Altuve Extended

[PWNdroia]

It's a fact, you can't read into fact.  Other teams may value things differently, but that's not the value of WAR.
 
Inflation has no affect on cost.  4 million gets you x or y, still the same 4 million. 

Like I said, WAR is different in FanGraphs and Baseball Reference, so which are you referring to?  Obviously it's not so well read as you make it out to be.

 

[PWNdroia]

Let's compare Altuve's contract to A-Roid's mega contract in 2007 for WAR / $.
 
At the end of 2007, A-Roid was given a contract for $275 for 10 years at the age of 31.   That comes out to about $27.5 million per year.  At this point in his career, A-Roid was averaging 6.7 WAR a year (he had 94.4 WAR divided by 14 years he's played).  So, the Yankees were assuming he'd make roughly 6 to 7 WAR each year, maybe slightly less at 5 because of age, costing $27.5 million a year.  At this time, A-Roid had the largest contract in baseball.
 
Now let's look at Altuve's contract after the 2017 season.  Altuve is making $151 million over 5 years at the age of 29 (after 2019).  That comes out to be about $30.2 million per year.  At this point in his career, Altuve is averaging 4.27 WAR (29.9 WAR over 7 years).  So it's safe to assume he'd average about 4 to 5 WAR each year, costing $30.2 million a year.
 
So, Altuve will be about 2 to 3 years younger at the time of his contract, and it's for half the years A-Roid has been signed, yet he produced less WAR in his career and is making more money... how is this not inflation?
 
I used WAR from baseball-reference just so you know.
 
Oh, by the way, how did that A-Roid contract turn out?  Obviously, Altuve is for less years, so it wouldn't hurt as much if it didn't turn out well, but the A-Roid contract was a complete disaster in terms of the money he made for what he produced.

 

[brett05]

 
Just to clarify: It's the total WAR for ALL mlb players divided by total dollars spent for ALL players? Trying  to understand here. 
 
i read on MLBTR that 1 WAR is 8 million dollars. That coupled with the method I posted earlier led me to the conclusion that it is 8 million per 1 WAR. 

You are correct, total spent on all players divided by the total war by said players gets you dollars per WAR
 
I've heard the 8 million total for a while, but no one can show where that comes from if not by the formula I gave.
 
Take it simple.  Say there is only 1 player and he earns 2 WAR and was paid $10 million dollars.  The cost of WAR was $5 million per. 

 

[brett05]

Like I said, WAR is different in FanGraphs and Baseball Reference, so which are you referring to?  Obviously it's not so well read as you make it out to be.

I agree with you.  There's more than those two.  That said, no matter what model is used they are both generally speaking extremely close on average so it matters now how WAR is calculated.  If it was vastly different than there would be an issue.

 

[brett05]

Let's compare Altuve's contract to A-Roid's mega contract in 2007 for WAR / $.
 
At the end of 2007, A-Roid was given a contract for $275 for 10 years at the age of 31.   That comes out to about $27.5 million per year.  At this point in his career, A-Roid was averaging 6.7 WAR a year (he had 94.4 WAR divided by 14 years he's played).  So, the Yankees were assuming he'd make roughly 6 to 7 WAR each year, maybe slightly less at 5 because of age, costing $27.5 million a year.  At this time, A-Roid had the largest contract in baseball.
 
Now let's look at Altuve's contract after the 2017 season.  Altuve is making $151 million over 5 years at the age of 29 (after 2019).  That comes out to be about $30.2 million per year.  At this point in his career, Altuve is averaging 4.27 WAR (29.9 WAR over 7 years).  So it's safe to assume he'd average about 4 to 5 WAR each year, costing $30.2 million a year.
 
So, Altuve will be about 2 to 3 years younger at the time of his contract, and it's for half the years A-Roid has been signed, yet he produced less WAR in his career and is making more money... how is this not inflation?
 
I used WAR from baseball-reference just so you know.
 
Oh, by the way, how did that A-Roid contract turn out?  Obviously, Altuve is for less years, so it wouldn't hurt as much if it didn't turn out well, but the A-Roid contract was a complete disaster in terms of the money he made for what he produced.

Alex got hurt and got suspended during that 10 year contract which turned out to be 8 years instead of 10 costing about $40 million less.  Missing two years during that time he still produced 21-23 WAR.  Yes an overpay, but not by as much as folks would think.
 
However, that's not the value of WAR and you can't cherry pick cases which is what this is.  You have to look at total dollars by total WAR to get price per WAR.  From there you can determine if a player was overpaid or underpaid.

 

[PWNdroia]

Alex got hurt and got suspended during that 10 year contract which turned out to be 8 years instead of 10 costing about $40 million less.  Missing two years during that time he still produced 21-23 WAR.  Yes an overpay, but not by as much as folks would think.
 
However, that's not the value of WAR and you can't cherry pick cases which is what this is.  You have to look at total dollars by total WAR to get price per WAR.  From there you can determine if a player was overpaid or underpaid.

I looked at both deals BEFORE they happened.  I pointed out that A-Roid's deal wasn't for the better, but that's more or less irrelevant.  At the time the deal was made, he made more money annually than Altuve.
 
If you're arguing that Altuve isn't an overpay and you're saying that it depends how well he's going to perform, then how can you honestly say whether it's an overpay or not?
 
I'm predicting, but your argument is defeating itself if you're calculating WAR per money and then saying it doesn't matter until he plays the game.
 
By the way, I'd be happy to mention several other cases besides just A-Roid where the deals were an overpay.  I look at the deal as it was made, at the time of the player's success when it was made.  You can't predict injuries or decline (not always), so I take the values as they were made and determine whether it is good in hindsight.

 

[brett05]

I looked at both deals BEFORE they happened.  I pointed out that A-Roid's deal wasn't for the better, but that's more or less irrelevant.  At the time the deal was made, he made more money annually than Altuve.
 
If you're arguing that Altuve isn't an overpay and you're saying that it depends how well he's going to perform, then how can you honestly say whether it's an overpay or not?
 
I'm predicting, but your argument is defeating itself if you're calculating WAR per money and then saying it doesn't matter until he plays the game.
 
By the way, I'd be happy to mention several other cases besides just A-Roid where the deals were an overpay.  I look at the deal as it was made, at the time of the player's success when it was made.  You can't predict injuries or decline (not always), so I take the values as they were made and determine whether it is good in hindsight.

Arod deal was still good when made.  It turned out not to be when done.
 
The issue is you judge it based on the value of WAR and the projection you think the player will be.
 
If WAR is $4 million per which I have proven it is and you sign a projected 6 WAR player for $20 million you saved $4 million.  If you paid $30 million for that same player you overpaid by $6 million.

 

[PWNdroia]

Arod deal was still good when made.  It turned out not to be when done.
 
The issue is you judge it based on the value of WAR and the projection you think the player will be.
 
If WAR is $4 million per which I have proven it is and you sign a projected 6 WAR player for $20 million you saved $4 million.  If you paid $30 million for that same player you overpaid by $6 million.

I even said ARoid deal was fine when it was made... That wasn't my point. My point was that ARoid made less money than Altuve when putting up more WAR per year... That shows your formula hasn't exactly been standardized. The price has gone up in general for players and their worth.

Now you are changing your argument to assume that teams sign players to different contracts to "save" money when ideally WAR is not the indicator they follow and it has never been consistent.

I could easily say that ARoid was just a great deal because they got him for a great value, whereas Altuve was an overpay. And that was the basis of my whole argument to begin with. The Astros way overpaid when you compare it to other deals made. That's an overpay to me when other teams strike cheaper deals.

I don't base the deals made off a standard, I base them off context.

 

[brett05]

I even said ARoid deal was fine when it was made... That wasn't my point. My point was that ARoid made less money than Altuve when putting up more WAR per year... That shows your formula hasn't exactly been standardized. The price has gone up in general for players and their worth.

Now you are changing your argument to assume that teams sign players to different contracts to "save" money when ideally WAR is not the indicator they follow and it has never been consistent.

I could easily say that ARoid was just a great deal because they got him for a great value, whereas Altuve was an overpay. And that was the basis of my whole argument to begin with. The Astros way overpaid when you compare it to other deals made. That's an overpay to me when other teams strike cheaper deals.

I don't base the deals made off a standard, I base them off context.

When you base it off of subjective than objective there is no conversation to be had.  You like ketchup on a Hot Dog, I like Mustard.  Neither is a "sin."  However when the discussion comes to what a Chicago Dog is, Ketchup is out.  It matters not how you like to eat it, it's based on the objective, not the subjective.
 
This conversation is overvalue.  That is done objectively using the price of WAR which I have shown here.  You can subjectively value things differently and there is nothing to be said, but from a place of objectivity, it's based on the cost of 1 WAR.  My argument has not changed at all.

 

[PWNdroia]

When you base it off of subjective than objective there is no conversation to be had.  You like ketchup on a Hot Dog, I like Mustard.  Neither is a "sin."  However when the discussion comes to what a Chicago Dog is, Ketchup is out.  It matters not how you like to eat it, it's based on the objective, not the subjective.
 
This conversation is overvalue.  That is done objectively using the price of WAR which I have shown here.  You can subjectively value things differently and there is nothing to be said, but from a place of objectivity, it's based on the cost of 1 WAR.  My argument has not changed at all.

I'm not being subjective when I said ARoid made less money and put up more WAR than Altuve who put up less WAR but will make more money. I know it's one example, but I offered to give you more. That being said, this hasn't been addressed.

There's also the fact that WAR is completely different when you look at pitching, so how can your formula work for that? We don't look at WAR the same way for position players and pitchers, so the money would be calculated differently. Thus, there is a divide in this easy formula you mention.

 

[brett05]

I'm not being subjective when I said ARoid made less money and put up more WAR than Altuve who put up less WAR but will make more money. I know it's one example, but I offered to give you more. That being said, this hasn't been addressed.

There's also the fact that WAR is completely different when you look at pitching, so how can your formula work for that? We don't look at WAR the same way for position players and pitchers, so the money would be calculated differently. Thus, there is a divide in this easy formula you mention.

Yes WAR is calculated differently, and yet it's the same cost.  The formula adds the two together as it does on the dollars spent.
 
That's what WAR costs.
 
I am not speaking about Arod (you need to grow up with calling him Aroid) as it's not relevant in the discussion of WAR value directly.

 

[PWNdroia]

Yes WAR is calculated differently, and yet it's the same cost.  The formula adds the two together as it does on the dollars spent.
 
That's what WAR costs.
 
I am not speaking about Arod (you need to grow up with calling him Aroid) as it's not relevant in the discussion of WAR value directly.

I only call him ARoid because it's a joke.  I don't do it becuase I'm a Red sox fan, I do it because he lied about using roids.  I do the same with all the players that have been under the same circumstances, like Manny Roidmirez and Braun as well.  The biggest clowns to ever play the game and lie about roiding.  
 
Why is ARod not relevant in the discussion of WAR when I specifically mentioned how much more per money he and Altuve were making?  I spent a long time on that explanation.
 
You are confusing me way more than you have to.
 
And let's be honest here.  Whether you accept the whole "WAR per money" deal, you yourself said the Yankees made a better deal (I think your word choice was "bargain") for ARod, which is basically like saying they made a better signing than the Astros.  That basically proves my argument that Altuve could have been given a much cheaper contract.  It also proves the fact that there is no one standard approach to signing contracts.

 

[brett05]

I only call him ARoid because it's a joke.  I don't do it becuase I'm a Red sox fan, I do it because he lied about using roids.  I do the same with all the players that have been under the same circumstances, like Manny Roidmirez and Braun as well.  The biggest clowns to ever play the game and lie about roiding.  
 
Why is ARod not relevant in the discussion of WAR when I specifically mentioned how much more per money he and Altuve were making?  I spent a long time on that explanation.
 
You are confusing me way more than you have to.
 
And let's be honest here.  Whether you accept the whole "WAR per money" deal, you yourself said the Yankees made a better deal (I think your word choice was "bargain") for ARod, which is basically like saying they made a better signing than the Astros.  That basically proves my argument that Altuve could have been given a much cheaper contract.  It also proves the fact that there is no one standard approach to signing contracts.

Yeah, I never compared the two.