Arbitration Salaries
May 6, 2015 9:54:43 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 9:54:43 GMT -5
Huzzah... this can of worms again!!
There is a fine balance between trying to make sure that the league is as good as it can be, and fiddling with the details too much. I hope that as time goes on we will reach a point where the rules can be deemed to be a success and remain unchanged for a significant period of time. Unfortunately that time is not yet quite upon us.
I think many amongst us consider that some further thought is required around the arbitration salary calculation criteria.
My interpretation of the purpose of the arbitration aspect of our league is to provide:
a) the ability to vary salaries whilst players remain under continuous club control
b) salaries that consider the service time accrued by the player
c) salaries that reflect past performance
d) salaries that are less expensive than that which the player may receive on the open market
Whilst a), b) and c) are undeniably in effect, to use two examples from this season I do not believe that the salaries of Michael Brantley ($10.8) or Wade Davis ($5.7) are really representative of what the arbitration scale is supposed to produce.
During the season the Admins will review the current calculations and make proposed amendments as necessary.
(Off the top of my head I would think it likely that action would be taken to reflect the current run scoring climate of baseball - reducing some of the hitting limits so more hitters qualify and increasing some of the pitching limits so that less pitchers qualify. Additionally, I think it possible that the maximum salary limits for 4th-6th year players may be reduced to reflect the limits of our still-evolving free agency dynamic. However, this discussion post is not intended to follow along these lines.)
Some time ago Turbanator suggested the possibility of altering not the salary bands we use but instead the whole method of arbitration salary calculation. I took an action to investigate, and must confess to not yet providing it the attention it deserves. I think the idea warrants sharing with the wider group even though I have not acted as promised.
Turb's suggestion was to consider setting arbitration salaries based on positions from the ESPN player rater rather than the sum of achievements in individual categories. This could operate in a similar fashion to the minimum contract lengths awarded to free agents, where a player finishing in the top 'x', 'y' or 'z' places on the player rater would be allocated a set salary if he were a 4th, a slightly higher set salary if he were a 5th, and higher still set salary if he were a 6th.
(As this is a discussion of the philosophy of this sort of change there are no proposed values at this time, but I can imagine that everybody has an idea of how this could work with a small table providing a cross-reference salary based on player rater finish and the year of their contract)
Pros (as I see them):
Easier to determine player salary (one calculation required per player, no sums or rounding)
One-category players - for example an Eric Young Jr type who steal a bunch of bases but do little (or even hurt you elsewhere) - would be treated less extremely and valued lower (arguably more accurately)
Multi-category contributors players - for example a Desmond Jennings type who wouldn't do enough in any one category to have value added with the current system but fills every stat to reasonable effect - would be valued for the sum of his constituent parts and valued higher (arguably more accurately)
Cons (as I see them):
Reliance on ESPN Player Rater
ESPN Player Rater categories are not relevant to our format (it uses BA instead of OBP, doesn't consider TB or HLDs)
Less salary variety in 4th-6th players (personally I like having a bit of a range of salaries)
I would be interested to hear your views on any of the above, any other pros and cons you feel there might be, any possible improvements to this suggestion, and how you feel about it in general.
There is a fine balance between trying to make sure that the league is as good as it can be, and fiddling with the details too much. I hope that as time goes on we will reach a point where the rules can be deemed to be a success and remain unchanged for a significant period of time. Unfortunately that time is not yet quite upon us.
I think many amongst us consider that some further thought is required around the arbitration salary calculation criteria.
My interpretation of the purpose of the arbitration aspect of our league is to provide:
a) the ability to vary salaries whilst players remain under continuous club control
b) salaries that consider the service time accrued by the player
c) salaries that reflect past performance
d) salaries that are less expensive than that which the player may receive on the open market
Whilst a), b) and c) are undeniably in effect, to use two examples from this season I do not believe that the salaries of Michael Brantley ($10.8) or Wade Davis ($5.7) are really representative of what the arbitration scale is supposed to produce.
During the season the Admins will review the current calculations and make proposed amendments as necessary.
(Off the top of my head I would think it likely that action would be taken to reflect the current run scoring climate of baseball - reducing some of the hitting limits so more hitters qualify and increasing some of the pitching limits so that less pitchers qualify. Additionally, I think it possible that the maximum salary limits for 4th-6th year players may be reduced to reflect the limits of our still-evolving free agency dynamic. However, this discussion post is not intended to follow along these lines.)
Some time ago Turbanator suggested the possibility of altering not the salary bands we use but instead the whole method of arbitration salary calculation. I took an action to investigate, and must confess to not yet providing it the attention it deserves. I think the idea warrants sharing with the wider group even though I have not acted as promised.
Turb's suggestion was to consider setting arbitration salaries based on positions from the ESPN player rater rather than the sum of achievements in individual categories. This could operate in a similar fashion to the minimum contract lengths awarded to free agents, where a player finishing in the top 'x', 'y' or 'z' places on the player rater would be allocated a set salary if he were a 4th, a slightly higher set salary if he were a 5th, and higher still set salary if he were a 6th.
(As this is a discussion of the philosophy of this sort of change there are no proposed values at this time, but I can imagine that everybody has an idea of how this could work with a small table providing a cross-reference salary based on player rater finish and the year of their contract)
Pros (as I see them):
Easier to determine player salary (one calculation required per player, no sums or rounding)
One-category players - for example an Eric Young Jr type who steal a bunch of bases but do little (or even hurt you elsewhere) - would be treated less extremely and valued lower (arguably more accurately)
Multi-category contributors players - for example a Desmond Jennings type who wouldn't do enough in any one category to have value added with the current system but fills every stat to reasonable effect - would be valued for the sum of his constituent parts and valued higher (arguably more accurately)
Cons (as I see them):
Reliance on ESPN Player Rater
ESPN Player Rater categories are not relevant to our format (it uses BA instead of OBP, doesn't consider TB or HLDs)
Less salary variety in 4th-6th players (personally I like having a bit of a range of salaries)
I would be interested to hear your views on any of the above, any other pros and cons you feel there might be, any possible improvements to this suggestion, and how you feel about it in general.