm raise in his second year of arbitration eligibility, to $5.75 mm.

De Aza:

- Hit .264/.323/.405 with 17 HR and 62 RBI in 2013, and was worth -0.3 rWAR

- Earned $4.25 mm in 2014, his second year of arbitration eligibility.

- Hit .252/.314/.386 with 8 HR and 41 RBI in 2014, and was worth 0.7 rWAR

- The team offered $5.0 mm for 2015, and he demanded $5.65 mm

- The team won, and thus De Aza gets a $0.75 mm raise in his third year of arbitration eligibility, to $5.0 mm.

So, Alvarez sees his OPS drop by 52 points and his rWAR drop by 2.9, and he gets a $1.5 mm raise. De Aza sees his OPS drop by 28 points, and his rWAR goes up by 1.0, and he gets a $750 k raise.

Now, I guess you could look at this as the arbitrators feeling that Alvarez was underpaid in 2014, while De Aza was overpaid that year. And on the whole, I think Alvarez is the more desirable player. But since service time counts for so much in these arbitration cases, I really don't think these decisions are very consistent.

It's clearly all about the bass. The arbiters pay for homers.

[Can_of_corn]

It is peculiar.

Glad they won.

[SteveA]

Do we have any idea as to whether the arbiters are well versed in newer stats like WAR? Is prior salary a consideration (beyond the setting of a floor for the amount). I ask this because of Frobby's post talking about the size of the raise players are getting when discussing fairness of decisions.

[backwardsk]

Is this the largest gap, percentage wise, from what a player got and what MLBTRADERUMORS predicted?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Frobby]

Do we have any idea as to whether the arbiters are well versed in newer stats like WAR? Is prior salary a consideration (beyond the setting of a floor for the amount). I ask this because of Frobby's post talking about the size of the raise players are getting when discussing fairness of decisions.

First of all, here are the criteria:

a) The criteria will be the quality of the Player’s contribution

to his Club during the past season (including but not limited to his

overall performance, special qualities of leadership and public

appeal), the length and consistency of his career contribution, the

record of the Player’s past compensation, comparative baseball

salaries (see paragraph (13) below for confidential salary data),

the existence of any physical or mental defects on the part of the

Player, and the recent performance record of the Club including

but not limited to its League standing and attendance as an indication

of public acceptance (subject to the exclusion stated in

subparagraph (b)(i) below). Any evidence may be submitted

which is relevant to the above criteria, and the arbitration panel

shall assign such weight to the evidence as shall appear appropriate

under the circumstances. The arbitration panel shall,

except for a Player with five or more years of Major League service,

give particular attention, for comparative salary purposes, to

the contracts of Players with Major League service not exceeding

one annual service group above the Player’s annual service

group. This shall not limit the ability of a Player or his represen-

tative, because of special accomplishment, to argue the equal relevance

of salaries of Players without regard to service, and the

arbitration panel shall give whatever weight to such argument as

is deemed appropriate.

(b) Evidence of the following shall not be admissible:

(i) The financial position of the Player and the Club;

(ii) Press comments, testimonials or similar material bearing

on the performance of either the Player or the Club, except

that recognized annual Player awards for playing excellence

shall not be excluded;

(iii) Offers made by either Player or Club prior to arbitration;

(iv) The cost to the parties of their representatives, attorneys,

etc.;

(v) Salaries in other sports or occupations.

So, past salary is definitely relevant.

As to whether the arbitrators are familiar with WAR, I don't know, but I cannot believe that they aren't. It's not exactly a new stat anymore and I'm sure one side or the other has been bringing it up for years in these arbitrations, though it may not have us much weight as some people here might give it.

[TonySoprano]

"I have suffered from being misunderstood, but I would have suffered a hell of a lot more if I had been understood."

The Animals

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HHjKzr6tLz0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Crazysilver03]

OK, I've looked into this. First of all, these are decided by a three-arbitrator panel, not a single arbitrator. That in and of itself should remove some of the individual variations. But further, two of the three arbitrators were the same in both cases. So, let me review this again:

Alvarez:

- Hit .233/.296/.473 with 36 HR and 100 RBI in 2013, and was worth 3.7 rWAR.

- Earned $4.25 mm in 2014, his first year of arbitration eligibility.

- Hit .231/.312/.405 in 2014 with 18 HR and 56 RBI, and was worth 0.8 rWAR.

- The team offered $5.25 mm for 2015, he demanded $5.75.

- Alvarez won, and thus gets a $1.5 mm raise in his second year of arbitration eligibility, to $5.75 mm.

De Aza:

- Hit .264/.323/.405 with 17 HR and 62 RBI in 2013, and was worth -0.3 rWAR

- Earned $4.25 mm in 2014, his second year of arbitration eligibility.

- Hit .252/.314/.386 with 8 HR and 41 RBI in 2014, and was worth 0.7 rWAR

- The team offered $5.0 mm for 2015, and he demanded $5.65 mm

- The team won, and thus De Aza gets a $0.75 mm raise in his third year of arbitration eligibility, to $5.0 mm.

So, Alvarez sees his OPS drop by 52 points and his rWAR drop by 2.9, and he gets a $1.5 mm raise. De Aza sees his OPS drop by 28 points, and his rWAR goes up by 1.0, and he gets a $750 k raise.

Now, I guess you could look at this as the arbitrators feeling that Alvarez was underpaid in 2014, while De Aza was overpaid that year. And on the whole, I think Alvarez is the more desirable player. But since service time counts for so much in these arbitration cases, I really don't think these decisions are very consistent.

This is a fantastic post and why I love the OH. It is a very interesting contrast.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[malkusm]

I've read in several places that WAR is not considered by arbiters. Mostly the baseball card stats. Maybe some reference to subjective criteria like "good defender". A Gold Glove, for example, would carry weight.

[weams]

I've read in several places that WAR is not considered by arbiters. Mostly the baseball card stats. Maybe some reference to subjective criteria like "good defender". A Gold Glove, for example, would carry weight.

That is my understanding, though I do believe that the arbiters may consider newer statistic. I think as Frobby indicated, it is a matter of finding comps.