Extension Updates for Cain/Bum

[tzill]

From CSNBA:


The new contract will supersede Cain’s previous deal but he will be paid an identical $15 million salary. He also gets a $5 million signing bonus, along with $20 million salaries in each of the five subsequent seasons. A full no-trade provision takes place immediately.

The Giants’ $21 million option in 2018 converts to a player option if Cain reaches certain thresholds for starts or innings. If the option does not vest, the Giants can buy out Cain for $7.5 million. If it does vest, Cain still would receive the buyout if he declines.

 

[Stokes1931]

Kevin Brown was given 7 years and $105 million in 1998. How much would that be in today's dollars?

Well, in 1998, gas was $1.03/gallon

Today it is, well, er, higher.

By multiplying by the CPI, one would get that Brown's contract would be worth $136 to $173 in 2010 dollars.

$105,000,000 of 1998 dollars would be worth: $142,469,470.83 in 2011

Inflation Calculator

Instead of busting the record for a right hander, I think Cain's contract is pretty much in line with what Brown got.

Brown had already thrown 2188 innings (3.28 ERA) before signing his deal, and Cain has thrown 1317 innings (3.35 ERA) before signing his.

Also, Brown was 33 years old in 1998, and Cain is only 27.

Good deal for us, gents. Brown was terrific his first several years of his contract, but it's as Indy says, "It's not the age, its the mileage."

 

[msgkings322]

Kevin Brown was given 7 years and $105 million in 1998. How much would that be in today's dollars?

Well, in 1998, gas was $1.03/gallon

Today it is, well, er, higher.

By multiplying by the CPI, one would get that Brown's contract would be worth $136 to $173 in 2010 dollars.

$105,000,000 of 1998 dollars would be worth: $142,469,470.83 in 2011

Inflation Calculator

Instead of busting the record for a right hander, I think Cain's contract is pretty much in line with what Brown got.

Brown had already thrown 2188 innings (3.28 ERA) before signing his deal, and Cain has thrown 1317 innings (3.35 ERA) before signing his.

Also, Brown was 33 years old in 1998, and Cain is only 27.

Good deal for us, gents. Brown was terrific his first several years of his contract, but it's as Indy says, "It's not the age, its the mileage."

Nice post. Rep if I can.

 

[tzill]

Cain's reaction:

 

[Heathbar012]

Dave Cameron's predictable take on the Cain signing.




It's not a crazy take at face value. But then he undermines his credibility by asserting the odds going forward of Cain performing to the contract are 50/50 and the impression that AT&T and Righetti are a factory that turn mediocre pitchers into great ones. Those are just pull-it-out-of-your-ass facts. Dave, fyi, has predicted Cains' regression towards (not to) league average every year of the last 3 or 4 years. Based mostly on the idea that pitchers have minimal control of their BABIP. Thus, according to Cameron, Cain is simply a fair coin that has, so far, happened to turn up heads six years in a row. He had some stake in Cain going to a less comfortable situation.

Someone please rep gp for me. Thank you in advance.

 

[Heathbar012]

From CSNBA:


The new contract will supersede Cain’s previous deal but he will be paid an identical $15 million salary. He also gets a $5 million signing bonus, along with $20 million salaries in each of the five subsequent seasons. A full no-trade provision takes place immediately.

The Giants’ $21 million option in 2018 converts to a player option if Cain reaches certain thresholds for starts or innings. If the option does not vest, the Giants can buy out Cain for $7.5 million. If it does vest, Cain still would receive the buyout if he declines.

Good to know the facts. I need someone to rep this for me, too.

 

[Heathbar012]

Kevin Brown was given 7 years and $105 million in 1998. How much would that be in today's dollars?

Well, in 1998, gas was $1.03/gallon

Today it is, well, er, higher.

By multiplying by the CPI, one would get that Brown's contract would be worth $136 to $173 in 2010 dollars.

$105,000,000 of 1998 dollars would be worth: $142,469,470.83 in 2011

Inflation Calculator

Instead of busting the record for a right hander, I think Cain's contract is pretty much in line with what Brown got.

Brown had already thrown 2188 innings (3.28 ERA) before signing his deal, and Cain has thrown 1317 innings (3.35 ERA) before signing his.

Also, Brown was 33 years old in 1998, and Cain is only 27.

Good deal for us, gents. Brown was terrific his first several years of his contract, but it's as Indy says, "It's not the age, its the mileage."

And this. Too much knowledge and analysis... head overflowing... must get back to work...

 

[Heathbar012]

Cain's reaction:

I don't know, man. Especially after getting 100 mil, blowing up one's genitals seems like a horrible idea.

 

[tzill]

I think someone was asking why the current contract is ripped up (from the Chron):

the Giants tore up his 2012 contract ($15 million) to add a no-trade clause

 

[gp956]

Dave Cameron's predictable take on the Cain signing.




It's not a crazy take at face value. But then he undermines his credibility by asserting the odds going forward of Cain performing to the contract are 50/50 and the impression that AT&T and Righetti are a factory that turn mediocre pitchers into great ones. Those are just pull-it-out-of-your-ass facts. Dave, fyi, has predicted Cains' regression towards (not to) league average every year of the last 3 or 4 years. Based mostly on the idea that pitchers have minimal control of their BABIP. Thus, according to Cameron, Cain is simply a fair coin that has, so far, happened to turn up heads six years in a row. He had some stake in Cain going to a less comfortable situation.

LOL! One of fangraph's reliable sycophants uses my analogy in the comments-section attempting to defend Cameron's work!

Coin flips often come up heads 6 times in a row.
Somebody is always going to exceed his peripherals 6 years in a row and somebody is always going to underperform his peripherals 6 years in a row.

The fallacy here is that those pitchers that do exceed their "peripherals" are more likely to do it again the following year. That's the fingerprint of a skill.

 

[tzill]

LOL! One of fangraph's reliable sycophants uses my analogy in the comments-section attempting to defend Cameron's work!



The fallacy here is that those pitchers that do exceed their "peripherals" are more likely to do it again the following year. That's the fingerprint of a skill.

Is there really anything worse than someone pontificating with a less than rudimentary knowledge of probability/statistics?

 

[MarcoPolo]

I think that the point is that is isn't just "pure statistics" - it's talent. Although, it would depend on what somebody means by "exceeds his peripherals". In one sense, that means nothing at all - my stomach always arrives before my sides, so I *always* exceed my peripherals (by a wide margin ) .

Altho, statistics-wise, my pet peeve is hearing idiots say "you have less of a chance to win the lottery when the pot is huge, because so many other people are playing" (and they aren't talking about winning ALL of the top prize, just picking the winning numbers).

 

[MarcoPolo]

PS : In case it wasn't clear, I'm making fun of the term "exceeds his peripherals", because it is pretty much a bullshit phrase.

 

[gp956]

Is there really anything worse than someone pontificating with a less than rudimentary knowledge of probability/statistics?

The reality is that most of these guys have zero course work in statistics, they're just holding on to received knowledge from someone they trust, while not understanding the context/assumptions/limitations of that knowledge.

 

[gp956]

PS : In case it wasn't clear, I'm making fun of the term "exceeds his peripherals", because it is pretty much a bullshit phrase.

Well, in this case, with fangraphs.com and Cain, what he meant by "peripherals" was the fact that Cain has a much better BABIP and HR/FB rate than league averages. Those metrics are cornerstones of most of the so-called Defense Independent Pitching evaluation systems. And the initial assumption made in these models, after being derived from analyzing some very limited datasets, was that pitchers had very little to no control of those metrics. Subsequent work has shown the validity of that assumption to be questionable, although it's accurate to say the range of variation among pitchers in those metrics is smaller than was previously commonly accepted. And that latter point is why the original assumption has been so sticky -- it did change the way people looked at pitcher skill levels outside of obvious things like strikeout rates.

 

[msgkings322]

I think that the point is that is isn't just "pure statistics" - it's talent. Although, it would depend on what somebody means by "exceeds his peripherals". In one sense, that means nothing at all - my stomach always arrives before my sides, so I *always* exceed my peripherals (by a wide margin ) .

Altho, statistics-wise, my pet peeve is hearing idiots say "you have less of a chance to win the lottery when the pot is huge, because so many other people are playing" (and they aren't talking about winning ALL of the top prize, just picking the winning numbers).

+100 from me, this came up a lot recently with the giant Mega Millions drawing Friday. But those dumdums are how the pots get so big.

 

[gp956]

I think that the point is that is isn't just "pure statistics" - it's talent. Although, it would depend on what somebody means by "exceeds his peripherals". In one sense, that means nothing at all - my stomach always arrives before my sides, so I *always* exceed my peripherals (by a wide margin ) .

Altho, statistics-wise, my pet peeve is hearing idiots say "you have less of a chance to win the lottery when the pot is huge, because so many other people are playing" (and they aren't talking about winning ALL of the top prize, just picking the winning numbers).

Well if you factor in that the pot rolls over to the next drawing if no one wins....

What got me was a yahoo article with a title like "expert on lotto provides techniques for winning". And one of the first ones was "don't pick numbers that have won in the past". I only read a few, which were equally as fallacious, before I skipped to the comments where the author was being appropriately skewered. The internet must be starving for content if yahoo can publish something like that on their frontpage.

 

[Heathbar012]

Well if you factor in that the pot rolls over to the next drawing if no one wins....

What got me was a yahoo article with a title like "expert on lotto provides techniques for winning". And one of the first ones was "don't pick numbers that have won in the past". I only read a few, which were equally as fallacious, before I skipped to the comments where the author was being appropriately skewed. The internet must be starving for content if yahoo can publish something like that on their frontpage.

What routinely passes itself off as journalism in the modern era is a travesty. We might as well go back to the '20s and let Hearst's descendents invent a war.

 

[msgkings322]

What routinely passes itself off as journalism in the modern era is a travesty. We might as well go back to the '20s and let Hearst's descendents invent a war.

Well that's the thing: the web and all that populates it is such a far cry from 'news' that Hearst wouldn't know what he was looking at. Brave new world and all.

 

[Mays-Fan]

Dave Cameron's predictable take on the Cain signing.


It's not a crazy take at face value. But then he undermines his credibility by asserting the odds going forward of Cain performing to the contract are 50/50 and the impression that AT&T and Righetti are a factory that turn mediocre pitchers into great ones. Those are just pull-it-out-of-your-ass facts. Dave, fyi, has predicted Cains' regression towards (not to) league average every year of the last 3 or 4 years. Based mostly on the idea that pitchers have minimal control of their BABIP. Thus, according to Cameron, Cain is simply a fair coin that has, so far, happened to turn up heads six years in a row. He had some stake in Cain going to a less comfortable situation.

Shouldn't EVERY contract (beyond the "control" years) give the player a 50/50 chance of performing to the contract? If the odds were greater, the player should demand more, and if the odds were less, the team should offer less. That's what a free market is all about - in baseball contract negotiations that would be the place where the value of a player's expected performance should equal the value of the contract offer. A player's expected performance is in essence a forecast - and the actual may be less or more than forecast. In the extreme, if a player's expected performance has a 100% certainty of exceeding the offer, then the player has undervalued himself. In the other extreme, if a player has a 100% chance of underperforming (Rowand/Zito, cough cough), then the team has overpaid. It is at that 50/50 point that the parties agree.

Further, if a team DOESN'T offer enough up to that 50/50 expectation level, other teams in the market are free and obliged to do so.

So by definition, all non-control years contracts should have a 50/50 chance of performing to the contract.