Your Random BBA Graph of the week - 2042.2

[CTBrewCrew]

In this weeks RBBAGOTW we try to answer the question of "How valuable is a player in the BBA to their team"? We try to take a look at that by putting a $ value on a players WAR, and seeing how much "surplus value" that player brought to their team.

Fangraphs defines "the replacement level team" as winning 47.7 wins. (I chose 48 in my calculations). Now if a team wants to win as many games as possible, they will be shooting for, say, 95 wins to lock up a playoff spot. That's a 47 win deficit that they need to make up.

Buying that (95 wins) at current BBA market price for 1 WAR (~$2.43M) would result in a $230.6M payroll, which is unrealistic in the BBA with a salary cap of $120M. To note the BBA Average Payroll last in 2041 was 93.6M.

So teams need to make up that variance by getting "surplus value" from their players. (i.e. lower salaries & more WAR), before these players hit FA and demand significantly more.

Some background:
Calculations were made by determining what the cost would be for the BBA minimum team. Since we don't have a salary cap, I asked Ron. He said we should go with $13.5M as the salary floor. (27 players at 500k = 13.5M per team - there is your AAA team). You times that by 32 teams and you get $432M that all teams spend at a minimum.

Next I summed up all the payrolls for all teams in 2041 and that came to $2.99B.

Now you subtract the total min salary value of $432M from the $2.99B you get $2.56B left in a money pool that all BBA teams have to spend to to buy those 47 wins in the remaining 1056 games in the BBA after each team has won its 48 games.

To get the cost of a Win (or WAR), simple math says divide that $2.56B by the number of remaining games (1056) and you get the cost of a W, or ~$2.43M

Again this is not an exact science, (I'm sure after some input I can adjust accordingly), nor is WAR $ the be-all-end-all indicator, but its an interesting thing to look at to see who what players / positions contributed to the highest surplus value.

Enjoy!

[jleddy]

...which is unrealistic in the BBA with a salary cap of $120M.

It's $110M.

...but its an interesting thing to look at to see who what players / positions contributed to the highest surplus value.

All you did was sort by WAR, so not exactly groundbreaking here. So either your calculations are messed up and you whiffed, or I'm completely missing something. How can two players with the same WAR (Quant Kouros and Tomas Guillen - 4.5) can have the same "surplus value" according to you ($6.36M) when Kouros makes $14.1M and Guillen makes $500,000?

[Lane]

No pitchers?

[CTBrewCrew]

No pitchers?

Not yet.....only did batters first

[CTBrewCrew]

...which is unrealistic in the BBA with a salary cap of $120M.

It's $110M.

...but its an interesting thing to look at to see who what players / positions contributed to the highest surplus value.

All you did was sort by WAR, so not exactly groundbreaking here. So either your calculations are messed up and you whiffed, or I'm completely missing something. How can two players with the same WAR (Quant Kouros and Tomas Guillen - 4.5) can have the same "surplus value" according to you ($6.36M) when Kouros makes $14.1M and Guillen makes $500,000?

I'll 110 - check - updated text....let me look into those two players....

[Lane]

I'm with Joe here.

As an example, using your $2.43/WAR

Juan Rivera - 9.7 WAR
Value should be 9.7x2.43=23.571
For a surplus of +23

One more-Jared Gillstrom - 2.4 WAR
Value should be 2.43x2.4=5.832 (page shows 21.26... Huge difference!)
On his salary of 17.94 that means his surplus value is -12

This is a great idea to do, but there's something off in the calculations somewhere.

[CTBrewCrew]

...which is unrealistic in the BBA with a salary cap of $120M.

It's $110M.

...but its an interesting thing to look at to see who what players / positions contributed to the highest surplus value.

All you did was sort by WAR, so not exactly groundbreaking here. So either your calculations are messed up and you whiffed, or I'm completely missing something. How can two players with the same WAR (Quant Kouros and Tomas Guillen - 4.5) can have the same "surplus value" according to you ($6.36M) when Kouros makes $14.1M and Guillen makes $500,000?

Whoops - good catch - I had an old value in my WAR$ variable. That got Updated.

Its not sorted by WAR, but player Surplus Value. So how much "extra" value did they make to get you towards that "260M" hypothetical 95 wins.
If a player has a high salary and a high WAR - they would be rated lower, since I'm subtracting their base salary from their player value (#WAR * WAR $)

[CTBrewCrew]

I'm with Joe here.

As an example, using your $2.43/WAR

Juan Rivera - 9.7 WAR
Value should be 9.7x2.43=23.571
For a surplus of +23

One more-Jared Gillstrom - 2.4 WAR
Value should be 2.43x2.4=5.832 (page shows 21.26... Huge difference!)
On his salary of 17.94 that means his surplus value is -12

This is a great idea to do, but there's something off in the calculations somewhere.

OK - Too much COVID-19 and not enough coffee.... this is why I luv you guys.. This was I had the old value for WAR $ in a formula.


Juan Rivera of ATC?

In the file I have for 2041 I have
Salary of 500k
WAR of 9.7
WAR value = 9.7 * $2.43M = $23.56M "War Value"
Which makes his total value to the team (Salary + WAR value) of $24.06M
you subtract out his Salary from 2041 (500k) - and you are left with a value of 23.45 (Which now seems like an extra step now)



Jared Gillstrom

2.4 WAR
2.4 * $2.43M = $23.67M Total Player Value
23.67 - 17.94M Salary = $5.73M Player Surplus

[Lane]

Why is your calculation for value to the team including salary and not just WAR value?

[CTBrewCrew]

...which is unrealistic in the BBA with a salary cap of $120M.

It's $110M.

[quote=CTBrewCrew post_id=183335 time=1584506336 user_id=12041

All you did was sort by WAR, so not exactly groundbreaking here. So either your calculations are messed up and you whiffed, or I'm completely missing something. How can two players with the same WAR (Quant Kouros and Tomas Guillen - 4.5) can have the same "surplus value" according to you ($6.36M) when Kouros makes $14.1M and Guillen makes $500,000?

Let me add to the dashboard to have the ability to sort by Player Value also, and I will add a % added to help distinguish between these two (and others)

Kouros has a player value of 25.09M
Guillen has a player value of 11.48M

But their Salaries are vastly different. (14.1M vs 500k). So what I want to say is / Show is that Guillen brought a higher % of Surplus value to the team based off what he was paid. Kouros gets paid a lot he should produce.

let me go back and update it some more...

[CTBrewCrew]

OK so back to Kourous and Guillen

We can look at on a return of investment for the 500k investment in Guillen - he provided 11.48M in value (WAR$ + Salary) - a 2196% increase

For the 14.10m investment in Kourous - he provided 25.09m (WAR$ + Salary) in player value - a 77% increase

So Guillen can be looked at in that way in provided more Surplus Value to the team.

Also hypothetically - if we all say that WAR$ is a constant value of 2.43M in 2041 - then based off that (hindsight) Guillien should have been paid 10.98M in salary in 2041 - but he wasn't - he was paid 500k. So you as the owner got a surplus value of 10.98M for him.

Looking at Kourous - based off his WAR of 4.5 he also should have had a salary of 10.98M - but he didn't - he had a salary of 14.10m so you didn't get as much expect value - at his salary he should have produced 5.8 WAR - so its a loss in value for him

hmmm - let me look at redoing some stuff -- i will go it off of war$ and salary paid in 2041 to get player value...

[CTBrewCrew]

OK Viz has been updated (Many thanks to Lane and Joe) for helping put a different set of eyes on it to get my vision across more clearly this time I hope. I will add P into this later today....

[CTBrewCrew]

Now updated to include P WAR$/Surplus