Paul Konerko for Jeff Shaw

[filihok]

Yes, team WAR. But team WAR is a function of individual WAR. it's very hard to get to 95 wins or so without individuals with high WAR, and they get paid at a higher rate per WAR than the average 2.5 war guy.

They actually don't.

The $5million per WAR is linear, though it makes perfect sense that it wouldn't be, or shouldn't be.

Obviously, I hope, I mean generally, as a rule. That's why the Red Sox, back when they were good, aimed at 95 wins/year, not winning the division, because the extra 5 wins would be the most expensive.

No. You aim for 95 wins because getting to 95 wins will likely get you into the playoffs.
Shooting for 100 wins means you'll be paying an extra ((100-95)*$5 million)) $25 million for no real extra reward.

How much would it cost to put a .500 team on the field? That's 30 wins above replacement

30 times $5 million is $150 million (which shows the value of cost-controlled players).

. Then how much more are the next 15 wins above replacement going to cost?

15 times $5 million is an extra $65 million.

Again, I mean when you can predict what you'll get and pay what it's worth--to you.

Yeah. It makes sense to pay more for Wins #87 to #95. Because those wins are the difference between staying home or going to the playoffs.

So, that wasn't really aimed at your question, because the reason for the difference was other, but . . . .

PREMIUM players charge more per WAR to play for good teams because good teams can afford to pay more of them and give them contracts, while weak teams don't. In other words, because they can.

Makes sense. But I don't think it's true.

If you fall 5 wins short, you can't make that up by hiring a couple of 2.5 guys, unless you managed to win 90 games with two full time replacement players. In that case, you can, but first you should take your GM out behind the barn and shoot him for throwing away a pennant.

Again, makes sense. But it's not observed.
Average players sign at about $5 million per WAR
Star players sign at about $5 million per WAR.

[Jackaroo Dave]

No. You aim for 95 wins because getting to 95 wins will likely get you into the playoffs.
Shooting for 100 wins means you'll be paying an extra ((100-95)*$5 million)) $25 million for no real extra reward.

That's what I meant, elliptically.

Makes sense. But I don't think it's true.

Wouldn't be the first time. Like I said, I don't actually know, and I'm talking about what would happen without noise in the system, GM's like whatsisname, and so forth.

Again, makes sense. But it's not observed.
Average players sign at about $5 million per WAR
Star players sign at about $5 million per WAR.

[bluesky5]

True enough. But the runs he costs them with his defense and baserunning are just as valuable as the ones he drives in. But no one notices them.

Could be. That's beyond my knowledge. If he's clean and he's compared to dirty players, that hurts him and makes him more admirable. It doesn't make him an average fielder or baserunner, however.

Agreed.

I personally, truly, think that if you play first base and bat 3-4-5, as Konerko does and ends up top 8-9 ever in RBI and HR, no matter how diminutive they may be considered, well, he's doing exactly what anyone has wanted out of a first baseman since the live ball. Hence my baserunning/poor defense statement. Out of fairness no one expects or even necessarily needs him to be above average fielding or baserunning. Top 8-9 ever at a position defined by those characteristics and in those categories is pretty elite.

I guess what I'm getting at is, does the lack of those other skills make him less HoF worthy? I am assuming of course he plays the next 3-4 years averaging 25-30 and 85-100 to be top 8-9.

[filihok]

Agreed.

I personally, truly, think that if you play first base and bat 3-4-5, as Konerko does and ends up top 8-9 ever in RBI and HR, no matter how diminutive they may be considered, well, he's doing exactly what anyone has wanted out of a first baseman since the live ball. Hence my baserunning/poor defense statement. Out of fairness no one expects or even necessarily needs him to be above average fielding or baserunning. Top 8-9 ever at a position defined by those characteristics and in those categories is pretty elite.

But HR and RsBI aren't the only measures of offense. They aren't the best measures of offense. They aren't adequate measures of offense.
By the metrics that measure offense, Konerko is well below the established standard for the HoF at his position.

I guess what I'm getting at is, does the lack of those other skills make him less HoF worthy? I am assuming of course he plays the next 3-4 years averaging 25-30 and 85-100 to be top 8-9.

His lack of those other skills certainly make him less productive, right?

If one values production as the key component of Hall worthiness, then, yes, it makes him less Hall worthy.

[bluesky5]

But HR and RsBI aren't the only measures of offense. They aren't the best measures of offense. They aren't adequate measures of offense.
By the metrics that measure offense, Konerko is well below the established standard for the HoF at his position.


His lack of those other skills certainly make him less productive, right?

If one values production as the key component of Hall worthiness, then, yes, it makes him less Hall worthy.

No, but they are the expected area of production from the position he plays.

[Jackaroo Dave]

No, but they are the expected area of production from the position he plays.

I would be astonished if his glove or spikes made a scintilla of difference in his HOF chances.

[dominik]

I would be astonished if his glove or spikes made a scintilla of difference in his HOF chances.

konerkos HOF case is highly connected to reaching 500 HRs. I don't think he is a HOFer but if he somehow hits the final 78 HRs to 500 he will make the hall if there are no steroid allegations. I think it is not likely that he makes it to 500 but if he does, there is no way he doesn't make it.