Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

SOSH

OK we're back on our main server.  It was taking a super long time to move *everything* back just to save a day's worth of messages.  I've been at this all day now and need to get back to my real job so.,... sorry.  Working on a better plan in case this happens again.  nip

Photo

Sox sign Shane Victorino to 3-year deal


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
369 replies to this topic

#351 gammoseditor


  • also had a stroke


  • 2580 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:48 AM

For clarification sake, I thought we settled the issue of Lackey's AAV in this thread http://sonsofsamhorn...x/page__st__100 and that with the option exercised it'd go to $13.8 across all six years. That's per Speier, in a message directly to SoxScout. (Scroll about 2/3 down)

Did that change?


Alex Speier had an excellent article two days ago laying out the future financial picture for the Sox the next three years. He uses AAV when looking at total payroll and has Lackey counting for 16.5 this year and next, and .5 if his option is exercised.

http://www.weei.com/...oom-spend-big-a

#352 Rovin Romine

  • 2330 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 11:54 AM

Alex Speier had an excellent article two days ago laying out the future financial picture for the Sox the next three years. He uses AAV when looking at total payroll and has Lackey counting for 16.5 this year and next, and .5 if his option is exercised.

http://www.weei.com/...oom-spend-big-a


The option does not affect the AAV because it hasn't yet been used (or not used).

#353 LeoCarrillo


  • Do his bits at your peril.


  • 4594 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:26 PM

So, what are we saying here? That upon its being exercised, it'll be $13.8M across all six years as we thought -- with rebates on luxury charges for past years. (And that Speier thought it was the lesser of evils to use 16.5, 16.5, .5 in his story, just as not to assume anything unnecessarily.)

If that's the case, I don't see any reason to exercise it till after 2014 in the off chance his arm falls off. (Furthermore, if they wanted to be cute about it, in the meantime could even go a couple million over the luxury line and pay the tax knowing they'd get it back in a rebate. That'd be more relevant if we weren't so far under now, granted.)

Edited by LeoCarrillo, 07 December 2012 - 12:27 PM.


#354 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30160 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 12:38 PM

So, what are we saying here? That upon its being exercised, it'll be $13.8M across all six years as we thought -- with rebates on luxury charges for past years. (And that Speier thought it was the lesser of evils to use 16.5, 16.5, .5 in his story, just as not to assume anything unnecessarily.)



Posted 22 January 2012 - 11:58 AM
Speier sent me a message. It's $13.8m every year of the deal, adjusted retroactively. The Sox will receive a credit or rebate for the extra they have already paid.


http://sonsofsamhorn...17#entry3946617

Edited by SoxScout, 07 December 2012 - 12:39 PM.


#355 seantoo


  • has never met Mr. Strunk or Mr. White


  • 1098 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 01:49 PM

Re: Lackey. My guess is that they will wait to activate the option until after the 2014 season. This keeps the expensive portion of his contract in 2013 and 2014 when they expect to be under the cap. Then in 2015 - they would have what they hope is a #5 starter at League minimum which would help them stay under the luxury cap. Alternatively, if they get over the cap in 2014, they exercise the option early cutting almost half his contract if this is what is needed to get under the cap. And if he is out of baseball by 2015 and the RS have waited on the option, then at least they didn't throw good money after bad.


I hadn't figured out what they were waiting for so I'm glad you shed some light on this, all your options make alot of sense and I feel bad I hadn't thought of it myself.

Edit: just caught up through the thread. Sox scout clarified it.

Edited by seantoo, 07 December 2012 - 01:54 PM.


#356 LeoCarrillo


  • Do his bits at your peril.


  • 4594 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 05:50 PM

Not to be flip, but this is the most schizo string of five or six posts ever.

I feel like I'm in a riptide swimming sideways from the Lackey AAV answer.

Edited by LeoCarrillo, 07 December 2012 - 06:04 PM.


#357 Rovin Romine

  • 2330 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 06:18 PM

Not to be flip, but this is the most schizo string of five or six posts ever.

I feel like I'm in a riptide swimming sideways from the Lackey AAV answer.


LOL - right now it's whatever it is, 16.5 or something.

The Sox can't exercise the option year until that off-season. Other things could happen before then though. Lackey could retire, be traded, sign an extension, etc.

IF (when) the Sox exercise Lackey's option, then (according to Speier) the average is 13.8 retroactively, and the Sox get a rebate on the tax they paid in.

It might go down sooner, if the option vests, but I'm not sure about that part.

#358 gammoseditor


  • also had a stroke


  • 2580 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 06:21 PM

LOL - right now it's whatever it is, 16.5 or something.

The Sox can't exercise the option year until that off-season. Other things could happen before then though. Lackey could retire, be traded, sign an extension, etc.

IF (when) the Sox exercise Lackey's option, then (according to Speier) the average is 13.8 retroactively, and the Sox get a rebate on the tax they paid in.

It might go down sooner, if the option vests, but I'm not sure about that part.


Speier's article from a couple of days ago linked above contradicts this though. He forecasts the payroll going forward using AAV numbers, and for his 2015 preview he has Lackey counting .5 against the cap.

#359 Frisbetarian


  • ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫


  • 4489 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 06:25 PM

I wouldn't expect people to love this signing but I'm surprised at the overall negativity. It's not a huge commitment, and it's not obvious he won't live up to it. He's averaged over 3 oWAR a year the past three years, not including any adjustments for defense or baserunning, which would be pluses for him. Being conservative, say he earns 2.5 oWAR next year, and declines by .5 oWAR each of the following two seasons. At $5/million per free agent win, that's $30 million in value (in today's dollars, without making any time value corrections) -- again with conservative assumptions. Applying a simple 5-4-3 weighting to his past 3 years only moves that to about $29 million, and again no defense or base-running included which should move that number up a bit, maybe 1-2 wins total over the life of the contract, which gets you right about to where the Red Sox paid him.

It might be a bit of an overpay, but it's not an obviously bad deal. It's not a big number of years, and it gives them some flexibility going forward. I like it a little better than I did at first glance.

edit: here's an attempt to make the value scenarios explicit, using phrenile's magic tool. Starting with oWAR values in year 1, and dropping down each year by either 0.5 oWAR or 20% oWAR.

Victorino value scenarios
value of free agent win 5
rate of decline (in WAR) 0.5
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total Value
3.50 3.00 2.50 $45.00
3.25 2.75 2.25 $41.25
3.00 2.50 2.00 $37.50
2.75 2.25 1.75 $33.75
2.50 1.75 1.25 $27.50
2.00 1.50 0.75 $21.25
average $34.38
value of free agent win 5
rate of decline (%) 20%
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total Value
3.50 2.80 2.24 $42.70
3.25 2.60 2.08 $39.65
3.00 2.40 1.92 $36.60
2.75 2.20 1.76 $33.55
2.50 2.00 1.60 $30.50
2.00 1.60 1.28 $24.40
average $34.57
Defense (total, WAR) 0.6
Baserunning (total, WAR) 0.6
1.2 $6.00


I think if you pick reasonable or even conservative boundaries, the projected value of the contract isn't so terrible. If a free-agent win is worth more than 5 million a year, so much the better. I think a 0.5 oWAR drop-off each year is very conservative, and even a 20% drop every year is pretty conservative (though better in year 3 than a 0.5 oWAR drop). I estimated a total of 0.2 wins per year for each of baserunning and defense.

Approximately, Victorino can earn his money if he starts out at 2.75 oWAR and doesn't decline more than 20% each year or by more than 0.5 oWAR a year.


I love your approach here, and the chart is great, but I think you have a mistake in Victorino's offensive numbers over the past 3 seasons. Per Baseball Reference, he has been 14 runs above average with the bat, and gets credit for ~ 27 runs offensively over a replacement player and 4 runs positionally, for a total of 45 runs, or 4.5 wins - 1.5 per season. Per Fangraphs, which I suspect you used, he has been almost 28 runs above average with his bat, and gains 30 offensive replacement runs and 6 positional runs, for a total of 64 runs, or 6.4 wins - 2.1 per season. I think you may have included all of Victorino's replacement value in your calculation, but remember, replacement assumes a player is ~ 10 runs worse than average both offensively and defensively, so you cannot use the entire amount when calculating offensive above replacement.

It is also worth mentioning that Victorino's offensive value will not be the same if he plays right field for the Red Sox. A center fielder gets 2.5 runs per season as a positional adjustment, while a right fielder loses 7.5 runs. This is a full win (10 run) difference.

Of course, I expect Victorino to be playing CF for the Red Sox next season while Ellsbury is driving the ladies crazy in another town.

#360 Edelpeddle

  • 273 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 07:08 PM

I wouldn't expect people to love this signing but I'm surprised at the overall negativity. It's not a huge commitment, and it's not obvious he won't live up to it. He's averaged over 3 oWAR a year the past three years, not including any adjustments for defense or baserunning, which would be pluses for him. Being conservative, say he earns 2.5 oWAR next year, and declines by .5 oWAR each of the following two seasons. At $5/million per free agent win, that's $30 million in value (in today's dollars, without making any time value corrections) -- again with conservative assumptions. Applying a simple 5-4-3 weighting to his past 3 years only moves that to about $29 million, and again no defense or base-running included which should move that number up a bit, maybe 1-2 wins total over the life of the contract, which gets you right about to where the Red Sox paid him.

It might be a bit of an overpay, but it's not an obviously bad deal. It's not a big number of years, and it gives them some flexibility going forward. I like it a little better than I did at first glance.

edit: here's an attempt to make the value scenarios explicit, using phrenile's magic tool. Starting with oWAR values in year 1, and dropping down each year by either 0.5 oWAR or 20% oWAR.

Victorino value scenarios
value of free agent win 5
rate of decline (in WAR) 0.5
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total Value
3.50 3.00 2.50 $45.00
3.25 2.75 2.25 $41.25
3.00 2.50 2.00 $37.50
2.75 2.25 1.75 $33.75
2.50 1.75 1.25 $27.50
2.00 1.50 0.75 $21.25
average $34.38
value of free agent win 5
rate of decline (%) 20%
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total Value
3.50 2.80 2.24 $42.70
3.25 2.60 2.08 $39.65
3.00 2.40 1.92 $36.60
2.75 2.20 1.76 $33.55
2.50 2.00 1.60 $30.50
2.00 1.60 1.28 $24.40
average $34.57
Defense (total, WAR) 0.6
Baserunning (total, WAR) 0.6
1.2 $6.00


I think if you pick reasonable or even conservative boundaries, the projected value of the contract isn't so terrible. If a free-agent win is worth more than 5 million a year, so much the better. I think a 0.5 oWAR drop-off each year is very conservative, and even a 20% drop every year is pretty conservative (though better in year 3 than a 0.5 oWAR drop). I estimated a total of 0.2 wins per year for each of baserunning and defense.

Approximately, Victorino can earn his money if he starts out at 2.75 oWAR and doesn't decline more than 20% each year or by more than 0.5 oWAR a year.


Thank you for your common sense approach. I too am baffled by the overall negativity about the deal. I can see why casual fans might not like the deal given his lackluster traditional offensive totals but I'd expect better from SOSH.

#361 absintheofmalaise


  • too many flowers


  • 10003 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 07:47 PM

Thank you for your common sense approach. I too am baffled by the overall negativity about the deal. I can see why casual fans might not like the deal given his lackluster traditional offensive totals but I'd expect better from SOSH.

You might want to re-read the post above yours before you make any conclusions about what you expect from us.

#362 Div School Sox Fan

  • 1571 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:37 PM

I love your approach here, and the chart is great, but I think you have a mistake in Victorino's offensive numbers over the past 3 seasons. Per Baseball Reference, he has been 14 runs above average with the bat, and gets credit for ~ 27 runs offensively over a replacement player and 4 runs positionally, for a total of 45 runs, or 4.5 wins - 1.5 per season. Per Fangraphs, which I suspect you used, he has been almost 28 runs above average with his bat, and gains 30 offensive replacement runs and 6 positional runs, for a total of 64 runs, or 6.4 wins - 2.1 per season. I think you may have included all of Victorino's replacement value in your calculation, but remember, replacement assumes a player is ~ 10 runs worse than average both offensively and defensively, so you cannot use the entire amount when calculating offensive above replacement.


"Remember"? Can you cite this? I know that Sean Smith and subsequently baseball-reference use a defensive replacement level of straight league average. I was under the impression that this was sabermetric orthodoxy. The ~20 runs of replacement value calculation are all offensive runs.

If you don't subtract ten defensive runs from the oWAR total, Victorino's three-year totals are + 14 Bat + 4 Pos + 53 Rep = +71 RAR ~= 7.3 oWAR (minus baserunning), a little under 2.5 oWAR per season. From Fangraphs, it's +28 Bat + 4 Pos + 63 Rep = +95 RAR ~= 9.7 oWAR (minus baserunning).

I also don't see any reason to regress Victorino's baserunning value to 0 - he's stolen bases consistently at an 80% or better rate most of his career. He's obviously a significantly above average baserunner.

The risk with Victorino has basically nothing to do with his real value over the last three seasons. If Victorino can perform in line with his recent play, the Red Sox will have a good deal. The case against Victorino is all about whether something was wrong in 2012 that will continue in future seasons, and whether we should trust the Red Sox evaluators to tell us that Victorino is healthy and ready to bounce back.

#363 Hairps

  • 1719 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 10:32 PM

Thanks, WTE. I'm just now getting caught up on Sox-related things, and you've covered most of what I'd say on this issue...but that's never stopped me before!

Anywho, I prefer to look at a signing and ask "what have they just paid for?" Here is what the Sox paid for, assuming $5.5MM/win in 2013, increasing at 5%/year. (10ths and 100ths of WAR are stupid, so just please ignore the decimal points):

What the Sox are paying for
Year Age $/W Projected WAR Contract Value
2013 32 5.5 3 16.5
2014 33 5.8 2.3 13.34
2015 34 6.1 1.5 9.15
39


How reasonable is that? Well, laying out assumptions for all to see:

$/Win: Assume $5.5MM/win in 2013, increasing at 5%/year
Production: Assume attrition of .7 WAR/season, given Victorino's age
Projection: 5/3/2/2 weighting of recent past performance (in the last two tables, the last "2" is weighted to replacement level, which I have defined as 2 wins).

Consider the same assumptions above, generating projections from fangraphs' WAR:

What the Sox are paying for looking at fWAR
YEAR AGE $/W fWAR PROJECTION VALUE ($MM)
1 32 5.5 3.8 20.9
2 33 5.8 3.1 17.98
3 34 6.1 2.4 14.64
53.52


Or, consider the same assumptions, generating projections from rally/BB-Ref's WAR:

What the Sox are paying for looking at rally/BB-Ref WAR
YEAR Age $/W rWAR PROJECTION VALUE ($MM)
2013 32 5.5 3.1 17.05
2014 33 5.8 2.4 13.92
2015 34 6.1 1.7 10.37
41.34


Tweak as you see fit.

#364 biollante


  • SoSH Member


  • 7731 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 07:19 AM

If that poll had said Victorino or Hamilton, I would have chosen Hamilton. I guess we will see just how much Victorino is in the twilight of his career ~ whether we like it or not.

#365 Frisbetarian


  • ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫


  • 4489 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 08:56 AM

"Remember"? Can you cite this? I know that Sean Smith and subsequently baseball-reference use a defensive replacement level of straight league average. I was under the impression that this was sabermetric orthodoxy. The ~20 runs of replacement value calculation are all offensive runs.

If you don't subtract ten defensive runs from the oWAR total, Victorino's three-year totals are + 14 Bat + 4 Pos + 53 Rep = +71 RAR ~= 7.3 oWAR (minus baserunning), a little under 2.5 oWAR per season. From Fangraphs, it's +28 Bat + 4 Pos + 63 Rep = +95 RAR ~= 9.7 oWAR (minus baserunning).

I also don't see any reason to regress Victorino's baserunning value to 0 - he's stolen bases consistently at an 80% or better rate most of his career. He's obviously a significantly above average baserunner.

The risk with Victorino has basically nothing to do with his real value over the last three seasons. If Victorino can perform in line with his recent play, the Red Sox will have a good deal. The case against Victorino is all about whether something was wrong in 2012 that will continue in future seasons, and whether we should trust the Red Sox evaluators to tell us that Victorino is healthy and ready to bounce back.


I have always believed replacement value was split pretty much equally between defense and offense, and remember discussing this with some of the other presenters in the earlier baseball stat seminars I was involved in, but never actually researched it. I was wrong.

Not surprisingly, Tango has the best and most comprehensive information on this topic. In this post he evaluates hitting and defense for starters, bench players, and the "rest"




If we focus on the “Rest”, fielding-wise, they are about .04 plays, or .03 runs, worse than average, while hitting-wise, they are .13 runs worse than average. That makes them .16 runs worse than average, per game. Multiply by 162 GP, and you get -26 runs, or roughly -2.4 wins.
IIRC, I think I said that this was exactly Willie F. Bloomquist. In short, the “26th man” is WFB, at -2.4 wins. THAT is the replacement level.
If you have 9 nonpitcher like this, that puts you at -2.4x9= -21.6 wins, or .367 team win percentage (assuming average pitching). I’ve always been using .380, so maybe I should use .370 for nonpitchers.




He is using putouts and assists for defense in the above, but includes UZR numbers from Tango in a different, less detailed post in the thread. He further says, and I tend to agree now after reading the entire thread:

I would never talk about replacement-level hitting and repl-level fielding as two separate things.
In fact, what we have is: fielding-talent and hitting-talent of replacement level PLAYERS. That’s the model


With further detail:

I said this:
Going back to our hitters, if 1 SD = .13 runs per 4.3 PA (one game), then per 162 GP, that’s 1 SD = 21 runs. The fielding is 1 SD = 10 runs. Combining the two we get: sqrt(21^2+10^2)= 23 runs.
At the -1 SD level, hitting is -21 runs and fielding is -10 runs. It is *not* a total of -31 runs. The total is -23 runs. SD are not additive (variances are).
If one wishes, they can then take those players at the -1 SD level and find out that their -23 runs breaks down as -20 runs for hitting and -3 runs for fielding. (For a team total of -180 runs on hitting and -27 runs on fielding for players at the -1 SD level.)


If you have the time and inclination, I strongly suggest you read the entire thread, which I found illuminating. Tango's research and arguments are forcing me to rethink my longstanding issues with the use of replacement level in evaluation, although I still feel using an average positional player as a baseline would facilitate universal acceptance. Although I am chagrined at my ignorance, I appreciate you pointing this out, Div.

Back to Victorino; as a center fielder he has been above average offensively, defensively, and as a baserunner over the past three seasons. If he were to move to right field, his offense would be closer to league average, and perhaps a touch below, but his defense "should" improve (theoretically, but he has played less than one full season in right in his career, and effectively not at all over the past 5 seasons), and his baserunning will stay a plus.

If last season was indeed a fluke, then Victorino should be a good sign for the Sox, especially in CF, which is where I expect he will play.

#366 OttoC


  • SoSH Member


  • 7023 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:15 AM

Another way of looking at this would be how well does a player have to hit to remain a regular at a given position (assuming he can still field that position). I don't think it would be an easy undertaking, though.

#367 Worst Trade Evah


  • SoSH Member


  • 10833 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:33 AM

Looks like I made two errors. I was wrong about Victorino's oWAR total, which I simply mis-read (blame my alzheimer's) in baseball-reference (I did not consult Fangraphs), and I was wrong to include a baserunning adjustment since obviously oWAR already attempts to include that. In retrospect the signing looks a little worse to me now, but I think Div School Sox Fan nailed it. Maybe I started with some longer term oWAR trend and just forgot about it, which I do more frequently these days.

Sorry for the goof-ups. Oh well.

#368 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30160 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 05:04 PM

Here are his hit directions for the last 3 seasons:

L to L 24%.............. R to L 51%
L to C 36%.............. R to C 33%
L to R 41%.............. R to R 15%

The monster should help his destroying of lefties, but will it also help him as a lefty since he goes that way much more often (for 2012 it was 28%), or will it hurt him even more because he is super weak going that way (.043 ISO) and everything is more condensed?

#369 mabrowndog


  • Ask me about total zone...or paint


  • 34192 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 01:07 PM

Victorino gets jersey #18.

Sayonara, Daisuke...

#370 JimD

  • 4405 posts

Posted 13 December 2012 - 02:03 PM

Victorino gets jersey #18.

Sayonara, Daisuke...


Well, that's one way to make me feel better about this signing.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users