MLB Salaries

[rockondlouie]

Ignores the Human Element:
Metrics often overlook crucial intangible qualities such as a players motivation, clubhouse chemistry, leadership skills, and "clutch" performance (performing well in high-pressure situations).

Some/much of this is going to be manifest in the player's measurable, on field production.

Whatever isn't is a small residual that you can generally overlook. How do we know that? Because WAR methodologies do a really good job of correlating team WAR with actual team wins.

If WAR methodologies are achieving that, it means there can't be significant factors that they are missing. So all of these "intangibles" can't add up to much or you would see it in a much lower correlation between teams WARs and team wins over comparing one to the other for all teams over multiple decades (lots of individual data points).

If you want to value a particular player say 10% more than their on field production warrants because you think they have "intangibles", maybe you can do that. But the vast majority of your value is always tangible production.

Metrics has an Inability to Quantify Intangibles:
Factors like a player's mindset on a given day (e.g., personal issues, slumps/hot streaks) are challenging to input into a formula, yet they can significantly impact performance.

WAR methodologies are not about making game-to-game tactical decisions. They are about making GM-level strategic decisions about the value of players to bring together on the roster.

WAR is formulated from those "in game" experiences.

And it represents production over a full, 162 game season - which "averages out" those slumps/hot streaks, etc.

Designed to smooth out short-term fluctuations, I get it but still has it's flaws and limitations.

[mattmitchl44]

Ignores the Human Element:
Metrics often overlook crucial intangible qualities such as a players motivation, clubhouse chemistry, leadership skills, and "clutch" performance (performing well in high-pressure situations).

Some/much of this is going to be manifest in the player's measurable, on field production.

Whatever isn't is a small residual that you can generally overlook. How do we know that? Because WAR methodologies do a really good job of correlating team WAR with actual team wins.

If WAR methodologies are achieving that, it means there can't be significant factors that they are missing. So all of these "intangibles" can't add up to much or you would see it in a much lower correlation between teams WARs and team wins over comparing one to the other for all teams over multiple decades (lots of individual data points).

If you want to value a particular player say 10% more than their on field production warrants because you think they have "intangibles", maybe you can do that. But the vast majority of your value is always tangible production.

Metrics has an Inability to Quantify Intangibles:
Factors like a player's mindset on a given day (e.g., personal issues, slumps/hot streaks) are challenging to input into a formula, yet they can significantly impact performance.

WAR methodologies are not about making game-to-game tactical decisions. They are about making GM-level strategic decisions about the value of players to bring together on the roster.

WAR is formulated from those "in game" experiences.

And it represents production over a full, 162 game season - which "averages out" those slumps/hot streaks, etc.

Designed to smooth out short-term fluctuations, I get it but still has it's flaws and limitations.

Sure. It's not the single piece of data that is going to tell you everything you need to know for everyone to do their jobs, from the GM all the way down to the first base coach. No one ever claimed it was.

[rockondlouie]

Ignores the Human Element:
Metrics often overlook crucial intangible qualities such as a players motivation, clubhouse chemistry, leadership skills, and "clutch" performance (performing well in high-pressure situations).

Some/much of this is going to be manifest in the player's measurable, on field production.

Whatever isn't is a small residual that you can generally overlook. How do we know that? Because WAR methodologies do a really good job of correlating team WAR with actual team wins.

If WAR methodologies are achieving that, it means there can't be significant factors that they are missing. So all of these "intangibles" can't add up to much or you would see it in a much lower correlation between teams WARs and team wins over comparing one to the other for all teams over multiple decades (lots of individual data points).

If you want to value a particular player say 10% more than their on field production warrants because you think they have "intangibles", maybe you can do that. But the vast majority of your value is always tangible production.

Metrics has an Inability to Quantify Intangibles:
Factors like a player's mindset on a given day (e.g., personal issues, slumps/hot streaks) are challenging to input into a formula, yet they can significantly impact performance.

WAR methodologies are not about making game-to-game tactical decisions. They are about making GM-level strategic decisions about the value of players to bring together on the roster.

WAR is formulated from those "in game" experiences.

And it represents production over a full, 162 game season - which "averages out" those slumps/hot streaks, etc.

Designed to smooth out short-term fluctuations, I get it but still has it's flaws and limitations.

Sure. It's not the single piece of data that is going to tell you everything you need to know for everyone to do their jobs, from the GM all the way down to the first base coach. No one ever claimed it was.

Agreed.........but we certainly have had some in here who claim it does.

[Goldfan]

Let’s just look at salary. How do you assign a negative value to a players salary if you’re dealing with teams who have virtually unlimited budgets? Those team only want the best players and don’t really care about salary and yet BTV seems to assume that salaries should be equally compared across all teams. Great distortion in just the salary input.
They put what their model says is an objective value on that player's production. That baseline value applies to any team who might have that player (and their contract).

But if a particular contending team thinks they need to add exactly Player X to put them over the top and win a WS next year, yes, they will probably "overpay" (essentially putting a value on Player X that is higher than their objective value) to get that player.

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT!

Exactly…..when you look under the hood of most of these new age equations the assumptions and variables aren’t reality. But fans don’t do the research and pass it off as gospel

As noted - BTV provides a good, neutral, third party evaluation to assess whether a particular trade is in the ballpark of being "balanced." That is all anyone is claiming.

MLB team objective>>>>WIN MLB GAMES
Gray trade as an example of “balanced”
Boston receives a 12-15game MLB winner for a couple years in exchange for an injury proned minor leaguer>>>>no MLB stats to gauge and a 5th SP, injury proned with below avg MLB stats. And Sox assume Gray salary after Cards send 20mil
If the goal is to win MLB games Boston is the clear winner. If Gray remains healthy on a good Sox team he should win double digit games
The Cards return was HOPE……there is nothing in past history with these 2 SP today to claim they’ll have MLB success.
But somehow BTV allocates a rather large advantage to Cards
Against SOX have plenty of $$$ so whatever they assume or pay should have no bearing on this evaluation

The Cardinals got exactly what they wanted - potential for 2027, 2028, 2029. That's where their value is, and that's where BTV recognizes their value to be in the trade. I don't understand why that is so difficult to comprehend.

This leap where you just assume an injury proned minor league prospect is going to be impactful in ‘27, ‘28 ‘29 is laughable…..

Clearly the Cardinals talent evaluation valued Fitts and Clarke highly enough to believe this was the best deal they could get for Gray.

Independent third parties, like BTV, evaluate it as being an objectively good return in prospect potential for the Cardinals.

Have you considered that it is just possible that it's YOUR evaluation that might be biased and overly pessimistic????

‘He gave up $10.6M of value in the Gray trade and received $23.7M of value per BTV or $13.1M of excess.’
The Cards have 13.1m Excess “benefit” from the trade…..what does this even mean??? People see this and run with it

What it means is that they expect the "value" of the production that Fitts and Clarke will provide in their, I think, 11 years of team control (5 for Fitts, 6 for Clarke) for the ML team will be greater than what the Cardinals will have to pay them during their pre-ARB and ARB years by a fair amount (about $23 million).

Actual MLB performance and compensation for that performance seem to be greatly degraded in this equation while fantasy projections through cheap cost controlled years are greatly overweighted. Where is the risk adjusted deval for 2 prospects who have been injured, with no or little MLB stats and who MAY never produce in MLB. This BTV just assumes that the prospects will have above avg cheap MLB performance??

[mattmitchl44]

Let’s just look at salary. How do you assign a negative value to a players salary if you’re dealing with teams who have virtually unlimited budgets? Those team only want the best players and don’t really care about salary and yet BTV seems to assume that salaries should be equally compared across all teams. Great distortion in just the salary input.
They put what their model says is an objective value on that player's production. That baseline value applies to any team who might have that player (and their contract).

But if a particular contending team thinks they need to add exactly Player X to put them over the top and win a WS next year, yes, they will probably "overpay" (essentially putting a value on Player X that is higher than their objective value) to get that player.

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT!

Exactly…..when you look under the hood of most of these new age equations the assumptions and variables aren’t reality. But fans don’t do the research and pass it off as gospel

As noted - BTV provides a good, neutral, third party evaluation to assess whether a particular trade is in the ballpark of being "balanced." That is all anyone is claiming.

MLB team objective>>>>WIN MLB GAMES
Gray trade as an example of “balanced”
Boston receives a 12-15game MLB winner for a couple years in exchange for an injury proned minor leaguer>>>>no MLB stats to gauge and a 5th SP, injury proned with below avg MLB stats. And Sox assume Gray salary after Cards send 20mil
If the goal is to win MLB games Boston is the clear winner. If Gray remains healthy on a good Sox team he should win double digit games
The Cards return was HOPE……there is nothing in past history with these 2 SP today to claim they’ll have MLB success.
But somehow BTV allocates a rather large advantage to Cards
Against SOX have plenty of $$$ so whatever they assume or pay should have no bearing on this evaluation

The Cardinals got exactly what they wanted - potential for 2027, 2028, 2029. That's where their value is, and that's where BTV recognizes their value to be in the trade. I don't understand why that is so difficult to comprehend.

This leap where you just assume an injury proned minor league prospect is going to be impactful in ‘27, ‘28 ‘29 is laughable…..

Clearly the Cardinals talent evaluation valued Fitts and Clarke highly enough to believe this was the best deal they could get for Gray.

Independent third parties, like BTV, evaluate it as being an objectively good return in prospect potential for the Cardinals.

Have you considered that it is just possible that it's YOUR evaluation that might be biased and overly pessimistic????

‘He gave up $10.6M of value in the Gray trade and received $23.7M of value per BTV or $13.1M of excess.’
The Cards have 13.1m Excess “benefit” from the trade…..what does this even mean??? People see this and run with it

What it means is that they expect the "value" of the production that Fitts and Clarke will provide in their, I think, 11 years of team control (5 for Fitts, 6 for Clarke) for the ML team will be greater than what the Cardinals will have to pay them during their pre-ARB and ARB years by a fair amount (about $23 million).

Actual MLB performance and compensation for that performance seem to be greatly degraded in this equation while fantasy projections through cheap cost controlled years are greatly overweighted. Where is the risk adjusted deval for 2 prospects who have been injured, with no or little MLB stats and who MAY never produce in MLB. This BTV just assumes that the prospects will have above avg cheap MLB performance??

No, of course not. BTV explains that they take a probabilistic approach.

When it comes to valuing prospects, we take into consideration the scouting done by such sites as Baseball America, Baseball Prospectus, Fangraphs, and MLB Pipeline. We are also indebted to the excellent research done by both Fangraphs’ Craig Edwards and the smart guys at the Point of Pittsburgh, whose findings generally align. Having said that, for our purposes, we needed to extend the findings of the latter two logically to include a wider gamut of prospects, consider a wider range of sources and scouting reports, and create a model that weighs all of those inputs proportionally. We then tested and refined those weightings against real-world market results to ensure they were consistent.

We should note, however, that by that we mean “consistent” in an aggregate sense — individual cases will vary. That’s because prospects have a much wider range of outcomes. A few will become stars; some will become productive major leaguers, but not stars; and a large majority of them will never make it to the big leagues. We don’t attempt to predict those outcomes; rather, we follow a probabilistic approach such that over time, the outcomes align with our approach. Just as a major rating service will apply a future value rating to them (typically on the 20-80 scale), we apply an equivalent trade value, in which that range of outcomes is baked.

The "value" they assign to a prospect like Clarke will include:

- a XX% chance he'll develop into an All-Star
- a XX% chance he'll develop into a solid, middle-of-rotation SP
- a XX% change he'll never make it to the majors at all
etc.

and then you combine those outcomes together to get your "best estimate" of their value.

For prospects evaluated to be high FV, the probabilities of successful outcomes will be higher and the "best estimate" of their value will be higher.