Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
A number of you wanted to evaluate how well JPs free agent signings have performed. To help you out in doing this, here are some stats.

There's two key components to any free agent signing:
  1. How much that free agent earned
  2. How well that free agent performed


Measuring #1 is easy. Just look at his salary.

For #2, I decided to look at a Baseball Prospectus statistic called "Value Over Replacement Player" or VORP. BP defines VORP as:
    Value Over Replacement Player. The number of runs contributed beyond what a replacement-level player would contribute if given the same percentage of team plate appearances.

To put that into context, it usually takes an extra 10-11 runs or so to produce an extra win for the team.

Thus to examine the tradeoff between price and performance, we look at the following things:
  1. 2002SAL, 2003SAL, 2004SAL. The salaries of the players in 2002, 2003, and 2004 if they were with the Jays in those years. Here we use units of $1,000.
  2. TOTSAL: The total salary earned while with the Jays.
  3. 02VORP, 03VORP, 04VORP. Points of VORP earned in each season with the Jays.
  4. TOTVORP: Total VORP earned while with Jays.
  5. V/M$: This is the amount of VORP collected per million dollar of salary. Here higher is better. A 10.0 would indicate the player collected 10 points of VORP for each million dollars earned.
  6. V/EX$: V/M$ is kind of misleading since a replacement level player should collect 0.0 points of VORP but collect $300,000 in salary. So V/EX$ compares VORP to "excess salary" or the salary collected above $300,000. Thus V/EX$ is higher than V/M$


Table I - Above Replacement Level Free Agent Signings


FIRST LAST TOTSAL SOVMIN TOLVORP V/M$ V/EX$ 2002Sal 2003Sal 2004Sal 02VORP 03VORP 04VORP
Greg Myers 1700 1100 30.5 17.9 27.7 800 900 30.7 -0.2
Mike Bordick 1000 700 15.3 15.3 21.9 1000 15.3
Chris Gomez 750 450 7.3 9.7 16.2 750 7.3
Frank Catalan 4500 3900 31.9 7.1 8.2 2200 2300 25.5 6.4
Miguel Batista 3600 3300 22.6 6.3 6.8 3600 22.6
Terry Adams 1700 1400 10.0 5.9 7.1 1700 10.0
Doug Creek 700 400 3.3 4.7 8.3 700 3.3
Dave Berg 1950 1150 6.1 3.1 5.3 450 700 800 10.2 1.4 -5.5
Jeff Tam 600 300 0.3 0.5 1.0 600 0.3
Kerry Ligtenb 2000 1700 -1.6 -0.8 -0.9 2000 -1.6
Pat Hentgen 2200 1900 -11.4 -5.2 -6.0 2200 -11.4
Tanyon Sturtze 1000 700 -6.4 -6.4 -9.1 1000 -6.4
TOTAL 21700 17000 107.9 5.0 6.3


Table II - Replacement Level Free Agent Signings


FIRST LAST TOTSAL SOVMIN TOLVORP V/M$ V/EX$ 2002Sal 2003Sal 2004Sal 02VORP 03VORP 04VORP
Frank Menechi 400 100 26.0 65.0 260.0 400 26.0
Gregg Zaun 300 0 17.6 58.7 300 17.6
Pete Walker 625 125 27.1 43.4 216.8 200 425 20.6 6.5
Josh Towers 640 40 20.1 31.4 502.5 300 340 9.6 10.5
Aquilin Lopez 618 18 18.7 30.3 1038.9 300 318 19.0 -0.3
Corey Thurman 500 0 10.5 21.0 200 300 11.1 -0.6
Jason Kershne 815 15 16.7 20.5 1113.3 200 300 315 1.5 15.7 -0.5
Trever Miller 305 5 5.8 19.0 1160.0 305 5.8
Ryan Glynn 300 0 4.9 16.3 300 4.9
Doug Davis 300 0 3.6 12.0 300 3.6
Scott Service 300 0 2.9 9.7 300 2.9
Doug Linton 350 50 3.1 8.9 62.0 350 3.1
Howie Clark 600 0 1.9 3.2 300 300 5.2 -3.3
Juan Acevedo 300 0 0.6 2.0 300 0.6
Valerio delosSa 700 0 0.1 0.1 300 0.1
Sean Douglas 300 0 -0.1 -0.3 300 -0.1
Dan Reicher 300 0 -0.9 -3.0 300 -0.9
Chad Hermans 300 0 -2.0 -6.7 300 -2.0
Ken Huckaby 513 13 -4.8 -9.4 -369.2 200 313 -3.9 -0.9
Mike Nakamur 300 0 -5.1 -17.0 300 -5.1
Dave Maurer 300 0 -7.1 -23.7 300 -7.1
TOTAL 9066 366 139.6 15.4 381.4


Note that many of the totals for Table II are very misleading, as many of these players only played a fraction of a season with the team, so they would not collect their full 300K.

Also note that in Table I, I assume that all contracts were not insured, so that a player collected his money even while on the DL. This makes some players, like Myers, look like poorer signings than they actually were.

So that's the data. Anyone care to comment on it?

Since You Asked For It - Examining JP's Free Agent Signings | 31 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
_Moffatt - Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 02:09 PM EDT (#28421) #
A couple of things:

1. I used the term "free agent" pretty loosely here to include anyone picked up in the Rule V draft or plucked off of waivers, etc.

2. I think (though not sure) that BP has it set up that a team of replacement level players would go 40-122. Such a team would cost you $7.5 million dollars to field.

Under the assumption that 10.5 runs = 1 win, a club would have to 430.5 points of VORP to go 81-81. In order for a $50 million dollar payroll club to achieve this, they'd need an average of 8.61 V/M$ or 10.13 V/EX$ to accomplish this.
_CaramonLS - Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 02:17 PM EDT (#28422) #
*Is shocked Pete Walker has a positive VORP*
_Moffatt - Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 02:23 PM EDT (#28423) #
People often forget, but Pete Walker had a terrific 2002 season:

W-L: 10-5
IP: 139.3
ERA: 4.33 (league average was 4.47)
_greener - Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 02:36 PM EDT (#28424) #
these stats are bewildering to me, despite your earnest attempt at explaining how they work. but just eyeballing the players, you can tell how useless they are. jeff tam, doug creek, juan acevedo, etc
there's not one impact player in the lot, and there are many lemons. we've heard the excuses that there's not enough money to pay players rumour was jays offered escobar 5 mil, and he signed for 6 w/anaheim, yet they find .75 mil to pay valeria de los santos, and 2.7 a million plus for other gems, like terry adams.
_greener - Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 02:38 PM EDT (#28425) #
before i get corrected, adams made around 1.6. i meant 2.7 to catalanotto, whom i like, but has rarely stayed healthy in his career. not much use paying him to watch the team from his comfy lazyboy at home.
_Sean - TBG - Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 03:14 PM EDT (#28426) #
http://www.torontobaseballguys.com
Moreso than Pete Walker, I'm shocked beyond all reckoning that Jeff Tam had a positive VORP in 2003 (+0.3, but still). I remember him as quite a bit worse than that.

Quick question - how did you come to classify some signings as above replacement level, and others at replacement level? Menechino and Zaun in particular seem like good pickups... are the lists based on expected roles on the team (backup catcher and shortstop)?
_R Billie - Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 03:41 PM EDT (#28427) #
I think replacement versus non-replacement is determined by salary. Anyone around $400K or under is replacement.

we've heard the excuses that there's not enough money to pay players rumour was jays offered escobar 5 mil, and he signed for 6 w/anaheim, yet they find .75 mil to pay valeria de los santos, and 2.7 a million plus for other gems, like terry adams.

Yes of course this view of the situation makes letting Escobar go look stupid but that is assuming that the Jays did NOT sign Miguel Batista and trade for Ted Lilly to essentially fill two places in the rotation for about the price that Escobar signed in Anaheim. And it's also assuming they didn't get Zach Jackson and Adam Lind in the 2004 draft as a bonus. The "trade" was Escobar for Batista, Lilly, a supplmental first round pick, and what ended up being a supplemental third round pick but could have been as high as a first round pick depending on what team signed him. I don't think anyone can reasonably posit that the Jays have lost on that exchange YET as Lilly alone came close to matching what Escobar probably would have given the Jays.

The Catalanatto argument for 2005 may have merit but I find it hard to believe that an organization as risk averse as the Jays would give a player a two year deal if they thought there was reason for health concerns. Of course you can pick all of the failed smaller signings, put them all together, and come up with the salary of a decent player. But then you're assuming that the Jays can fill the remainder of the 25 slots for minimal money and that's not always the case.
_Tyler - Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 03:56 PM EDT (#28428) #
I'd be willing bet that Tam ran up his VORP early, and then pissed it away in a cascade of sucktacular pitching, based on my recollection.
_Jonny German - Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 04:08 PM EDT (#28429) #
Nicely put, R Billie.
_CaramonLS - Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 04:11 PM EDT (#28430) #
Nicely Skewed, R billie.
_Scott Levy - Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 04:36 PM EDT (#28431) #
Lilly was traded for before Escobar and Batista signed anywhere, I think. The money saved from Escobar probably went to Ligtenberg if anyone. The Lilly trade was going to happen regardless of what happened with Escobar.

Look at it this way. The Blue Jays saved 5.65 million over 3 years by signing Batista over Escobar, which averages out to 1.88 million of savings per season. In saving 1.88 million per year over 3 years, the Jays signed a 33-year old, that had to move to the AL and Skydome, to a three year deal, while losing a 28-year old in his prime that was coming into his own (yes the signs were there in 2003).

The end result....

Escobar: 3.93 ERA, 208.1 IP, 192 H, 76 BB, 191 K, 21 HR
Batista: 4.80 ERA, 198.2 IP, 206 H, 96 BB, 104 K, 22 HR

That's only year 1 of 3. What happens next year when Escobar is 29 coming off his best season and Batista is 34 while the team is pondering what role he's even going to play?

Don't get me wrong, I liked the Batista signing, just not for three years, but I hate when people try to spin it as some sort of genius or that losing Escobar made the trade for Lilly plausible. The Jays had a chance to re-sign Escobar, but they refused to go 3 years, yet they jumped at the chance to offer 3 years for an inferior 33-year old. Does that make sense to any of you?

I won't use Lind and Jackson as reasons to like losing Escobar until they move passed the Penn league and do something significant. Time will tell.

Halladay, Lilly, Escobar, and Bush would be a fantastic rotation. JP blew that chance in order save 1.88 million over 3 years, which happens to be a million more than he gave to an injured platoon player for 2 years each. Color me disappointed.
_R Billie - Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 05:10 PM EDT (#28432) #
The Jays were NEVER seriously bidding to keep Escobar whatever they might have been saying. They made him an offer they knew he wouldn't take and that they knew would be trumped by another team. Escobar would never have agreed to a two year deal no matter what. I'm guessing they had the full Batista campaign locked in and ready to go as soon as the Diamondbacks declined his option. They wanted the flexibility and the draft picks.

Don't get me wrong. I would have kept Escobar myself. An initial offer of $16 million over 3 years might have gotten it done. Between Batista, Lilly, and Escobar, Escobar stands head and shoulders above the other two. I might have even matched the $18 million offer from Anaheim. But that's coming from a guy who had an appreciation of Escobar's stuff and the strides he made in the control department. I know there were a lot of other readers who didn't want him kept on at any price which I thought was a biased and irrational appraisal of a very good player. I said so repeatedly at the time.

I don't think we should sour that fast on Batista though. This has been the worst season of his career control wise and I don't think that will happen again. Until he slid the last two months of the season, Batista was in shouting distance of Escobar in terms of ERA. I expect his walks to go down and his K's to go up now that he's familiar with the environment and opposing hitters. He's no Escobar but he's a decent second prize.

And I'm not evaluating Zach Jackson and Adam Lind specifically but the value of what COULD have been two first round picks. First and even second round picks are very valuable to a team that knows how to draft. We've yet to see a first or second round pick stall before AA, Josh Banks being the only one for about a month's worth of time.
_sweat - Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 05:11 PM EDT (#28433) #
Scott: who would have thought excobar could actually have a quality season. This guy has been up and down more than prostitutes hair elastic. While at this point Escobar and Batista straight up doesn't look good, it's not how JP ever looked at it. It was always Batista and 2 high draft picks replacing escobar. In the end lightenburg sucked, no doubt, but there was promise there, and filling bullpen spots with guys like adams and lightenburg were something that had to be done. JP would have been roasted alive if he had just tried to fill those spots with rookies/rule 5ers etc. It turns out that some of his bullpen choices worked out terribly, but at least Adams turned into Hattig, and Lightenburg might turn into someone else.
_Moffatt - Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 06:52 PM EDT (#28434) #
these stats are bewildering to me, despite your earnest attempt at explaining how they work. but just eyeballing the players, you can tell how useless they are. jeff tam, doug creek, juan acevedo, etc

I guess the key is to find a good rule of thumb. Robert or Craig may be able to come up with a much better one, but I think a V/EX$ of around 9 would be average.

By that yardstick Myers, Gomez, and Bordick were awesome signs. Cat, Batista, Creek, and Berg were all average or a bit below. Tam, Ligtenberg, Sturtze, and Hentgen were disasters.

R Billie is right: I defined replacement level at anything at or below 400K a year. When you look at that pool of players, Zaun, Menechino, Pete Walker, and Josh Towers look like great moves and there are a few others that worked out pretty well.
_Jobu - Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 07:01 PM EDT (#28435) #
prostitutes hair elastic??
_Moffatt - Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 07:02 PM EDT (#28436) #
You may be losing your title as the Box's strangest poster, Jobu. How can you top "prostitutes hair elastic"? You better use all of your man-strength.
_Jobu - Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 07:04 PM EDT (#28437) #
Geez....Now I'm on the spot....uhhhhh.....

Giggalo's anus wig?
_JackFoley - Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 07:21 PM EDT (#28438) #
Fun fact: Genital wigs are called 'merkins'. I am not sure if those who make merkins are merkinaries or merkinsmiths, though.
_Moffatt - Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 07:34 PM EDT (#28439) #
Fun question: How did you know that?

Speaking of questions, somehow during an econ class I teach someone changed my example from "Name Brand vs. Generic Brand Pharmaceuticals" to "Viagra vs. Knockoffs". Then students kept asking me questions about the market for Viagara. Did they think I'd really know? It got me pretty paranoid. :)
_Jobu - Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 08:20 PM EDT (#28440) #
I love the end of threads where the original appropriate baseball topic just degrades into nothingness. It's one of my favourite features of this fine site.
_StephenT - Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 09:20 PM EDT (#28441) #
Great table Mike. Looks like the Jays should lower their payroll.

One could argue that any non-inherited contract could be included (e.g. Halladay's 2004, Frasor's 2004, etc.). That would almost complete the data set.
_Dan - Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 09:39 PM EDT (#28442) #
Moffat thats some funny econ class you teach there. I take econ now in univ and the best my instructor talks about is how he likes to take long rides in his car for no reason.
_Moffatt - Tuesday, October 05 2004 @ 09:42 PM EDT (#28443) #
My tutorials are much more fun. We talk about beer, pizza, and how raising the penalty on selling marijuana will cause people to shift into selling crack. You know, important social issues.

One could argue that any non-inherited contract could be included (e.g. Halladay's 2004, Frasor's 2004, etc.). That would almost complete the data set.

Good point. I may do that later this week.
_Ron - Wednesday, October 06 2004 @ 12:33 AM EDT (#28444) #
Hey Mike which Uni do you teach at?
_Jobu - Wednesday, October 06 2004 @ 01:06 AM EDT (#28445) #
_Moffatt - Wednesday, October 06 2004 @ 07:55 AM EDT (#28446) #
Ron: Western. Or more specifically, the Richard Ivey School of Business.
_dp - Wednesday, October 06 2004 @ 08:12 AM EDT (#28447) #
My tutorials are much more fun. We talk about beer, pizza, and how raising the penalty on selling marijuana will cause people to shift into selling crack. You know, important social issues.

Yestrday I was teaching Marxist analysis of media, got to use the phrase "4 hour erection" 3 times. They giggled, most 18/24 are girls, so no Beavis and Butthead laughs. You woulda loved my butchered treatment of 200 years of economics...
Craig B - Wednesday, October 06 2004 @ 08:23 AM EDT (#28448) #
Between Batista, Lilly, and Escobar, Escobar stands head and shoulders above the other two.

No, he doesn't. Lilly and Escobar are basically a wash.
_Moffatt - Wednesday, October 06 2004 @ 08:24 AM EDT (#28449) #
You woulda loved my butchered treatment of 200 years of economics...

Heheheh. I'm sure I would have.

It's funny how everybody but economists still quote Marx. Just like everyone but psychologists still quote Freud.
_Jobu - Wednesday, October 06 2004 @ 10:50 AM EDT (#28450) #
It's funny how everybody but economists still quote Marx. Just like everyone but psychologists still quote Freud.

Amen to that.
_R Billie - Wednesday, October 06 2004 @ 10:02 PM EDT (#28451) #
No, he doesn't. Lilly and Escobar are basically a wash.

They're in the neighbourhood but they aren't a wash.

Stat, Escobar, Lilly
H/9, 8.3, 7.8
HR/9, 0.9, 1.2
BB/9, 3.3, 4.1
K/9, 8.2, 7.7
K/BB, 2.5, 1.9


Escobar has a decided advantage in some key categories like homeruns, walks, strikeouts, and K/BB while Lilly only held an advantage in hits allowed. This suggests that Escobar is a more reliable pitcher than Lilly and his stuff and physical stature is superior as well which would make me more confident in him continuing his success than Lilly. Lilly was a bit fortunate to end up so close to Escobar in ERA.

For whatever it's worth, Escobar gave up no unearned runs (208 ip, 3.93 RA) while Lilly only gave up 3 unearned runs (197 ip, 4.20 RA). They both averaged virtually the same innings per start and pitches per inning.
Since You Asked For It - Examining JP's Free Agent Signings | 31 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.