Fangraphs positional power rankings

[Moose Milligan]

1 hour ago, Philip said:

That’s a wonderful way of skirting my question which was, “didn’t we spend six figures on each of them?”

If we spent 1,000,000+ on each guy and we’re not getting even a single WAR out of either, the alternatives must’ve been really really bad

SIX figures means that the number in question has SIX digits in it, which means anywhere from $100,000 to $999,999.

If we spent $1,000,000+ on each guy that would be a SEVEN figure spend.  

Even if we spent SEVEN figures on each of them -we did-, the $1,500,000 million spent on Galvis and the $1,000,000 spent on Sanchez is still bargain basement shopping. 

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

[ArtVanDelay]

 

4 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

SIX figures means that the number in question has SIX digits in it, which means anywhere from $100,000 to $999,999.

If we spent $1,000,000+ on each guy that would be a SEVEN figure spend.  

Even if we spent SEVEN figures on each of them -we did-, the $1,500,000 million spent on Galvis and the $1,000,000 spent on Sanchez is still bargain basement shopping. 

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

I watched this TED talk a couple years ago about a guy who traded a paperclip for a house through a series of 14 trades.  I’m sure Elias’ plan is to turn Yolmer into Mike Trout by the deadline. 

[Philip]

5 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

SIX figures means that the number in question has SIX digits in it, which means anywhere from $100,000 to $999,999.

If we spent $1,000,000+ on each guy that would be a SEVEN figure spend.  

Even if we spent SEVEN figures on each of them -we did-, the $1,500,000 million spent on Galvis and the $1,000,000 spent on Sanchez is still bargain basement shopping. 

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

Yeah, I meant seven… My bad. Fortunately, you were able to respond to my intent. To be honest at those prices I wish we kept Iglesias.

[Frobby]

7 hours ago, Philip said:

That’s a wonderful way of skirting my question which was, “didn’t we spend six figures on each of them?”

If we spent 1,000,000+ on each guy and we’re not getting even a single WAR out of either, the alternatives must’ve been really really bad

The ratio is $8 mm per WAR on average.  So at that price, they’re bargains.   But in reality, they’re reasonably priced placeholders until a minor leaguer is ready or we’re in a competitive position where spending real money on an upgrade makes sense.  

[Philip]

15 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The ratio is $8 mm per WAR on average.  So at that price, they’re bargains.   But in reality, they’re reasonably priced placeholders until a minor leaguer is ready or we’re in a competitive position where spending real money on an upgrade makes sense.  

Yes I know the cost per WAR but I’ve always thought that was a poor calculation. Imagine spending 64 million for an 8WAR lineup? Sure seems like an overpay.

I think instead a sliding scale should be used. A 2 WAR player is NOT worth twice a 1 WAR player. A 2 WAR guy is worth more, far more than twice as much, BUT a 2 WAR player isn’t worth 16 million.

So the value of a 1(or less) WAR player is much less than 8 million, a 2 WAR player is worth less than 16, but more than twice the 1WAR guy.

Im not sure how to set up the calculation but it’s clear that a 1WAR player isn’t worth 8 mill, and a 1/2 WAR player isn’t worth 4 million and if our $1 million Sanchez gives us .0125WAR, I’m going to think we didn’t get our money’s worth, and should have gone big or gone replacement.

[Frobby]

11 minutes ago, Philip said:

Yes I know the cost per WAR but I’ve always thought that was a poor calculation. Imagine spending 64 million for an 8WAR lineup? Sure seems like an overpay.

I think instead a sliding scale should be used. A 2 WAR player is NOT worth twice a 1 WAR player. A 2 WAR guy is worth more, far more than twice as much, BUT a 2 WAR player isn’t worth 16 million.

So the value of a 1(or less) WAR player is much less than 8 million, a 2 WAR player is worth less than 16, but more than twice the 1WAR guy.

Im not sure how to set up the calculation but it’s clear that a 1WAR player isn’t worth 8 mill, and a 1/2 WAR player isn’t worth 4 million and if our $1 million Sanchez gives us .0125WAR, I’m going to think we didn’t get our money’s worth, and should have gone big or gone replacement.

There is evidence that in recent years, the relationship between FA salary and WAR has not been linear, whereas before it was.   So that supports what you’re saying.   
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/is-the-cost-of-a-win-in-free-agency-still-linear/

[Frobby]

When Fangraphs did this exercise two years ago, the O’s were ranked 30th at 1B, 2B, SS and C, and 29th at 3B.    So, we’re moving up!

 

[Beef Supreme]

1 hour ago, Philip said:

Yes I know the cost per WAR but I’ve always thought that was a poor calculation. Imagine spending 64 million for an 8WAR lineup? Sure seems like an overpay.

I think instead a sliding scale should be used. A 2 WAR player is NOT worth twice a 1 WAR player. A 2 WAR guy is worth more, far more than twice as much, BUT a 2 WAR player isn’t worth 16 million.

So the value of a 1(or less) WAR player is much less than 8 million, a 2 WAR player is worth less than 16, but more than twice the 1WAR guy.

Im not sure how to set up the calculation but it’s clear that a 1WAR player isn’t worth 8 mill, and a 1/2 WAR player isn’t worth 4 million and if our $1 million Sanchez gives us .0125WAR, I’m going to think we didn’t get our money’s worth, and should have gone big or gone replacement.

Not that it makes much of a difference, but that should read, "0.125 WAR." You misplaced the decimal. 

[Aristotelian]

10 hours ago, Philip said:

Sanchez and Galvis? Didn’t we spend 6 figures on each?

1.5M on Galvis and 1.1M on Yolmer. 1 WAR is worth like $8M so $2.6M is a bargain for a couple of replacement level guys. 

[Philip]

11 minutes ago, Beef Supreme said:

Not that it makes much of a difference, but that should read, "0.125 WAR." You misplaced the decimal. 

So THATS why the IRS keeps pestering me for more Money!

[DrinkinWithFermi]

12 hours ago, Philip said:

To be honest at those prices I wish we kept Iglesias.

Why? They are both competent but unspectacular short-term placeholders and we aren't going to be competitive this year, so I'd rather have Galvis and the pair of prospects we got for Iglesias (one of which Elias is apparently particularly high on), plus a couple of million bucks leftover. 

[BohKnowsBmore]

23 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Aren't like all the International signees that aren't pitchers listed as short stops?

Allocating the cost of the new Dominican facility to the SS / 2B positions, perhaps?

[BohKnowsBmore]

@Philip I'm having a really hard time following your outlook on roster construction. 

You want us to ship Sisco and Severino out of town post haste in favor of anyone with a better glove behind the dish. You don't see either of their salaries, remaining upside, or offensive contribution as worthy of keeping them. Any glove-first replacement will do.

For the middle infield, you somehow think we're paying a lot of money for Galvis / Sanchez, which... let's just move past that as I think others have addressed that point. Moving past the money for a second, we have good glove placeholder options there and now you think that's not acceptable. Putting that alongside your position re: catchers, it's tough to find a consistent logic. 

[BohKnowsBmore]

12 hours ago, Aristotelian said:

1.5M on Galvis and 1.1M on Yolmer. 1 WAR is worth like $8M so $2.6M is a bargain for a couple of replacement level guys. 

Neither is spectacular, and nothing is guaranteed, but both are consistently/reliably above replacement value options

[Philip]

2 hours ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

@Philip I'm having a really hard time following your outlook on roster construction. 

You want us to ship Sisco and Severino out of town post haste in favor of anyone with a better glove behind the dish. You don't see either of their salaries, remaining upside, or offensive contribution as worthy of keeping them. Any glove-first replacement will do.

For the middle infield, you somehow think we're paying a lot of money for Galvis / Sanchez, which... let's just move past that as I think others have addressed that point. Moving past the money for a second, we have good glove placeholder options there and now you think that's not acceptable. Putting that alongside your position re: catchers, it's tough to find a consistent logic. 

Yes I want to get rid of S&S Demolition crew. I don’t think they are placeholders, because they aren’t adequate. They have no upside. They’ve shown what they are behind the plate. Even if they improved on offense, and Sisco has a good eye and can draw a walk, that wouldn’t compensate for the defense. They offer only marginal offense( but slightly above league average)but terrible defense, and we desperately need good catching skills. The emphasis at catcher is defense, and their slightly above average offense doesn’t compensate. We have better defenders, and I’d rather use them.

Regarding SS and 2B, I don’t really care about Galvis and Sanchez, I was actually surprised that they projected to be that bad, and I overreacted a bit. I thought they would be projected to produce better numbers.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Philip