See copyright notice at the bottom of this page.
List of All Posters
What value firemen? (July 6, 2003)
Discussion ThreadPosted 10:53 a.m.,
July 9, 2003
(#11) -
Derek Zaba(e-mail)
The going rate is about 1.85 million$ / marginal win, which works out to about 9 million $ / year.
Tango, $1.85MM is better described as an upper bound rather than a best estimate of the value of a marginal win. You are assuming that the only relationship between wins and revenue is a direct causal relationship- if win, then revenue. While it is certainly true that incremental wins produce incremental revenue, it is possible that there is also a reverse causal relationship (a team with a higher revenue base due to non-winning variables will spend more money and win more games) or some other phenomenon that creates a higher correlation coefficient among wins and revenue which than is due to direct causation.
Derek
What value firemen? (July 6, 2003)
Posted 3:00 p.m.,
July 9, 2003
(#13) -
Derek Zaba(e-mail)
Tango,
My point is simply a correlation versus causation point. I agree that there is a causal relationship between wins and revenue (wins produce revenue, either in a single season or over the course of many seasons). I am proposing that this is the only relationship that may exist. In the example I proposed and you clarified, the Red Sox (insert other team that would generate relatively high revenue with replacement players) do not have to spend their disposable income more efficiently than the Jays (low revenue with replacement players), on average and over time, because they can just simply outspend them and win more games with the same profitability as the Jays. More generally, however, there may be other unidentified relationships that cause wins and revenue to be correlated than a simple wins produces revenue relationship that increase the correlation coefficient beyond what it would be if we separated out the causal effect of wins producing revenue.
Derek
Retrosheet Game Logs - Most Wanted (July 9, 2003)
Posted 10:10 a.m.,
July 10, 2003
(#1) -
Derek Zaba(e-mail)
I'm sure a simple question for most of you: where can we get the same set of event studies for 92-present?
SABR 201 - Should we non-sac bunt more? (July 10, 2003)
Posted 1:56 p.m.,
July 12, 2003
(#6) -
Derek Zaba(e-mail)
I share David's and Robert's intuition that Bondsian hitters should bunt more, especially facing the defensive shift. If we assume that the defense takes the third baseman out of play for a Bonds type hitter, then most of the putouts in your 2674 ABs in which a third basemen recorded an assist would become base hits. Tango, do you have the breakdown for the 2674 ABs by the nature of the putout? I'm curious what the safe hit/bunt attempts ratio would have been over the 2674 ABs if we assume that 50%,75%, or 100% of third baseman assisted putouts would have been hits had the third baseman been MIA...
I can think of a some reasons why we should use less than a 100% conversion rate from third baseman assisted putouts to base hits (below), but my gut tells me that the conversion rate should be at least 50%. Am I missing any important situations? Do others disagree with my assessment?
1) Pitcher and third basemen converge on a bunt on the same time Both could have recorded the putout, but the third basemen fields the ball because he is in a better position. Certainly happens, but I would guess that this is clearly in the minority.
2)Pitcher and catcher try to compensate for lack of third baseman. Seems unlikely. I have a hard time believing that the pitcher and catcher are worried about a bunt when facing Bonds, rather than a 450 ft. shot into the bay that is replayed on Sportscenter 25 times over the next week. And even if the pitcher and catcher are as prepared as possible, their preparation wouldn't make a difference for most bunts that the third baseman should have fielded.
3)Third basement fields a ball for an out that would have rolled foul- seems unlikely.
SABR 201 - Should we non-sac bunt more? (July 10, 2003)
Posted 3:55 p.m.,
July 16, 2003
(#7) -
Derek Zaba(e-mail)
Damn...Am I the only curious one? Or perhaps I posted just as interest waned? :)