Comments on: What’s the Price of a Replacement Player? http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2005/01/whats-the-price-of-a-replacement-player/ Economic Thinking about Baseball Sun, 09 Jan 2011 17:16:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Anonymous http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2005/01/whats-the-price-of-a-replacement-player/comment-page-1/#comment-21 Anonymous Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://bradbury.sewanee.edu/wordpress/index.php/2005/01/26/whats-the-price-of-a-replacement-player/#comment-21 Very interesting idea...I was hoping to study something like this myself in the future. At the moment I have no suggestions as I would have to research more into the topic. If I were studying this at the moment (I'm currently working on DIPS) I would probably us the best run producing stat (OPS, etc.)as my main measure of player contribution (I'm pretty sure you have thought of this, though). Good luck in your work and I can't wait to see the results and analyze your procedure for any help to my future market value study(ies). Very interesting idea…I was hoping to study something like this myself in the future. At the moment I have no suggestions as I would have to research more into the topic. If I were studying this at the moment (I’m currently working on DIPS) I would probably us the best run producing stat (OPS, etc.)as my main measure of player contribution (I’m pretty sure you have thought of this, though). Good luck in your work and I can’t wait to see the results and analyze your procedure for any help to my future market value study(ies).

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2005/01/whats-the-price-of-a-replacement-player/comment-page-1/#comment-22 Anonymous Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://bradbury.sewanee.edu/wordpress/index.php/2005/01/26/whats-the-price-of-a-replacement-player/#comment-22 Well, let's update the study (though I never read the original). For each Win Share last year, Free Agents received $451K, arbitration-eligible players received $344K and non-arbitration players received $110K, for an average of $329K per WS across all players.<br /><br />For 234 WS, non-arbitration players received $25.8M. At a market rate of $329K, they would have received $77K. That's a ratio of 26/77, or 30%. So owners are keeping 70% of a "reserved" player's value (if my numbers are correct).<br /><br />I guess you could compare reserved players to free agents, but that seems to me to be flawed, because free agents would be paid less if everyone was a free agent.<br /><br />I must say that I consider Win Shares to be a better stat than OPS or whatever you want to use for this kind of study. As a stat, it is directly related to wins, and it allows you to compare different types of players. And it includes all skills, including fielding.<br /><br />If you're not comfortable with Win Shares, I would understand that. But, in the end, it seems to me that win-based systems are the best for this kind of analysis, because wins=value. But, of course, you knew I'd say that. :)<br /><br />This is a great line of thinking, JC. It's very much worth kicking around. Well, let’s update the study (though I never read the original). For each Win Share last year, Free Agents received $451K, arbitration-eligible players received $344K and non-arbitration players received $110K, for an average of $329K per WS across all players.

For 234 WS, non-arbitration players received $25.8M. At a market rate of $329K, they would have received $77K. That’s a ratio of 26/77, or 30%. So owners are keeping 70% of a “reserved” player’s value (if my numbers are correct).

I guess you could compare reserved players to free agents, but that seems to me to be flawed, because free agents would be paid less if everyone was a free agent.

I must say that I consider Win Shares to be a better stat than OPS or whatever you want to use for this kind of study. As a stat, it is directly related to wins, and it allows you to compare different types of players. And it includes all skills, including fielding.

If you’re not comfortable with Win Shares, I would understand that. But, in the end, it seems to me that win-based systems are the best for this kind of analysis, because wins=value. But, of course, you knew I’d say that. :)

This is a great line of thinking, JC. It’s very much worth kicking around.

]]>