O's Ink Izturis

[Lucky Jim]

While this is a good signing at 2/$6, there is a flaw with Baltimorons analysis. I can't really post references right now (I'm posting from my mobile phone... I'm a dedicated OH'er like that) the marginal value of a win is not static. It is frankly ridiculous to believe that Izturis's production is worth $8.5 million a season. The value of going from 0 WAR to 1 WAR is not the same as the value of going from 4 WAR to 5 WAR, and the market for Tex in comparison with the numbers thrown around for Izturis demonstrates that pretty clearly.

Nonetheless, good signing considering how few SS options there are right now.

Excllent points. A rough metric, to be sure. But better than nothing, perhaps?

[davearm]

Well, BMoron has pretty much shown that if Izturis fits your definition, we'll be getting him at a fraction of his actual value. That works for me.

What options do you suggest that would offer that same kind of value?

I'm not sure why finding value ought to be the guiding principle here. And maybe this is where we diverge fundamentally.

I say screw value, find someone that at least has a chance of being the longterm answer at the position.

I don't think you'd find too many folks that would put Izturis in that category, although there may be a few that think he could rebound in a big way.

And now you'll remind me that signing Izturis doesn't preclude the quest for the longterm answer from continuing. That's certainly true, although as you know by now I think the urgency goes down in a big way. Reasonable minds can disagree on this point.

[Baltimoron]

While this is a good signing at 2/$6, there is a flaw with Baltimorons analysis. I can't really post references right now (I'm posting from my mobile phone... I'm a dedicated OH'er like that) the marginal value of a win is not static. It is frankly ridiculous to believe that Izturis's production is worth $8.5 million a season. The value of going from 0 WAR to 1 WAR is not the same as the value of going from 4 WAR to 5 WAR, and the market for Tex in comparison with the numbers thrown around for Izturis demonstrates that pretty clearly.

Actually, the actual price for marginal value of wins on the free agent market slightly increases and then declines per WAR, peaking around 4. The top end decline is illustrated in your Teix v. Izturis. Teix is easily worth $25 if a WAR is worth just under 5 million. Teix was +7 WAR last year.

BP's MORP is wrong, marginal wins are of decreasing value.

The other interesting chart is the following one, which shows that there’s a marginal decrease in pennants added, per win above 4 WAR. So, for those arguing that you should pay more per extra win, that’s not the case. And for those who intuitively believed that giving Pujols a 300 or 400 million$ salary would have been ludicrous, because at some point, you should pay less for every extra win (studes, among others), go to the head of the class

link

The bottom line, dWSA (16,4), reflects that WAR peaks around 4, but most of all the curve is very modest, which means there isn't a huge difference in marginal win value.

<img src="http://www.hardballtimes.com/images/uploads/Pennants_Added_9.gif">

Link of article where image is from. This article is discussed in the above link.

[Lucky Jim]

Actually, the actual price for marginal value of wins on the free agent market declines per WAR, as your Teix v. Izturis example illustartes.

BP's MORP is wrong, marginal wins are of decreasing value. link

.

That's interesting. I'd never heard that before. It seems kind-of counter-intuitive, though. I'm not a numbers guy, of course.

I'll read the article.

[Baltimoron]

That's interesting. I'd never heard that before. It seems kind-of counter-intuitive, though. I'm not a numbers guy, of course.

I'll read the article.

Diminishing marginal returns is clearly a frontier at some point.

As an extreme example, if you are a 110 win team with a so-so first baseman, adding Pujols makes you better, but on a marginal scale the wins that got you from the mid 80s to the low 90s were more valuable than the 7 marginal wins or so from Pujols you add to your already crazy good team.

---

There is also a difference depending on which team you are looking at and where they are in competitiveness, because a marginal win is worth more to the Mets than the Os.

But we are looking at if form the player market perspective, not the team perspective. You could argue Izturis is worth less to the Os, but we are looking at his value in the market as compared to what the Os paid.

---

But the big point is that the change in marginal win value is basically very slight, and you don't really miss much at all by simply looking at an average value for marginal wins.

Using a fixed value for marginal wins is what Tom Tango has been doing the last three years, so its unlikely to be all that wrong, if its much wrong at all in the first place. Tango's salary scale

[Baltimoron]

Well until the Tigers signed him for a million bucks, there was Adam Everett.

Now don't get me wrong, he'd get the O's no closer to a longterm solution than Izturis does, but at least he'd be cheaper and there wouldn't be any ambiguity about the placeholder status.

I don't understand your point. Are you saying the Os should have signed Everett before the Tigers did? They tried too:

Adam Everett is an option as the Orioles have expressed interest to his agent.

link

[Sports Guy]

Does it really matter if Izturis is going to be worth his contract?

I think some are focusing on that and that isn't the point of what most people are talking about.

[byrdz]

Does it really matter if Izturis is going to be worth his contract?

No, what matters is that he consistently catches the ball and throws it to first base before the runner gets there, and turns a DP or two between.

[awalt]

I think it's a good signing, even a multi year deal. We have so many holes to expect all of them to be filled in 2 years is just way optimistic. Pitching a strong defense still goes a long way in this offense-driven league now, and I am very optimistic he will impress us with his defense. He is a proven major-leaguer.

Let's get some holes FILLED for a few years so we can move on to other positions and needs. To continually re-address many positions each year is just churning and really doesn't help the team progress at all.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Does it really matter if Izturis is going to be worth his contract?

I think some are focusing on that and that isn't the point of what most people are talking about.

If we signed Millar to a league-minimum deal to play first base, does it really matter if he's going to be worth his contract?

[davearm]

I don't understand your point. Are you saying the Os should have signed Everett before the Tigers did? They tried too:

link

In the post I was replying to, you posed the question, "If he is out there, tell us who that is?"

So I offered up one answer.

[Leitch]

In the post I was replying to, you posed the question, "If he is out there, tell us who that is?"

So I offered up one answer.

He's not really "out there" if he's all up in the Tigers' payroll

[Lucky Jim]

Diminishing marginal returns is clearly a frontier at some point.

As an extreme example, if you are a 110 win team with a so-so first baseman, adding Pujols makes you better, but on a marginal scale the wins that got you from the mid 80s to the low 90s were more valuable than the 7 marginal wins or so from Pujols you add to your already crazy good team.

---

There is also a difference depending on which team you are looking at and where they are in competitiveness, because a marginal win is worth more to the Mets than the Os.

But we are looking at if form the player market perspective, not the team perspective. You could argue Izturis is worth less to the Os, but we are looking at his value in the market as compared to what the Os paid.

---

But the big point is that the change in marginal win value is basically very slight, and you don't really miss much at all by simply looking at an average value for marginal wins.

Using a fixed value for marginal wins is what Tom Tango has been doing the last three years, so its unlikely to be all that wrong, if its much wrong at all in the first place. Tango's salary scale

That makes sense, of course. I have a few thoughts that I'm going to organize before I pose some questions - a bit tired and I want them to be precise and/or relevant.

I'll be back.

[Ruzious]

To show what a relative bargain the O's got with Izturus, Arizona signed Felipe Lopez for $3.5 mil for 1 year. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/ I suppose he'll be Orlando Hudson's replacement.

[blueberryale77]

To show what a relative bargain the O's got with Izturus, Arizona signed Felipe Lopez for $3.5 mil for 1 year. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/ I suppose he'll be Orlando Hudson's replacement.

Ouch, sucks to be Arizona. Did they not want a real solution because they have a prospect who might make it up by next season at the latest? Still, $3.5 million for a guy nobody wants. Wow!