Konerko Inked

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by OTBA Team

Ok, sorry. If you think he's going to be worth 6 Million at the age of 40.....

Gordon will give the Phillies far more value for 18 million than Konerko will for 60 million. That be the point.

[QuestGAV]

Originally Posted by BleacherBum

Regardless, if the Sox contend for another title this year, I'm sure they would be thrilled with that trade-off. However, they might not even have to suffer the trade-off. If they put another winner on the field in '06 on the South Side, you can bet the payroll budget for 2007 will increase significantly which won't prevent them from getting involved in free agency once again, even with Konerko on the payroll.

I don't want to overplay my hand here because Konerko's contract isn't A-Rod's or even Mike Hampton/Chan Ho Park, but even if the Sox payroll increases if Konerko is overpaid that still hampers them. They won't be completely cut out of the market by his contract, but it still takes away from what they'll have to spend as they try to go out and three-peat or whatever.

I don't think anyone's saying Konerko's contract kills them. It'll just hurt them.

[Skipaway]

Remember, darkhorse's using WARP1 which got an artificial handicap for AL hitters after 1973.

Using WARP3, Gordon would be 14.9 for the past three years, while Konerko is 25.2 for five years.

[Skipaway]

And remember, adding WARP1 across years is a no-no according to BP.

[Skipaway]

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah!!!!!

[sebastian0622]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

And remember, adding WARP1 across years is a no-no according to BP.

That's kind of what I thought...dh, why do you like to use WARP1 so much? I've noticed that in a few other thread, but it sure seems like WARP3 would be better in most cases. Or am I wrong?

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Count Blah

Blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Using WARP3 to rate someone's value for a season makes one ignorant. Repeating the error when one should know better makes that an advanced case.

So, remember that Skipster doesn't understand that WARP3 is adjusting player value by comparing them to every player in history. That adjustment doesn't help Gordon get anyone out today or give Konerko any help in the batters box in 2005.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

And remember, adding WARP1 across years is a no-no according to BP.

More utter nonsense/ignorance.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

So, remember that Skipster doesn't understand that WARP3 is adjusting player value by comparing them to every player in history. That adjustment doesn't help Gordon get anyone out today or give Konerko any help in the batters box in 2005.

I never said WARP3 is helping Konerko in the batter's box in 2005. I am saying WARP1 artificially adjusted Konerko's real contribution in the batter's box down by the way it adjusted to season.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

More utter nonsense/ignorance.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/gl...iewstat&stat=7

Statistics that have been adjusted for a single season are the best stats to use when you are only interested in that one season. In these, adjustments have been made to account for the home park and for the offensive level of the league as a whole. Hitters have an adjustment for not having to face their own team's pitchers; pitchers have a similar adjustment for not having to face their own hitters. Hitters in the AL since 1973 have a disadvantage in these statistics, since the league average is artificially inflated by the use of the DH and no adjustment is made for that.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Statistics that have been adjusted for a single season are the best stats to use when you are only interested in that one season.

Exactly, dear boy! If I want to know the most accurate value of a player for a season, using that rating system, then WARP1 is the way to go! Bravo! Mebbe the light bulb has flickered on! Woot! Woot!

[jf7623]

If anymore posts or views for this thread, then we might as well call this a dynasty thread

[TonyJ]

We've only just begun my man.

Skip and dh are involved and neither will give up without getting blisters on their fingers.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by TonyJ

We've only just begun my man.

Skip and dh are involved and neither will give up without getting blisters on their fingers.

I wouldn't bother convince darkhorse, just want to make sure everyone else got it.

It's not the first time WARP1 is under dispute, and you can see some BP writers sometimes mixing WARP1 and WARP3 too. For the most part, BP writers tend to use other metrics like VORP more.

However, you can easily observe how Davenport, the guy who invented WARP, use it, and it's definitely not how darkhorse is using it.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

1. I wouldn't bother convince darkhorse, just want to make sure everyone else got it.

2. However, you can easily observe how Davenport, the guy who invented WARP, use it, and it's definitely not how darkhorse is using it.

1. An amusing notion, when you are still in the dark.

2. As to Clay Davenport, let's hear it from the horse's mouth.

WARP-1

Wins Above Replacement Player, level 1. The number of wins this player contributed, above what a replacement level hitter, fielder, and pitcher would have done, with adjustments only for within the season.

WARP-2

Wins Above Replacement Player, with difficulty added into the mix.

WARP-3

WARP-2, expanded to 162 games to compensate for shortened seasons. Initially, I was just going to use (162/season length) as the multiplier, but this seemed to overexpand the very short seasons of the 19th century. I settled on using (162/scheduled games) ** (2/3). So Ross Barnes' 7.4 wins in 1873, a 55 game season, only gets extended to 15.2 WARP, instead of a straight-line adjustment of 21.8.


So, let's review. WARP3 is different from WARP1 in that it incorporates league difficulty into the formula and compensates for seasons of less than 162 games. So, if we want to know how ARod's 2005 season rates alltime, this is certainly the WARP flavor of choice. However, if we are looking at Paul Konerko's value to his team over his career, totaled season by season, this adjustment is irrelevant. It's how many games he's won for his team in the here and now that matters to him and his employers.

If you go to ARod's player page at Baseball Prospectus you'll note that Alex is rated to have won 94 games, totaled season by season, against the competition of his time. Then, WARP3 figures he had been good for another 20 wins, 114 to date, when Rodriguez' performance is weighted against the sands of time. The 20 extra wins this adjustment by WARP3 credits him with don't do him, his team, or his employers a fig of good on the baseball diamond in the here and now.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/rodrial01.shtml

[Joshv02]

Originally Posted by BleacherBum

Seems to me a couple of key points got lost in all this debate

1) The Sox paid market value for Konerko, perhaps even a little bit less if reports out of LA are true. Not some arbitrary number that they dreamed up. For those who don't get this concept, market value is not what you or I think he's worth, or what some formula says he's worth, its what the buyers are willing to pay for his services. 3 teams offered 60+ million over 5 years. The market for him is pretty apparent.

No, it is what an auction price fetches, not a market. "Market price" is something that makes more sense when talking about fungible goods, not unique goods. Konerko is unique. The 6 WARP (or whatever) he brings (or .290 EqA) is fungible.

Just because you are cursed enough to win the auction does not make it a good purchase.

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

In 2005, there were a total of five AL 1B who hit 20+ HR. It's not easy to just go out and scoop up a Paul Konerko.

They scooped up a 1B who hit 40+ HR in four out of the last five seasons.

[AnotherAlias]

Originally Posted by TonyJ

We've only just begun my man.

Skip and dh are involved and neither will give up without getting blisters on their fingers.

What they haven't taken into account, in their arguments, is that they are boring a great number of us to tears.

[Joshv02]

Originally Posted by AnotherAlias

What they haven't taken into account, in their arguments, is that they are boring a great number of us to tears.

Not everyone finds the same art worth viewing.

In all events, this would be a dead board -- and an intellectually dull one -- if people didn't post what they found interesting out of fear that they may bore others. Spam this is not.

[eriqjaffe]

Originally Posted by AnotherAlias

I would be looking for them to be in the WS next year.

Losing to the Cubbies, of course!

I dunno about that...the Cubs seem to be stocking up on members of the 2000 White Sox, and I think we all know how well such moves worked out for Boston (Graffanino) and the Angels (Josh Paul).

I find it funny that this thread has more replies than the White Sox off-season thread does.