slink 1 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Analysis from Halos Heaven:"Based on Fangraphs’ linear dollar per WAR, the basic inflation rate is that dollars per win inflates on a 5% per year basis. According to this model, in 2012 each WAR a player attributes to his team is worth $5 million, and at the end of Pujols’ contract one WAR will be worth $7.76 million. Thus, based on Pujols’ $25.4 million AAV over the length of the contract, he would need to accumulate 41.2 wins for the Angels over the ten years of the contract for it to be an even win-win. In the 11 seasons of his career, Pujols has a total WAR of 88, good for an average of 8.8 wins per season. If the Angels signed the Albert Pujols in 2001 instead of 2011, and you subtracted one average season off his total numbers, then Pujols would have a total WAR of 79.2 wins over the course of his new contract. This number would be worth $553 million over the course of this contract. Now, I don’t think anyone (even the biggest of Angels fans) would think Pujols will be as great as he was in his 20’s, as he’ll be in his 30’s and early 40’s. However, for all intents and purposes Los Angeles does not need him to be. Pujols only needs to average a WAR of 4.12, while playing in Anaheim, this is 46.8% of the production he has produced in his career. Pujols has never had a season below 5 wins, and in only two seasons of the eleven he has played has his WAR been below 7. If Pujols is less than half as good as he is now (on average), the 10-year contract could still bring a return of the entire money spent on him."So free agents can expect 5 million per 1 WAR?I wonder how this holds up to other recent free agent signings. Easy enough to check on BRef. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 This just doesn't make much sense to me. He doesn't look like a steroid freak, and his numbers don't support it either. We'll see, I guess.Yeah I think it's pretty unfair to rush to judgment before he is re-tested and allowed to say his piece. Not all steroid users look like steroid freaks though. Anyway like you said, we'll see. Link to post Share on other sites
BaseJester 1 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Analysis from Halos Heaven:Now, I don’t think anyone (even the biggest of Angels fans) would think Pujols will be as great as he was in his 20’s, as he’ll be in his 30’s and early 40’s. However, for all intents and purposes Los Angeles does not need him to be. Pujols only needs to average a WAR of 4.12, while playing in Anaheim, this is 46.8% of the production he has produced in his career. Pujols has never had a season below 5 wins, and in only two seasons of the eleven he has played has his WAR been below 7. If Pujols is less than half as good as he is now (on average), the 10-year contract could still bring a return of the entire money spent on him."In the sense the writer is using "half as good", a 0.02 WAR player is twice as good as a 0.01 WAR player. It's entirely possible for Pujols to have a negative WAR at the end of this contract. Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Analysis from Halos Heaven:"Based on Fangraphs’ linear dollar per WAR, the basic inflation rate is that dollars per win inflates on a 5% per year basis. According to this model, in 2012 each WAR a player attributes to his team is worth $5 million, and at the end of Pujols’ contract one WAR will be worth $7.76 million. Thus, based on Pujols’ $25.4 million AAV over the length of the contract, he would need to accumulate 41.2 wins for the Angels over the ten years of the contract for it to be an even win-win. In the 11 seasons of his career, Pujols has a total WAR of 88, good for an average of 8.8 wins per season. If the Angels signed the Albert Pujols in 2001 instead of 2011, and you subtracted one average season off his total numbers, then Pujols would have a total WAR of 79.2 wins over the course of his new contract. This number would be worth $553 million over the course of this contract. Now, I don’t think anyone (even the biggest of Angels fans) would think Pujols will be as great as he was in his 20’s, as he’ll be in his 30’s and early 40’s. However, for all intents and purposes Los Angeles does not need him to be. Pujols only needs to average a WAR of 4.12, while playing in Anaheim, this is 46.8% of the production he has produced in his career. Pujols has never had a season below 5 wins, and in only two seasons of the eleven he has played has his WAR been below 7. If Pujols is less than half as good as he is now (on average), the 10-year contract could still bring a return of the entire money spent on him."So free agents can expect 5 million per 1 WAR?I wonder how this holds up to other recent free agent signings. Easy enough to check on BRef.Closer to $4.5M/WAR recently, and inflation has been slowing. If the economy turns though, inflation will probably catch up.The risk with Pujols is his age. If he's actually 31, it is a reasonable deal. Sure, he'll never be worth 4 WAR at 40 years old, but he could easily be worth 6-9 in the next few years, and make up for it in overall value easily. But if he's actually a few years older, as suspected, then you've just given a 10-year deal to a guy who will be 34-35 by the time the season starts, and that is scary. Link to post Share on other sites
Dread Aidan 8 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 This just doesn't make much sense to me. He doesn't look like a steroid freak, and his numbers don't support it either. We'll see, I guess.How do numbers support steroid use?(Beyond something like a player peaking at age 37.) Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 How do numbers support steroid use?Ok, I guess looking at a snapshot doesn't necessarily support steroid use (unless the snapshot includes something like 73 home runs), but a sudden spike in numbers might.http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/braunry02.shtmlLooks pretty consistent to me. Link to post Share on other sites
Dread Aidan 8 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Ok, I guess looking at a snapshot doesn't necessarily support steroid use (unless the snapshot includes something like 73 home runs), but a sudden spike in numbers might.http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/braunry02.shtmlLooks pretty consistent to me.Consistently using steroids!I think a sudden spike in numbers might be suspicious, but there have been plenty of guys who have tested positive who have also been kind of awful. Basically, I'm not sure you could create a mathematical formula to determine who is on steroids.Also, when we say "steroids," that is just supposed to mean any illegal performance-enhancing drugs, yes?I should also mention that I don't even care who uses and who doesn't. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Consistently using steroids!That's possible.I think a sudden spike in numbers might be suspicious, but there have been plenty of guys who have tested positive who have also been kind of awful. Basically, I'm not sure you could create a mathematical formula to determine who is on steroids.I think that if you knew who was using PEDs and when they started, you probably could create such a formula. I mean, what are the possibilities here?1. He has always used steroids and for some reason got caught on this blood test.2. He just started using steroids this season.3. It was a false positive (for whatever reason).My thoughts:1. Possible, although that wouldn't make much sense to me unless he changed his administration routine or the test has changed.2. Unlikely, due to my guess (based on no evidence) that PED use should cause numbers to go up. His numbers are basically exactly where they should be based on other seasons. It also wouldn't make much sense for that good a player to all of a sudden take the risk to start using. I feel like these days the risk has increased to the point where anyone with a brain would only take PEDs to make to the bigs or to heal from injury.3. Possible. I actually think this is the most likely. Maybe I'm naiive. Also, when we say "steroids," that is just supposed to mean any illegal performance-enhancing drugs, yes?Yes. We could switch to PEDs if you'd like.I should also mention that I don't even care who uses and who doesn't.I wouldn't care if it wasn't illegal both in real life and in the sport. Either everyone can use it or nobody should. I care that someone using PEDs might get to the big leagues and make a ton of money while someone who doesn't cheat might be stuck in the minors. Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Steroids aren't like using a power-up in a video game. A guy starting to use one before a certain season would likely generate no differences in future stats. If there was a difference, it would likely be in the games played column, since the most useful aspect of steroids is the improved healing. Sure, can help a guy get stronger, etc, but that is more likely to show up over the course of several years. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Steroids aren't like using a power-up in a video game. A guy starting to use one before a certain season would likely generate no differences in future stats. If there was a difference, it would likely be in the games played column, since the most useful aspect of steroids is the improved healing. Sure, can help a guy get stronger, etc, but that is more likely to show up over the course of several years.Yeah, this is incorrect. If a guy starts cycling at the end of a season, his stats the next season absolutely should see a bump. There's a reason why athletes abuse PEDs, and it ain't for the long-term gain. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Yeah I think it's fairly obvious that PEDs do (or can) have a significant effect in more than just injury-recovery. It's tough to tell how immediate that effect is because it's tough to know when a player started using. But all you need to do is look at the home run numbers to see how much it changed the game. McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds crushed a record from 1961 (McGwire and Sosa more than once, and Bonds likely would have more than once as well if the league didn't take to walking him at a ludicrous rate after he hit 73), a record that nobody else had really even sniffed for decades, and they all happened to do so while using PEDs. Not a coincidence. League-totals in home runs hit during the "steroid era" tell the exact same story as well. As far as "caring" about steroid users, speedz nailed that one too. It's against the rules, so it is explicitly cheating and unfair to the non-cheaters. Whether or not it's a wise and reasonable rule is a different question or discussion. Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Yeah, this is incorrect. If a guy starts cycling at the end of a season, his stats the next season absolutely should see a bump. There's a reason why athletes abuse PEDs, and it ain't for the long-term gain.I might not have made my point clearly. I acknowledge that abusing PEDs can have significant, immediate effect on things like strength, that contribute to a player. Baseball isn't just about being strong though - a player suddenly getting stronger and going through body changes will have to make slight timing adjustments. For most players, they're not going to get a 'power-up' immediate boost in stats - it will take time for them to make the necessary adjustments. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Now this does not surprise me. Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Now this does not surprise me.My favourite comment, Jason Mewes-style:ProductiveOuts: I know they say "Don't judge a book by its cover", but WHOA THAT BOOK PROBABLY SUCKS ALL OF THE BALLS. secure.mybookorders.com/order/john-roc… Link to post Share on other sites
Dread Aidan 8 Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Barry Bonds gets house arrest for obstruction of justice. I don't know how he'll survive! Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 A gilded cage is still a cage, my friend. Link to post Share on other sites
Dread Aidan 8 Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 A gilded cage is still a cage, my friend.30 days. Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Rumours swirling it is the Rangers, not the Blue Jays with the Darvish bid. Wouldn't surprise me - seems like every free agent is rumoured to be 'on' Toronto these days, with named sources never actually confirming that, and Toronto not getting anyone. No big deal, just makes you wonder how many of these are actual inside sources, and how many are just random execs rambling about possibilities.Darvish and Pujols head to the AL West - Texas and LAA both with big new TV revenues. Rangers and Angels becoming the new Red Sox and Yankees? Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Rangers and Angels becoming the new Red Sox and Yankees?Speaking of which, Jesus I'm glad that Pujols didn't go to the Yankees. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Speaking of which, Jesus I'm glad that Pujols didn't go to the Yankees.I don't know...in three years we'll be talking about how his contract is a huge drain on his team. Link to post Share on other sites
Dread Aidan 8 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I don't know...in three years we'll be talking about how his contract is a huge drain on his team.Just in time for the Rangers $1.6b TV deal to start. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Angels? Link to post Share on other sites
Dread Aidan 8 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Oh, ha, that was pretty stupid. I was thinking about the Rangers and Darvish and looked up the wrong team.The Angels TV deal is $3b. But I think that one starts right away.Anyway, the AL West is flush with cash. Moneyball. Link to post Share on other sites
CobaltBlue 662 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I miss baseball season. Link to post Share on other sites
SuitedAces21 2,722 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I miss baseball season.me too. i just need an alex gordon extension before the season starts. otherwise i'm not happy, and nobody wants that. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now