2037 OOTP Opt Out Decisions, Part 1. Shorter Term Deals.

[Ted]

Thanks to our wonderful community and one day where I lost my mind, we have 18 players to look at. I think, largely, that we are a pretty smart group of GMs and your voting reflects that. I do think acting a GM sometimes makes it hard to see things from a player's perspective. We think in terms of AAV, because we have caps to work with. Players don't. Player think total contract value. There's no guarantee that they will get another one, so it it almost always in their best interest to take a the most money now. Generally, that means multi-year deals trump shorter ones, because even if the AAV is somewhat lower, 5 years is more money than 2. The reason I bring this up is because I think many of our votes show a lack of understanding of this. We're thinking in terms of AAV, and not realizing some of these players might actually be turning down AAV for longer deals. I'll point that out as we go.

We'll have to look at a few things when critiquing OOTP's decisions, but let's get to the actual decisions. I've broken these down into categories that I think makes sense. This will come in two installments, largely because one would be a massive slog, both to write and read. There will be analysis of each group as we go, but the second part will have an overall analysis at the end.

Lastly, as a preface, I think some GMs who had guys on bad deals couldn't resist the urge to vote for what they hoped the player would do, rather than what he should do. There are quite a few single votes for opt outs. But it shouldn't skew the data too much.



Older vets:
Elroy Hinson turned down 16 mil for one year and possibly 30 for two and will enter FA at age 38. He just posted 2.2 WAR. Game calls him a 60. 23% though he should opt out. 77% thought he shouldn't. 13 total votes.

Ed Curry opted in to 12.3 million for one year after posting 1.9 WAR, and will enter FA as a 35 year old. Game calls him a 35. 93% of 15 voters thought he should not opt out. (Hi Stu)

Mark Dempsey turned down 22 mil over two years after a 3.7 win season in 99 games, and will be 35 in 2038. The game calls him a 65. 58% thought he should not opt out.

Mike Bailey opted out of a 1.6 million buyout at least, and at most 8 million for one year after being a 0.9 WAR pitcher. He will be 36 and the game calls him a 45. 93% thought he shouldn't opt out.

Leon Sandcastle opted out of 1.875 mil buyout and potentially a one year deal for 7.5 mil, then retired. Wasn't very good last year. Would have played at 42. 100% thought he shouldn't opt out.

Alfredo Salazar turned down one year for 12 million after a 2.0 WAR season. He will be 37 and the game calls him a 60. 80% thought he should not opt out.



Analysis:
I've lumped these guys together because I think they are all in the range where getting a long deal should be considered unlikely. We will have to see what they want when they file. Overall, I think we can say the game's logic here is pretty terrible. However, let's look at individual players and try to dissect the logic:

Dempsey - The only player in this group that I think I could excuse. Personally, I don't think any of us expect him to repeat his performance, but as a collection of one's and zero's, I'm not sure he can be expected to know that. A 3+ win player might think he can get a 2-3 year deal beating 22 mil, even at age 35. Voters were kind of a push, so this seems right.

Ed Curry - Somehow I missed this one and thought he opted out when I wrote it. Which would have been a dumb decision. He actually made the right choice, and I am the dumb one. Everything is fixed and updated now.

Hinson - Another questionable decision. At 38 is unlikely to beat 2 years 15 mil AAV in FA. I'd say 15-16 mil AAV is the most he will get in FA. Probably more like 10-12. Let's say the game only considered that one guaranteed 16 mil deal. Will one of us sign him for 12 x 2 with no option? A three year deal will almost certainly have options. I can see him beating that 16 mil guarantee, but don't find it likely. We were split 3 to 1 here, so I don't think we can call this a bad OOTP decision. Hinson hasn't declined, he's a former star, and he's betting on himself. Fair.

Sandcastle - Well, here's one of the test cases for can OOTP anticipate buyouts. Looks like no. He did retire, but I doubt that influences the option decision. A 42 year old turned down 8 million thinking he can get a multi year guarantee of more money in a longer deal after a decidedly mediocre year. Also, no anticipation of buyout (which admittedly might be really hard to code). Still, this is bad for OOTP.

Bailey - You know, I have to step back on this one. We all know Bailey is an injured mess. But here are his last three ERA's: 3.97, 3.62, 3.34. He'll be 36. Maybe he thinks he can snag a two year deal for 5 mil per guaranteed. We overwhelmingly thought he couldn't, but it's not totally unreasonable. We'll call this one OOTP questionable.

Alfredo Salazar - So, this one's also maybe not as straightforward as it seems. Salazar is a former star, even though he is trending down. The game still thinks he is a good player. So he's betting he can get at least two years guaranteed for better than 12 mil. That's only 6.1 x 2. Will someone do that for a 37 year old that just had a 2 WAR year? It's definitely below the going rate for a solid regular. It's the age, and whether any year but the first will be guaranteed. Also, Salazar is really likely to play at 38, so if he opted into the 12, he'd make more in 2039. That's where this decision falls apart. It's not really beating 12 x 1. It's beating like 16 x 2 (assuming a one year, 4 mil deal in 2039 is say 60-70% likely). This isn't a horrible decision, but I don't think it's a good one.

So for this group of six older players, we have one good decision (Curry), one reasonable decision (Demsey), one understandable but likely wrong (Hinson), two questionable (Bailey and Salazar), and two bad (Curry and Sandcastle). And those are now our categories.




What are the takeaways so far? It's hard to say.
1) The game likely overestimates the length of deals older guys will sign. This I am certain of. So if you want to gamble, there might be an inefficiency here in offering extra years after an opt out to 35 year old guys. It looks like if they are good, they will opt out of ever two years. I wouldn't take the gamble, but it's definitely a possibility.

2) Similarly, it probably doesn't take into account whether the upcoming deals will have the years guaranteed. This is a huge flaw in logic, especially for older players.

3) I'm guessing that OOTP decides OPT outs based on a players asking price, as though they were a free agent, not base on what similar players are currently making. This would also be a huge flaw. I don't have a lot of evidence for this, but if it IS doing this, these decision make more sense.




Okay, so let's see what we can learn from group two.

Standard age free agents (and one young guy) with decisions on short term deals:

Victor Guerra opted out of 3.6 million in buyouts and 8.5 and 9.5 in salary over the next two years if those team options were picked up. He was a league average hitter, bad defender and worth 1.0 WAR last year. The game calls him a 50 and he will be 32. 100 % of twelve voters thought he shouldn't opt out.

Aubrey Anderson opted IN (holy crap that's the first one!) to 19.4 million over two years after a 1.7 WAR campaign. The game calls him a 50 and he will be 28. 62% of 13 voters thought he shouldn't opt out.

Jorge Rodriguez turned down 25 million over two years after a 2.7 WAR year, the game calls him a 55 and he'll be 33. 91% of voters thought he shouldn't opt out.

Alfredo Martinez turned down 3 million over two years after a 3.7 WAR season. He will be 32 and the game calls him a 70. Only 34% of voters thought he shouldn't opt out.

Jesus Ramos opted out of a single year for 9.81 million after a 2.7 win campaign. He will be 33 and the game calls him a 60. ZERO percent though he should not opt out.

Desiderious Kirchbaum opted IN to 23-33 million over one to two years (probably will be bought out). He was benched last year, will be 31 and the game calls him a 40. 93% though he should not opt out. (Hi Nigel)

Gerardo Guzman opted out of 15 for one year after a 2.1 WAR season. The game calls him a 50, he will be 32. I didn't poll this one.



Analysis:
Victor Guerra - This one is bad, right? It definitely confirms that players don't know they are likely to be bought out (which again would be pretty hard to code). Btu even if he's looking at not being bought out, it makes no sense. There is no world in which players who aren't starter caliber get paid 8 mil per year. This is an example of where you could say "He's looking at 8 mil for one year versus entering FA a year later. Maybe he's looking at a long term deal." The problem with that is, he'll be 33 versus 32, which means the length of the upcoming deal really won't be different. Let's say Geurra finds a home a 2.5 mil AAV in the future over 5 years, which I think is generous. That's 12.5 mil. He loses 2/3rds of that by opting out. He'd have to make 1.6 mil more (or 4.1 mil) per year over the deal he signs this FA to make that up. This is a bad decision. On the other hand, the game is calling him a 50, and if we go with the theory that OPT out decisions are based on their FA demands, then you see why this may have happened. And why basing OPT out decision on demands, rather than existing contracts, is a bad model. Bad OOTP decision.

Aubrey Anderson - This one is tough. My gut instinct is to say, "Guerra opts out, but Anderson opts in? Are you kidding me?" The game also calls Anderson a 50, AND he's only 27. He could definitely get a max length contract. I think this shows further how OOTP is very very bad at understanding what length contracts free agents are likely to get and whether or not they will have options. Anderson is probably one of the least likely in this group to decline all of a sudden. But, outside of 2036, he's been a solid, if not great regular, so a price of 9-10 million per year is reasonable, and would be hard to beat in FA. Also, he'll be an FA again in 2040 at 29 years old, so it's not like this is his last best chance. I think we can put this into the category of "reasonable". This is also a player we were fairly split on.

Jorge Rodriguez - I honestly don't know what to think here. Rodriguez probably seems himself as a good (maybe very good) player, whereas GM's would probably call him an above average starter. That likely represents reality well. IF we say 8-10 mil for a solid starter per year is reasonable, I'm not sure Rodriguez thinking he should get more than 12.5 per is totally wrong. But, he has declining defensive ability, and may be a DH soon. This is a gamble on his part. He could expect a 4-5 year deal, and we've establish OOTP doesn't likely consider that at MOST he'll get 3 guaranteed years. More like 3-4 years with 2 options. So he'd have to beat 25 million over say 3-4 years he thinks will be guaranteed. That's only 6 per for a 4 year deal. So Sheriff goes into the category of "I can see why, but likely he's wrong". This may also be his last chance for a big payday. I think this is one where we the voters at 91% shouldn't opt out probably got it wrong. This is where we didn't take contract length and whether the player can get another one into account properly. Let's call this questionable.

Alfredo Martinez - I think this was right. Martinez should think he can get more than 35 mil guaranteed. All he has to do is get a 5 year deal (meaning 3 are guaranteed) with AAV of 12 mil to do that. OOTP got this one correct. Only 32 % of us thought he should stay in his deal.

Jesus Ramos - Another easy one. The game got it right. He only has to get two guaranteed years at 5 per to beat his deal. And all the voters agree with OOTP.

Deisderious Kirchbaum - OOTP does well again. Not great player (game calls him a 40) getting paid like a great one. No brainer. We agree again.

Gerardo Guzman - This one looks like a bad decision. Guzman opted out of 15 mil to hit FA at 32 instead of 33. Assuming even 5 guaranteed years going forward, he'd have to increase his AAV by 3 mil to warrant opting out now instead of reaching FA next year. Guzman's been a 2-4 win player recently, and has been as high as 5. That means he'd probably thinking about asking for 15-16 mil per in FA over 5 years. Let's call that 75 million. Say he gets that now. Next year, he'd have to lose a guaranteed year or drop the AAV by the aforementioned 3 mil to make this make sense. Either way, he's not likely to get that many guaranteed years, or that AAV. But we've already establish that again, OOTP doesn't appear to know how to predict guaranteed versus not years and also again, this is another reason I think it's judging opt outs on what players want, and not what they are getting. Let's call this another understandable but wrong.

In this group of seven, we had three absolutely correct decisions (Ramos, Martinez, Kirschbaum), one reasonable (Aubrey Anderson), one questionable (Rodriguez), one understandable but likely wrong (Guzman), and one bad (Guerra).




Takeaways from this group:
1) OOTP at least gets it right on guys who will definitely make more. At least they get the no brainers.

2) We can be really certain at this point that OOTP doesn't know to predict that later years of contracts for guys over 30 will be non guaranteed

3) And this further reinforces my idea that OOTP used contract demands to decide on options (partly because players never ask for team options, and so the money is always guaranteed to them and partly because you can see how guys like Guzman and Rodriguez might think they could make more).

4) OOTP struggles with declining early 30's players understanding their own value. Opt outs here might not be a bad ploy, because it seems like the idiots take them, at least in this version.

5) OOTP on the other hand does better with younger players than older ones, again reinforcing the idea that they don't have realistic contract length expectations for older players.




In total for these 13 players we have:
Correct decision 4
Reasonable 2
Understandable but likely wrong 2
Questionable 3
Wrong Decision 2

In terms of voters predictions:
Predicted Correctly: 5
Predicted Incorrectly: 7


So that's it for part 1. Part two will cover five more players with longer contracts. I'll try to get to it today, but no promises.

[Spiccoli]

So well done... can’t wait for the finale on the players who chose FA.

It’ll be fun to see which ones screwed themselves and those who chose wisely.

[ae37jr]

Guzman is an idiot. Most of the teams that I talked to in trades viewed him as a $5 mil ish player. He'll probably get $7-8 annually over 3 years in the open market. So he basically is saying after next season he is not confident he could earn another $6-8 million.

You know who is an even bigger idiot? Harlan Moore. Does he really think a team is going to give him $9 million when he injured himself 24 times in the last 2 seasons. 24 times. That's not a typo. He averages an injury every other sim.

I'm not bitter or anything. It's not like lost out on 3-4 prospects by these two opting out.

[Ted]

Guzman is an idiot. Most of the teams that I talked to in trades viewed him as a $5 mil ish player. He'll probably get $7-8 annually over 3 years in the open market. So he basically is saying after next season he is not confident he could earn another $6-8 million.

You know who is an even bigger idiot? Harlan Moore. Does he really think a team is going to give him $9 million when he injured himself 24 times in the last 2 seasons. 24 times. That's not a typo. He averages an injury every other sim.

I'm not bitter or anything. It's not like lost out on 3-4 prospects by these two opting out.

Dammit. I knew there was one I was forgetting.

[ae37jr]

Dammit. I knew there was one I was forgetting.

He(and Dillon Young) were actually not labeled correctly on my player salary page. It didn't list the opt out and I didn't even realize they had one till someone else told me.

[handaspencer]

I have thought about this very topic before. This is just a thought, I think the game recognizes the “projected available” money in FA and believes the market tells them to leave and follow the money. What I mean by that is for example just a quick glimpse I am seeing only 10 of 30 teams spent 100 mill in payroll last season. If I looked at that correct that indicates GM’S are leaving money on the table. So a potential FA adds up the math and projects 500 mill will be spent based upon available payroll when they make their option decision. What the game don’t know is what percentage of the actual payroll each gm will spend. I think they expect every gm to spend almost all available payroll. But then ultimately what happens is only 350 gets spent and it makes the opt out decision look bad.

[Ted]

I have thought about this very topic before. This is just a thought, I think the game recognizes the “projected available” money in FA and believes the market tells them to leave and follow the money. What I mean by that is for example just a quick glimpse I am seeing only 10 of 30 teams spent 100 mill in payroll last season. If I looked at that correct that indicates GM’S are leaving money on the table. So a potential FA adds up the math and projects 500 mill will be spent based upon available payroll when they make their option decision. What the game don’t know is what percentage of the actual payroll each gm will spend. I think they expect every gm to spend almost all available payroll. But then ultimately what happens is only 350 gets spent and it makes the opt out decision look bad.

I've wondered about this too. If this factors into opt out decisions and free agents demands, it's a poor way to do it. The overwhelming majority of us do spend very close to our budgets, but many of those budgets don't approach the actual cap. Depending on what players are calling "Available money", they could be making a huge mistake. You're right that a lot of teams didn't approach the cap, but most of those that didn't, couldn't. You need at least 120 mil in revenue to spend to the cap (because you have to pay coaches and bonuses and other stuff here and there). Only 14 teams made that much in 2037. Only seventeen teems even made 110 million. There are also teams with 150 mil budgets, that could only spend 110 on players. If the game considers that money "Available for free agents" it is just wrong. A cursory looks shows between 2/3rds and 3/4th's of teams within ten mil of their budgets. Again, if OOTP thinks that 10 mil gap is available for free agents, it is wrong. There are non player payroll operating costs. This will be different in every league, and that's why a system that uses "available money" as a big factor in determining free agent asking prices and option decision making process will be fraught with inconsistency and error.

The only sensible way to create contract demands and player decisions regarding options is to heavily weigh what similar types of players have gotten recently. It really seems that OOTP does not do this, and for the life of me I can't figure out why they would go with any other model. This is fundamentally how real free agency works, and should be the cornerstone here. I don't mind taking into account whether there is a lot of money available or less compared to usual, but it should be a lesser factor. 80% or more of the weight in decisions should be related to player comparisons.

All that being said, I have no idea how the game actually does it, and it's been so long since I've played an MLB standard game that I don't know how well it's approximating actual baseball . It may be that it works fine there, with that economic system.

[felipe]

Ed Curry opted in

[Ted]

Ed Curry opted in

Hah. Whoops. Thanks.