The Most Common Way Teams Lose Value, Diatribe from a Retired Arrogant Jerk

[Ted]

So, before I left, I was writing a series about how I run my teams. There are definitely other ways. And specifically my way requires (at least as I see it) to adhere to an entire set of principles or it falls apart rapidly. I do think this is true of most models. You have to be be very careful about meshing different strategies because some don't work together.

The crux of my model is about accruing franchise value, however you measure it. Most of that is having good players at cheap prices, but a lot is revenue, and there are lots of other bits here and there. However, the part I really wanted to get to, but never managed to wrap my head around is how to express how teams lose that value. This is where I think the biggest difference in winning consistency lies. Today I heard a part of an effectively wild podcast that really crystallized a key point for me.

They mentioned that players these days seem to have the most value in terms of WAR in their first few years, much more so than previously. If you don't like WAR, that's fine. The same principles still hold true. This is because players are getting into the league these days at younger ages with more developed bats AND they are at their defensive peaks. Traditionally, players got into the league and got better offensively for a few years. Modern players are much more ready to go.

Now, BBA and MLB aren't the same, BUT, our players do develop younger and are drafted younger, so there are parallels. The KEY piece is the defensive bit. BBA players, like real players have separate aging curves for speed, range, error, arm, contact, power, etc. Speed and range overwhelmingly go first. Yes there is a spread and some guys hold on. But for the most part, players are peak defenders ages 20-24.

What that means is that the practice of holding guys in the minors waiting for that last bit of power to develop, or not playing a guy because you don't want to start his arb clock, or figuring you can wait because you already have a good player in that position at the big league level is a bad move. You are losing tons of value. Yes there are exceptions. Maybe you are a last place team and there's no reason to start the arb clock this year (although I'd still say winning games and gaining fans and money is better than holding out for a top pick almost all the time). I've always pushed my players to get the to the bigs as soon as possible. I knew why, but I couldn't find the words. However, let's look at some situations and you can see bringing the player up is almost always superior, and holding him the minors causes you to lose value.

1) You are waiting for complete development.
- If you can find me any evidence that bringing a guy who is 8/7/7/6/7 of 9/8/9/5/9 to the bigs instead of leaving in him in AAA damages his development, I will eat the laptop I am using to type this. Yes we've had cases where we brought a guy up and he stopped developing. But we've also had cases where the same player stopped developing in AAA or AA or anywhere. What we have been told by the devs is that playing against too challenging or too weak opponents can impact development negatively. Players with 8's and 7's are NOT over-matched in the bigs, and ARE getting bored in AAA.

While you are waiting for that development (usually ages 20-21-22, the player is at peak speed and range. Many of them will move down the defensive spectrum, or be notably worse at their position by age 25,26.

So, by holding the player in the minors waiting for offensive development, you are sacrificing seasons of peak defense and slightly below peak offense for peak offense and slightly below peak defense. THESE SEASONS HAVE THE SAME VALUE. Sometimes, the good bat with elite defense is BETTER than the great bat who had to move off CF or SS to a corner spot or 2B/3B.

In this case, you are simply wasting franchise value in the minors, where wins don't matter. That player could be helping your team, and making you money in the bigs. Importantly, I'm not talking about bringing up over matched players. If your guy is 5/6/4/5/6 of 6/6/7/6/7? Sure, wait. But maybe think about bringing up the 6/7/6/6/6 of 8/7/6/6/7 elite fielding 21 year old SS.

2) You have a great player at the position your prospect who is nearly or fully developed will play at, so you figure you can delay the arb clock on the younger player

This is likely even worse. First, you are losing the value of the prospect the same as in case 1. On top of that, your establish good player/star is always losing value. Almost all players lose value constantly. What that means is that your potential trade return for the establish player is declining. Now you are losing value on two players. TRADE the establish player. Play the kid. Your return for the establish player will only go down if you wait, and you HAVE to either move him or let him walk eventually.

3)You suck this year and don't want to start a guy's clock in a lost season. Unless you've seen the draft pool and moving back a pick or two is the end of the world, this is generally a bad strategy. The difference of a few places in picks is simply not worth the lost revenue from not winning games. This is probably the spot with the most exceptions, but waiting for a window means you are just wasting value player could provide to your franchise. Often, this is one of the worst ways, because teams aren't sitting one one player, they are sitting on five or six. Letting them spend some of their best years in AAA for no return. Those losses you suffered to get those picks? Wasted. The revenue you lost to get those picks, sacrificed for lesser gain.

TL;DR

The most common way teams lose value is by not playing players who could be in the bigs. Common reasons for doing so are that a player is blocked, or teams don't want to start an arb clock. Traditional thinking is that the player will be just as good next year. This is not true. Not with bats developing younger, and defensive value waning at earlier ages than we have previously realized or accounted for. Get those players in the bigs. Sitting on them in AAA is wasting player value. Not trading the older player blocking them is wasting value. Or trade the prospect. Whatever.

[usnspecialist]

As someone who also promotes aggressively, I enjoyed reading this. Makes a lot of sense too

[7teen]

Nice read Ted. As someone who is about to start from scratch with a whole new roster and a set of challenges ahead of me I'm excited for a fresh start.

Though I kept waiting for the next reason of losing value being: 4. Getting attached to players and overpaying them when you're better off letting go and going younger

[Ted]

Nice read Ted. As someone who is about to start from scratch with a whole new roster and a set of challenges ahead of me I'm excited for a fresh start.

Though I kept waiting for the next reason of losing value being: 4. Getting attached to players and overpaying them when you're better off letting go and going younger

Your #4 is definitely true. I did it myself. There are some ways you can be inefficient and get away with it, but you have to plan around them. One of the benefits of going pitching heavy is that it's easier to carry a declining pitcher than batter (unless the bat has a lot of positional flexibility).

[GoldenOne]

Nice read Ted. As someone who is about to start from scratch with a whole new roster and a set of challenges ahead of me I'm excited for a fresh start.

Though I kept waiting for the next reason of losing value being: 4. Getting attached to players and overpaying them when you're better off letting go and going younger

Ditto

[RonCo]

You know...I really love these kinds of questions. [he says as Ted goes off screaming]

Ted is certainly correct to suggest we consider the concept of overall player value through the aging curve. And I like his conversation about the value of defense and defensive position variance. A guy who is ready to play defense at a high value position is, I think, sometimes under-valued.

This diatribe, however, asks for evidence that promoting too early can lose value over leaving players in AAA. This is hard to test to the degree that the evidence is so lock-down solid that the case is open and shut. But there is a lot of testing that, when done, leaves a very strong arrow pointing in the general direction that early promotion has risks, including considerable anecdotal evidence within the BBA itself.

Here's a type of study/testing I mean...

Alas, I only had an hour or so to spend this morning, so for the sake of speed I made a test league of only two teams of 23 year olds:

• Team 1 (Chicago): All hitters ratings = 105, Potentials = 125 (in other words, kind of developed)
• Team 2 (New York): All hitter ratings - 105, Potentials = 200 (in other words, not developed)

Yes, this is not the case being exactly discussed, but I'm using this to stretch the game engine and find simply if disparities exist in the development engine at the major league level based on how developed players are rather than trying to quantify the exact nature of that disparity. That will be left to the eye of the beholder. Perhaps this evidence would not be strong enough to convict, but it would, indeed, be evidence. You, the jury, are completely free to decide how heavily to weight it...note here that I ran the data with development rates set at default rather than BBA.

Regardless, at this point, I ran two seasons, and took measures of the players' Gap, Power, Eye, AvK, and BABIP potentials. With this data in hand, I endeavored to quantify the changes in potentials each team saw...how many players lost or gained potential.

Here is the result. (I should note that the losses were, for the greater extent, between 20-50 points on the 250 scale).

Promotion-Early-125-200.PNG (7.23 KiB) Viewed 1590 times

Does this "prove" you're adding risk by bringing players up early. No. There's a TON more that could and should be looked at. You could run the same test using all potentials at 200 and ratings at 105 and 190, for example. You could do pitchers the same way. You could adjust ages to be younger, or modify development rates to be faster or slower. You could add coaches. You could run more years. And that's still just scratching the surface. So, yes, Ted could be right that bringing players up before they are developed is fine. But in this very limited test that pushed things to extremes, players who were underdeveloped were 400% more likely to undergo a hit to one of those five potentials (in only two years).

Bottom line: there is no clear and knowable "right" answer to the question of when to bring players up. There are risks in each direction, and it's up the each GM, I think, to read the tea leaves of their own moment and make their bets.

[RonCo]

Another way to quantify the data above:

Given that there are five types of potential being tracked over 2 years for 13 players for each team, that means each team has 130 datapoints where change is possible.

• Highly Underdeveloped Players: 19 losses in 130 attempts: 14.6% chance
• Nearly Developed Players: 4 losses in 130 attempts: 3.1% chance
• Nearly Developed Players: 5 gains in 130 attempts: 3.8% chance

Realize that this means the counter is true:

• Highly Underdeveloped Players: 111 no changes in 130 attempts: 85.4% chance
• Nearly Developed Players: 121 no changes in 130 attempts: 93.1% chance
• Nearly Developed Players: 126 no changes (or increases) in 130 attempts: 96.9% chance

So, in this data set, promoting early is still 85% likely to be fine.

[Ted]

Ron, I mean, this has so little to do with the point I made about nearly developed players that I don't see why you posted it here. You actually picked the cases that are totally missmatched groups of players. I specifically talk about very high potential players who are nearly developed. And point out that lower potential players who are nearly developed might not be a good pick.

You on the other hand, take nearly developed low potential players and not at all developed high potential players and show some data that says that the undeveloped players do poorly.

First, this is a very biased test group as you compared the development of completely different types of players.

Second, you took players with MASSIVE differences in development progress and drew the wrong conclusions.

Your undeveloped group did worse because they are less developed and inherently have more risk. The more developed group did better because they have less risk by being closer to their ceilings. Your findings likely have so much more to do with THAT than the level they played at that this study really doesn't tell you much, besides, "guys who aren't close to their ceilings have more risk."

It has really very little to do with the idea that a player who is putting up 150 wRC+ in AAA with 85-90% development of very high potential probably has little risk of being "harmed" by being put in the bigs.

I mean, I know I'm repeating myself, but this is so not related to what I'm talking about that I have no clue why you even posted it as a reply. I mean, at what point did I suggest you put 50% developed players in the bigs? Seriously, who would think that's a good idea?

[RonCo]

Fair enough.

The study I undertook does strongly suggest that whatever development level a player is at while in the majors can influence the development engine (which is why I posted it). I'm fine if you want to argue that the influence on players you're talking about is low. But I'll disagree if you want to say it does not exist. I personally see that risk as fairly extensive...but I admit "fairly extensive" is a relative term that is dependent on several factors of our personalities.

[Ted]

Fair enough.

The study I undertook does strongly suggest that whatever development level a player is at while in the majors can influence the development engine (which is why I posted it). I'm fine if you want to argue that the influence on players you're talking about is low. But I'll disagree if you want to say it does not exist. I personally see that risk as fairly extensive...but I admit "fairly extensive" is a relative term that is dependent on several factors of our personalities.

No it doesn't. It doesn't show that at all. It is a one year sample of vastly different types of players at TWO levels who are very dissimilar and showed they performed differently. There is a huge difference between an underdeveloped older player and a nearly developed one. It is a bad study. It attempts to apply a broad brush to a finely nuanced concept, and fails utterly.

Golly jee shucks. You showed that 23 year old 55% developed players do poorly. Worse than 23 year old nearly developed 23 year olds. I mean, that's how development works. Guys who are really far from their ceiling when older do worse. In all situations. We already knew that. the 23 year olds were already way behind the development curve.

Also, this is just another example of you jumping on someone else's post and rudely driving the conversation away from what it was intended to be about. If you wanted to contribute, you could have easily done the exact same study with the highly talented 20/21 year olds i mentioned, and had them 85% developed as I mentioned, and then ran them promoted verses left in AAA. It would have been the exact same amount of work, and would have actually pertained to the topic I was posting about.

Instead, you drove the topic to where you wanted it to be, as you always do, and tried to prove some point no one asked to hear about, like you always do. Because you feel the need to push whatever narrative you believe whenever someone says something that you might not completely agree with, to the point of comparing apples and oranges, not matter how tangentially related your "truth" is to the topic at hand.

I had actually considered asking Recte to keep an eye out for a particular type of team, with the idea of maybe coming back in a season or two should that team become available. Thank you for reminding me that I have no interest in being in a league with you, where I am unable to have an opinion about something without you cobbling up some hastily concocted data that has little to do with what I'm talking about in an attempt to show that what you think is right is right.

[RonCo]

For what I will duly attempt to make my last set of comments on the topic, because I really do have to get something else written...

I understand your points about the test I ran, and don't even totally disagree with them. This study was done in a seat-of-the-pants whirlwind fashion that needs a lot more Design of Experiments applied to it. I am guilty of being lazy here. Though I think it has value with regard to the topic at hand, I should have done a better test.

But I'm also guilty of knowing what the answer was going to be before I did it (and not for the reasons you're putting forward)--which is a shitty excuse for being lackadaisical in the end, but is true because I've spent essentially two decades doing the gritty work on much, much broader data sets, at much-much greater detail, across many, many versions of OOTP. To be crappy and defensive here, if there is another person on the planet that understands OOTP's player development better than I do, I'd bet they work for OOTP.

I apologize to you if I'm too aggressive on these things, but, after what is at least 19 years of doing this kind of work there is so little question in my mind that there -are- measurable risks involved in promoting a player too early, I admit that reading well-regarded GMs like you advocate so firmly that teams promote their kids early, even if they don't think they need them...well, it causes me angst.

There are valid reasons to bring kids up early. But my personal advice to other GMs is that there are also very valid risks, and that every decision should include consideration for the whole package.

[7teen]

I love you two!

[indiansfan]

I’m definitely guilty of holding on to certain guys I like and paying them too much for sentimental reasons.

[sjshaw]

I love you two!

I sense a reality show on the way!

[crobillard]

I agree with Ted, but outside of the flawed study, Ron's opinion is correct. The further a player is from their potentials, the higher the risk that the player wont respond well to being called up. By not being aggressive, you're certainly losing out on some potential seasons of good performance, but there's no guarantee there either. This is just an argument for aggressive promotions vs. conservative ones. If a player is 85% developed though, you're probably okay to bring him up. I think that point got lost in Ron's defense of conservative call ups. I don't think Ted was saying that calling anyone up early, regardless of where they are in their progression, is a good idea.

With that said, I really miss reading these discussions.

[udlb58]

Just when Ted thought he was out....

Good stuff. I also agree with moving players up when ready. Though, even if I end up with a stud 3B, he will have to be something special to get me to drop Noboru...