phronesis
TTC Member
Posts: 752
Favorite Baseball Team: Atlanta Braves
|
Post by phronesis on Oct 10, 2014 13:43:48 GMT -5
I've been looking at the arbitration scales and noticed something... If you look at the top guys in each category, there are some oddities in the way the scales are distributed. Check it out... OBP- Top 53 players get 1.0 or more (top 33 get 2.0+) (9 get 4.0) Runs- Top 18 players get 1.0 or more (top 7 get 2.0+) (0 get 4.0)HR- Top 57 players get 1.0 or more (top 11 get 2.0+) (0 get 4.0, and only 1 gets 3.0)RBI- Top 24 players get 1.0 or more (top 12 get 2.0+) (0 get 4.0, and only 2 get 3.0)TB- Top 26 players get 1.0 or more (top 16 get 2.0+) (7 get 4.0) SB- Top 39 players get 1.0 or more (top 16 get 2.0+) (3 get 4.0, and 1 gets 3.0) W- Top 14 players get 1.0 or more (top 7 get 2.0+) (0 get 4.0, and only 3 get 3.0)ERA- Top 34 players get 1.0 or more (top 22 get 2.0+) (1 gets a 4.0)WHIP- Top 61 players get 1.0 or more (top 32 get 2.0+) (4 get a 4.0) K- Top 35 players get 1.0 or more (top 26 get 2.0+) (13 get a 4.0) S- Top 39 players get 1.0 or more (top 28 get 2.0+) ( 0 get a 4.0, and 7 get a 3.0) HLD- Top 78 players get 1.0 or more (top 39 get 2.0+) (1 gets a 4.0 and 3 get a 3.0)
Okay, so this might look a bit confusing, but I've bolded a couple of strange parts of our arbitration scale. Specifically, those categories like HR, R, and RBIs for the Bats where the top scale might be too high, and Wins, where the scale might need adjusting altogether. Holds might be just right considering the sheer volume of RP out there getting HLDs, but the top scale for Saves might be too high. ERA might need some adjusting, too, as well as WHIP, but for different reasons. I also didn't bother doing this for RP's ERA/WHIP/Ks. I feel like OBP, TB, SB, and Ks might be the 'Goldilocks' scales. This also might be completely unavoidable, but it's interesting nonetheless. Maybe we should reconsider some of the scales? Dunno. Sauces: www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2014-standard-batting.shtml www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2014-standard-pitching.shtml
|
|
saltman
Administrator
Posts: 1,161
Favorite Baseball Team: Atlanta Braves
|
Post by saltman on Oct 10, 2014 16:11:37 GMT -5
interesting!
one thing i also noticed is that we have now moved to OBP for scoring and the Arb scale, but there are still various references to At Bats (ABs) in the Arb calc section of the constitution. for example the threshold for moving from a 1st to 2nd year player is 150 ABs
shouldn't all the AB's references be changed to Plate Appearances for consistency with OBP?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2014 19:17:16 GMT -5
I agree this is an interesting analysis area.
Some people will know (and some won't) that the regular 5x5 category thresholds that this league began with were taken from another similarly-structured and longstanding league, before having a 6th category each added to hitting and pitching. I have wondered several times in the past (on the behalf of both leagues) whether the era in which we now find ourselves should trigger a re-think on the thresholds. When the scales were originally produced baseball was still comfortably within the steroid era (in 2004 37 players hit 30+ HRs as opposed to 11 in 2014, and whilst a 3.00 ERA in 2004 would have been 8th best in the league it was bettered by 22 pitchers in 2014). I think that Phronesis is right that we should hope that our thresholds impact reasonably similar numbers of players in each banding of each scoring category. In the categories that have been assessed in the past two seasons (namely OBP, HLDs and the RP K scale) I have attempted to perform analysis going back a couple of years to set boundaries returning a number of players in each band that is similar to others.
I don't know if there is a right answer. There will be year-to-year variations - this is unavoidable with player performance always changing and only certain players qualifying for the arbitration scale. The number of arbitration rewards in each section are not representative of league performance - for example if 10 guys in their mid-30s (all beyond their 6th years) hit 40+ HRs then maybe the scale would still be correct, even if nobody is awarded the maximum arbitration band in HRs? However, if the league wished it I would be open to performing a full-on review of every banding category at the end of the 2015 season, using 3-4 year averages of player statistics/achievements to make a proposal on new bandings relevant to the modern/current era. That said, I would be wary of reducing them too far - whilst arb player achievements should result in higher arb salaries, it is my opinion that they should (in the majority of cases) return salaries that would be less than that obtained in free agency.
I feel this has been a rambling response - I'm not really sure how much sense it makes.
PS Yes - there is some overlap between OBP and BA in the rules. I've not yet been through with a toothcomb to see what else should be changed. The one area that is a real problem is that 1st year to 2nd year trigger point - changing that from AB to OBP at any time may have a knock-on effect on other players at later stages of arbitration years. A player reaching 147 ABs in a year but 152 PAs (for example) would be advanced two arbitration years in any offseason where such a change was implemented.
|
|
miggitymatt
League GM
Posts: 971
Favorite Baseball Team: Tampa Bay Rays
|
Post by miggitymatt on Oct 10, 2014 21:40:54 GMT -5
Nice analysis, Eric.
I definitely agree that W is due for a realignment. They're hard to come by. I would think something like:
14-15 Wins = $1.0 million 16-17 Wins = $2.0 million 18-19 Wins = $3.0 million 20+ Wins = $4.0 million
14 Wins should count for something, right?
I feel the other Cats are really close. I guess dropping R and RBI would be understandable. I'm not so sure about dropping HR, as well. That could result in a player hitting a higher band in all 3 Cats (R/RBI/HR), which is a potential salary increase of $1.5M-$2.7M. If you have multiple players in that situation your cap room will shrink quickly. So in that way, I agree with Stephen, we should be careful not to go too far the other way.
Also, if we drop the first band too low, depth guys will potentially see salary increases. Which I'm not necessarily opposed to but I think it's nice to get depth guys at the league minimum.
I feel everything is close but if we are going to do a reassessment the proper way would be across the board.
If things do get realigned significantly, I would think a salary cap increase should at least be considered.
|
|
phronesis
TTC Member
Posts: 752
Favorite Baseball Team: Atlanta Braves
|
Post by phronesis on Oct 10, 2014 23:11:27 GMT -5
The switch from AB to PA could cause some major problems. Some 6ths or even 5ths could find themselves in the FA pool this offseason. Maybe grandfather past a certain line?
I agree with the HR assessment. It might not be in our best interest to lower that bar given a HR's effect on other categories. In 2013, Chris Davis was the only guy who would've gotten 4.0, and 14 players would've scored 2.0+. Maybe 40 is the new 50? Maybe 45? Dunno.
That Wins scale looks about right. 36 players won more than 14 games, which would line up better with the other categories.
Obviously, this should be handled after rosters are set with the old scale. Let's get this offseason started then vote/discuss our options. The current system isn't terrible, it just might need a little fine tuning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2014 5:21:52 GMT -5
Perhaps players whose arbitration year is increased by 2 in the offseason of a change from AB to PA (of which there might be relatively few) could be recorded and tracked somehow and be allowed to become 7th year players (on the 6th year scale) so that a year of arb control is not lost due to the switch? Or maybe there will be so few we can list them and just maintain each player on a yearly basis and agree that they remain on the same year despite new regulations indicating it should be changed.
I propose that we set up a committee to review the bandings. This committee can then over the course of the coming season try to come to a consensus on a proposed replacement for the current scales, with a view to holding a league-wide vote at some point in 2015 to gain agreement on the bands and when to implement them.
Another thing I want to write down so that I don't forget - as part of this review the percentages used and maximum salaries awarded the 4th/5th/6th year players are (to my mind) also eligible for review. Perhaps we do reduce the thresholds of each category so that more players achieve them, but reduce the percentage calculator to ensure that their salaries are still proportional to free agency.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using proboards
|
|