Monday, February 14, 2005
Arizona to Major League Baseball: Suckers!
Last week, Studes and Mike (from Mike's Baseball Rants) teamed up to look at trades over the years. Their conceit? Trades can be evaluated by looking at the future Win Shares (and Win Shares Above Baseline) of the players traded so that the Glenn Davis for Finley, Schillng, and Harnisch trade ends up looking pretty bad.
For kicks, I took Studes' table and adjusted it for the number of years the team was in the league between 1961 and 2002 (the period used by Studes). And, surprise, surprise...
Team WSAB To WSAB From Diff Yrs WSAB/Yr
ARI 238 140 98 / 5 = 19.6
CHA 2641 1944 697 / 42 = 16.6
KCA 1507 1081 426 / 34 = 12.5
TOR 1384 1067 317 / 26 = 12.2
SDN 2464 2162 302 / 34 = 8.9
BAL 2015 1770 245 / 42 = 5.8
MIL 1390 1227 163 / 34 = 4.8
MIN 1369 1174 195 / 42 = 4.6
NYA 2736 2549 187 / 42 = 4.5
TEX 2543 2412 131 / 42 = 3.1
SLN 3053 2937 116 / 42 = 2.9
HOU 2262 2189 73 / 41 = 1.8
CHN 2709 2636 73 / 42 = 1.7
MON 2139 2099 40 / 34 = 1.2
PHI 2402 2360 42 / 42 = 1.0
ANA 1681 1655 26 / 42 = 0.6
CLE 3277 3274 3 / 42 = 0.1
---------------------------------------
COL 279 299 -20 / 10 = -2.0
DET 1204 1296 -92 / 42 = -2.2
OAK 2048 2141 -93 / 42 = -2.2
CIN 2452 2579 -127 / 42 = -3.0
LAN 2291 2494 -203 / 42 = -4.8
PIT 2041 2288 -247 / 42 = -5.9
ATL 1653 1919 -266 / 42 = -6.3
SFN 1895 2172 -277 / 42 = -6.6
SEA 1110 1331 -221 / 26 = -8.5
NYN 2197 2760 -563 / 41 = -13.7
BOS 1339 1945 -606 / 42 = -14.4
FLO 731 882 -151 / 10 = -15.1
TBA 33 189 -156 / 5 = -31.2
That's right -- using this metric, Your Arizona Diamondbacks have the best Win Shares Above Baseline per year of any team in baseball, by one full win a year. Yeah, Joe Jr.'s crazy all right -- crazy like a fox!
How does this square with the widely received notion that the Diamondbacks' management stinks (to use a more polite word than is often used)? Well, as noted in Studes' article and in the BTF Primer discussion linked therein, the methodology isn't perfect. For example, how do you account for trading away a player you won't be able to afford in future years? (You don't, not at the moment.) And the methodology doesn't take into account free agent signings -- a significant quiver in the D-Backs' bag which has been used for both good (Randy Johnson) and evil (Jay Bell). And clearly there are some potential issues with a young franchise such as the D-Backs in that it's possible the scale could tip one way or the other as the few trades they've made play out over the next 10 years.
I'm not suggesting that the Diamondbacks are the sharpest franchise in baseball. This type of analysis is probably fun, but has too many unanswered and possibly unresolvable questions at this point to be truly useful. But for all the talk about the team being too willing to trade young talent for veterans at the end of their career, isn't this at least some sort of proof that the perception isn't entirely true?
For kicks, I took Studes' table and adjusted it for the number of years the team was in the league between 1961 and 2002 (the period used by Studes). And, surprise, surprise...
Team WSAB To WSAB From Diff Yrs WSAB/Yr
ARI 238 140 98 / 5 = 19.6
CHA 2641 1944 697 / 42 = 16.6
KCA 1507 1081 426 / 34 = 12.5
TOR 1384 1067 317 / 26 = 12.2
SDN 2464 2162 302 / 34 = 8.9
BAL 2015 1770 245 / 42 = 5.8
MIL 1390 1227 163 / 34 = 4.8
MIN 1369 1174 195 / 42 = 4.6
NYA 2736 2549 187 / 42 = 4.5
TEX 2543 2412 131 / 42 = 3.1
SLN 3053 2937 116 / 42 = 2.9
HOU 2262 2189 73 / 41 = 1.8
CHN 2709 2636 73 / 42 = 1.7
MON 2139 2099 40 / 34 = 1.2
PHI 2402 2360 42 / 42 = 1.0
ANA 1681 1655 26 / 42 = 0.6
CLE 3277 3274 3 / 42 = 0.1
---------------------------------------
COL 279 299 -20 / 10 = -2.0
DET 1204 1296 -92 / 42 = -2.2
OAK 2048 2141 -93 / 42 = -2.2
CIN 2452 2579 -127 / 42 = -3.0
LAN 2291 2494 -203 / 42 = -4.8
PIT 2041 2288 -247 / 42 = -5.9
ATL 1653 1919 -266 / 42 = -6.3
SFN 1895 2172 -277 / 42 = -6.6
SEA 1110 1331 -221 / 26 = -8.5
NYN 2197 2760 -563 / 41 = -13.7
BOS 1339 1945 -606 / 42 = -14.4
FLO 731 882 -151 / 10 = -15.1
TBA 33 189 -156 / 5 = -31.2
That's right -- using this metric, Your Arizona Diamondbacks have the best Win Shares Above Baseline per year of any team in baseball, by one full win a year. Yeah, Joe Jr.'s crazy all right -- crazy like a fox!
How does this square with the widely received notion that the Diamondbacks' management stinks (to use a more polite word than is often used)? Well, as noted in Studes' article and in the BTF Primer discussion linked therein, the methodology isn't perfect. For example, how do you account for trading away a player you won't be able to afford in future years? (You don't, not at the moment.) And the methodology doesn't take into account free agent signings -- a significant quiver in the D-Backs' bag which has been used for both good (Randy Johnson) and evil (Jay Bell). And clearly there are some potential issues with a young franchise such as the D-Backs in that it's possible the scale could tip one way or the other as the few trades they've made play out over the next 10 years.
I'm not suggesting that the Diamondbacks are the sharpest franchise in baseball. This type of analysis is probably fun, but has too many unanswered and possibly unresolvable questions at this point to be truly useful. But for all the talk about the team being too willing to trade young talent for veterans at the end of their career, isn't this at least some sort of proof that the perception isn't entirely true?
Comments:
Think it's probably a major factor that the D'backs haven't been around long enough. Both in quantity of trades, and the time since they've gone down, we just haven't got enough under our belts to have had any turn round and bite us hard.
I notice they've revised the figures to include trades with minor-leaguers; all it'd take would be one Larry Anderson for Jeff Bagwell type deal, and we'd be sent well into negative territory. However, it was probably six or seven years before that deal was obviously lop-sided: I think the Dessens/Durazo trade may end up not far short.
I notice they've revised the figures to include trades with minor-leaguers; all it'd take would be one Larry Anderson for Jeff Bagwell type deal, and we'd be sent well into negative territory. However, it was probably six or seven years before that deal was obviously lop-sided: I think the Dessens/Durazo trade may end up not far short.
Comment posted by 
: 11:49 AM
: 11:49 AM
Well, as for length of time, I saw nothing that suggested that DES did fewer trades per year than the average (WSAB gained/year seemed about in the middle.)
I agree that the Dessens/Durazo trade will end up adding more to the negative side of the ledger, though not to the extent of horribly bad... but I've got to believe that the Johnson/Vazquez etc. trade will get us back any WSAB lost in Dessens/Durazo.
Post a Comment
I agree that the Dessens/Durazo trade will end up adding more to the negative side of the ledger, though not to the extent of horribly bad... but I've got to believe that the Johnson/Vazquez etc. trade will get us back any WSAB lost in Dessens/Durazo.
