In response to yesterday’s post about the risk-reward balance of prospect valuation, commenter “Hunter fan” made the following observation:

Another reason lists could be so pitcher heavy is that apparently pitcher, for some analysts, are easier to project. Sickles just did a few articles on this. Top pitchers, almost without exception, he rated as A or B+ prospects. The position players were all over the place, with several good position players being B- or C level prospects.

Just food for thought.

Pretty interesting food, actually. I’m not sure why I hadn’t thought of this earlier, but on the surface, this comment seems to pass the smell test. Kids in high school can throw in the mid-90s, and that’s a pretty easy thing to scout. They can throw nasty breaking balls that no one can hit. Likewise, there are always a few college arms who command their pitches so well that they’re considered to be nearly Major League ready before they ever sign a pro contract. With these types of premium pitching prospects, there’s not really a lot of projecting to be done – the forecasting involved is more along the lines of whether they’ll be able to stay healthy or not.

Read the rest of this entry »

Keith Law’s list of the Top 100 prospects in baseball came out today, though you have to be an ESPN Insider subscriber in order to see the rankings. Since the content is behind a paywall, I’m not going to give away too many of the rankings, but there were a few things on the list that caused me to do some thinking, and those thoughts inspired this post.

The first thing I noticed was how heavy the list was on pitchers. There’s only two pitching prospects in the top nine, but then 12 of the next 16 spots go to hurlers, and overall, 49 of the 100 spots on the list are occupied by pitchers. It’s not exactly breaking news that young pitching prospects get hurt and flame out at rates much higher than comparable hitting prospects, so in order to compensate for the extra risk they bring to the table, their placement has to be justified through additional upside. Keith’s a smart guy and understands all this, and I’m sure he’d be able to make a valid argument that each pitcher on the list has enough potential to justify their ranking even with the understanding of greater risk.

Read the rest of this entry »

As many of you know, last July I was diagnosed with Acute Myeloid Leukemia. I spent a good chunk of the summer in the hospital undergoing chemotherapy, and most of the end of 2011 was spent either getting treatment or recovering from said treatment. It wasn’t much fun — but after four rounds of chemo and an overwhelming amount of support from friends and the amazing online baseball community — I was given a clean bill of health in January and am now happily living in remission. We’re only a month out from my last biopsy, but the leukemia has yet to return, and my odds of beating this thing get better every day.

So, now that I’m back to living something that resembles a normal life, my wife and I have decided to fight back against the scourge of blood cancers. She’s a physician assistant in oncology and sees the effects of these diseases are on a daily basis, and so we’ve teamed up with four of her co-workers (and one husband of a co-worker) and are running in The Flying Pig half-marathon in Cincinnati on May 6th.

Read the rest of this entry »

Major League teams are getting smarter. In prior years, we would have had easy pickings like the Barry Zito contract, the Carlos Lee signing, and even last year’s Vernon Wells acquisition. This year, there were some guys who got too much money, but there weren’t many instances of teams just paying through the nose for guys who just aren’t very good. I considered cutting this list down to just five transactions, honestly, as a few of the back-end ones have a decent chance of turning out okay for their respective teams, or the costs just are small enough that they aren’t really going to negatively effect the franchises in a big way. There were only a few deals this winter that I’d say teams are really going to regret long term. But, I said we’d do 10 of each, so here we go.

Like yesterday, the criteria is expected on field production, cost to acquire, and the impact the move will make in both the short run and long run for the franchise. These moves represent transactions where the team gave up something of legitimate value and, in my estimation, aren’t likely to get enough back in return to justify their investment.

#10 – Twins Sign Matt Capps for 1/4.75M

It’s a one year deal, so there’s no long term cost to the franchise. $5 million spent on another player wouldn’t have changed the Twins fortunes one way or another. But, still, it’s hard to understand why the Twins thought they needed to give Capps this kind of contract. He was a below replacement level reliever last year, watched his strikeout rate drop from 19.3% to 12.4%, and gave up home runs in a park where no one gives up home runs. And yet, only six relievers got larger contracts than Capps this winter. Darren Oliver got less. Francisco Cordero got less. LaTroy Hawkins got less. If the Twins wanted to spend $5 million on their bullpen, they could have gotten two or three decent arms for that. Instead, they got one mediocre arm who will continue to remind them that they could have still had Wilson Ramos instead.

Read the rest of this entry »

According to Dylan Hernandez, the Dodgers have avoided arbitration with Clayton Kershaw by signing him to a two year contract worth a total of $19 million. Jon Heyman notes that it will break down as $8 million in 2012 and $11 million in 2013.

Kershaw was eligible for arbitration for the first time, and had filed a request for $10 million while the Dodgers countered with an offer of $6.5 million. The two parties settled just south of the midpoint between those two figures for 2012, and then guaranteed Kershaw a 38% raise for 2013. That’s a bit of a discount over what he likely would have earned through arbitration had he followed up with another successful season, but he also disposes of some injury risk by taking the guaranteed money now. For context, both Tim Lincecum (2/23) and Cole Hamels (3/20) signed deals that paid them similar amounts when they were first-time arbitration eligible, though both were Super-Twos and were a year further away from free agency when they agreed to sell a few of their arb years.

Essentially, Kershaw offered the Dodgers the potential to save a couple of million on his 2013 salary – and avoid the never-fun arbitration hearings – in exchange for giving him a little more security in case he blows his arm out at some point this year. The Dodgers weren’t able to delay his free agency, or even buy out his final arbitration year, but they get a little bit of cost certainty for the next couple of years. If Kershaw stays healthy, he’s set himself up to get a massive extension in two years or hit free agency in three, all while getting rid of enough risk that he shouldn’t have to worry about his finances for the rest of his life.

While teams have been proactive in trying to get their young stars locked up sooner, this is probably a better path for elite young arms – establish yourself as a star, then sell off a bit of your arbitration earnings to get rid of some risk, and still set yourself up for the monster payday that comes with free agent eligibility. Don’t be surprised if more agents start pushing their young players to follow the Lincecum/Hamels/Kershaw path instead of the Matt Moore career path.

Roy Oswalt exlcuded, the off-season is basically over at this point. Sure, we might see a minor trade or two before spring training starts up, but teams have generally crossed most of the items off their winter shopping list, and today’s rosters will look pretty similar to the ones that most teams report to spring training with. So, now, it’s time to look back and evaluate the best and worst moves of the winter. We’ll start with the 10 best moves and tackle the worst tomorrow.

Transactions were judged on several criteria: Expected on-field performance, cost to acquire the player, and how important the transaction is in terms of affecting the team’s ability to contend either now or in the future. There were some good cheap contracts signed this winter that won’t really move the needle much for their teams, so even if they provide a better $/WAR return, they’re not viewed to be as important of a move as bringing in a good player who could really make a difference. On the other hand, teams who are rebuilding also made some good moves, so acquisitions that provide significant future value without tanking a team’s ability to compete in 2012 were also viewed in a positive light.

Overall, here are the 10 moves that I feel helped the organization improve their overall talent levels and put them in a better position to win either now or in the future.

Honorable Mentions: Angels Sign C.J. Wilson, A’s Acquire Seth Smith, Red Sox Acquire Andrew Bailey, Astros Acquire Jed Lowrie and Kyle Weiland, Cubs Acquire Anthony Rizzo, Rockies Acquire Marco Scutaro

Read the rest of this entry »

Toward the end of his weekly Sunday notes column for the Boston Globe, Nick Cafardo included the following write-up on John Lannan:

Lannan, 27, is a terrific option as an end-of-the rotation starter now that Washington has signed Edwin Jackson. There is a lot of speculation that the Nationals will deal him to the Angels for center fielder Peter Bourjos, with Mike Trout on the way to play that position in Anaheim. But the Nationals could also move Jayson Werth to center and sign a right fielder. It now appears that Yoenis Cespedes is not in their plans and they have cooled on B.J. Upton. Lannan, who went 10-13 last year with a 3.70 ERA and a (high) 1.462 WHIP, would be a good option for a team like Boston, but the Red Sox don’t seem to have the center fielder to give back, especially with Ryan Kalish unable to play until June. “It doesn’t have to be a center fielder,’’ said one major league source. “They don’t have to get a center fielder in that deal as long as they get a center fielder some other way. The Red Sox make a lot of sense.’’

Again, with emphasis added:

There is a lot of speculation that the Nationals will deal him to the Angels for center fielder Peter Bourjos…

Read the rest of this entry »

This morning, the Rockies traded away Jason Hammel, a starter who has posted relatively high BABIPs over most of his career. While his .280 BABIP last year doesn’t look so bad, the distribution of when those hits came (.272 BABIP with bases empty, .291 BABIP with men on, .300 with RISP) – along with the .327 overall mark he posted in the prior two seasons – led to the Rockies souring on his abilities and shifting him to the bullpen in August. Hammel was just the latest in a string of pitchers who have fallen out of favor with the Rockies due to high BABIPs, as the team traded away Ubaldo Jimenez and Felipe Paulino during stretches of allowing hits last year, and had decided not to bring back Jeff Francis last winter due to his proclivity for giving up base hits.

Eventually, though, the Rockies are going to have to realize that it’s not the pitchers, it’s the park. Here are the BABIPs for all pitchers at Coors Field for each of the last 10 years, and where that ranks relative to the other parks in that specific year.

Read the rest of this entry »

Last night, Gerry Fraley of the Dallas Morning News reported that Josh Hamilton was spotted drinking at a local area bar on Monday evening. According to the report, Ian Kinsler appeared at some point and tried to convince Hamilton to leave. Beyond that, we don’t really know much. In fact, including that information, I’d argue that we don’t really know much.

I’m conflicted about even writing about this, to be honest. Yes, it’s news, and we try to provide analysis and commentary about things going on in the news, but what can we really say about Hamilton’s battle to remain sober? I have no insight into addiction or what a relapse might mean for a recovering addict. There might be people who can speak about what could be inferred from Hamilton falling off the wagon, but as far as I know, no one on staff is an expert on alcoholism. I’m certainly not, and I don’t feel qualified to have any kind of opinion on what this news means for Hamilton’s sobriety.

I was tempted to write about what this might mean for Hamilton’s potential chances for a contract extension, since that’s a bit more up our alley, but anything we said would really just be baseless speculation. To actually know how this might affect the Rangers desire to give Hamilton a long term contract, we’d need access to information that only they’re privy to – his drug test schedule and results, his resolve to get back on the wagon, and what steps he’s willing to take to ensure that this doesn’t become a recurring issue.

We don’t know any of that. In all honestly, we don’t really know anything. The only thing I’m comfortable saying about this news is that I hope Josh Hamilton wins his battle with alcohol and that the sport is better when he’s playing at a high level. Whether you root for the Rangers or not, Josh Hamilton is worth rooting for.

Well, it looks like we finally have an aggressive suitor for Edwin Jackson. Ken Rosenthal is reporting that the Nationals are trying to trade John Lannan – who just lost his arbitration case and will earn $5 million in 2012 – in order to clear salary to make a run at signing Jackson.

If the Nationals can pull this off, it’d be a pretty neat trick. When you look at Lannan and Jackson side by side, this would be a pretty massive improvement for the team. Over the last three seasons, Jackson has posted an ERA- of 93, supported by quality peripherals, while Lannan has posted an ERA- of 101, a good bit better than his FIP/xFIP would suggest is sustainable. Jackson’s also thrown an additional 100 innings, so he’s provided better performance in a larger sample.

Even if you think Lannan possesses an ability to regularly beat his FIP, Jackson is roughly a +1 win upgrade. If you think that Lannan is about to run out of pixie dust and his run prevention is due for a regression, the upgrade is more like +2 wins. Given that the Nationals are on the contender-or-not bubble, those wins could have a lot of value to the team, and swapping out Lannan for Jackson would be a no-brainer.

The tough part might be finding someone who wants to take Lannan off their hands at this point in the off-season. Most teams are shopping in the bargain bin now, and there aren’t many clubs left with much in the way of budget room. They probably could have moved him a few months ago, but salary dumps in February aren’t easy. It’s an idea worth trying, but they might have to eat a little bit of money in order to convince someone to take him.

On Tuesday, Jon Heyman reported that Davey Johnson really wants Bryce Harper to begin the season as his everyday right fielder. While we don’t have a direct quote from Johnson confirming the story, given the fact that the alternative is some combination of Roger Bernadina, Mike Cameron, and Xavier Paul, it’s understandable that Johnson would prefer the uber-talented Harper in his quest to win games.

Managers always want to put the best players on the field that they can. Their job is to maximize performance in the short term, and given the choice between a raw potential superstar or a mediocre role player with limited upside, they’re going to take the kid nearly every time. However, this is also why managers aren’t allowed to make these calls, and Bryce Harper’s opening day assignment will be decided by the team’s front office.

For the Nationals, this should be a pretty easy call. The 19-year-old Harper looks to be a special talent, but even the very best 19-year-olds are generally not great Major League players. In the history of the sport, 16 guys have gotten 100 or more plate appearances in the Majors at age 19 or younger and been above average Major League hitters – the list includes Ty Cobb (134 wRC+), Mickey Mantle (114 wRC+), and Ken Griffey Jr (106 wRC+). If we assume that Harper is that kind of talent, maybe we could pencil him in for a 110 wRC+ or so this season. If he’s more like previous elite teenage prospects B.J. Upton (93 wRC+), Robin Yount (90 wRC+), or Mike Trout (88 wRC+), he’ll likely face his share of struggles and contribute minimal value to the team.

The Nationals simply should not trade team control of Harper’s age-25 season in exchange for getting a few hundred additional at-bats from him this year. The marginal value of having him on the roster from day one is massively outweighed by keeping him from hitting free agency after the 2017 season. Johnson may want Harper, but he shouldn’t get him until June at the earliest.

Jeff Blair of the Globe and Mail had an interesting note in his column today, noting that there’s speculation in Toronto that the Mariners offered Michael Pineda to the Blue Jays in exchange for Brett Lawrie. They passed, and as we all know, the Mariners shipped Pineda to New York for Jesus Montero instead.

So, this brings up an interesting question – who is the more valuable player going forward, Lawrie or Montero? A year ago, Marc Hulet ranked Montero as the fifth best prospect in the game, while Lawrie came in at #35. Baseball America concurred, putting Montero at #3 and Lawrie at #40. Lawrie had a fantastic 2011 season, capped off with a monstrous performance in the Majors, but Montero hit well in his late season call-up as well. His minor league performance wasn’t as impressive, but you have to adjust for the difference in league/park and note that catching generally diminishes offensive numbers, so the gap might not be as large as it might seem on the surface.

Of course, Lawrie looks like he could be a quality defensive third baseman, while Montero offers little in the way of defensive value. Scouts seem to be a bit more sold on Montero’s bat, though, and prior year minor league performances all favor Montero. They’re essentially the same age, and both will be counted on as building blocks of their respective team’s offenses for years to come.

So, that brings up the question – who would you rather have going forward, Lawrie or Montero?

Poll after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

Yesterday, Pat “The Bat” Burrell retired, seeing his playing days end due to a combination of chronic foot problems and a lessening need for a bat-only player who flopped in his one audition as a DH. Burrell finishes his career with 6,520 plate appearances and a .253/.361/.472 line, good for a 117 wRC+ and 21.9 WAR. If you offered nearly any player a 12 year career with those kinds of numbers, they’d probably jump at them, as Burrell had a nice run as a quality player for the Phillies.

However, Burrell wasn’t just any player – he was a member of an exclusive club of players selected #1 overall in the June draft. When you’re taken first overall, expectations are high. You’re not just supposed to be a nice player – you’re supposed to become a star. Anything less could be perceived as a disappointment, and given that Burrell never made an All-Star team and only had two season where he posted a WAR above +3.0, his career could be construed as a failure to live up to those lofty expectations.

Are those expectations fair, though? What is the normal performance for a position player taken with the top overall pick in the draft? I wasn’t sure, so I decided to use the Custom Player List function on the leaderboards to find out.

Read the rest of this entry »

This post is quite a bit shorter than our normal fare here. We’re going to experiment with some quicker news analysis pieces for things that are still churning through the rumor mill. Don’t worry, these pieces won’t take the place of the more in-depth articles you’ve come to expect from the site.

A few weeks ago, I talked about how Roy Oswalt could end up as the steal of the off-season, and noted that he could instantly improve the rotation of nearly every team in baseball.

In fact, there might only be one team where Oswalt wouldn’t represent an upgrade over someone currently penciled into their starting five – that team is the one that Oswalt is meeting with today, and is apparently one of the two teams he wants to play for in 2012.

No team in baseball needs a starting pitcher less than the Texas Rangers. Their starting pitchers combined for +19.8 WAR last year, third most in the Majors, and while they lost C.J. Wilson, they spent roughly $110 million to bring in Yu Darvish and have decided to bring Neftali Feliz to camp as a starting pitcher. Toss in Derek Holland, Colby Lewis, and Matt Harrison, and their rotation doesn’t even have room for Alexi Ogando, who himself probably belongs in a Major League rotation next year.

Oswalt’s a good bet to be a solid starter next year, but the Rangers already have six solid starters at the big league level. If, as rumored, they’d have to either move Harrison to the bullpen or make him available in trade, they should simply say thanks but no thanks. Oswalt makes sense for St. Louis, who have replaceable pitchers at the back-end of their rotation. Texas, though, simply doesn’t need him.

On Friday, I spent some time talking about the change in bullpen usage patterns over the last thirty years, and noted that the shift to more pitchers making shorter appearances hadn’t led to an improvement in performance for relief pitchers in the aggregate. There were a lot of good responses left in the comments, and there’s some useful commentary on the issue over at The Book Blog as well.

Many of the responses focused on a similar point that I didn’t do a very good job addressing – that by focusing on aggregate data, we could miss value being added if the performance in extremely important situations was greatly improved due to the new usage patterns. The results as a whole might be similar, but if the new allocation results in better performance during important situations and worse results when the game is already decided, then teams would be drawing a benefit from using relievers in this manner. William Juliano expressed this view on the issue in a really good post he did at his own blog as a follow-up, and looked into the relative performance of the top tier of relievers from both 1982 and 2011. As expected, he found the quantity-for-quality trade-off, as modern day relief aces are pitching fewer innings but getting somewhat better results in those innings than their counterparts were thirty years ago. The two changes essentially offset, as he notes, and there’s only a small difference in WAR between the 25 best relievers of 1982 and 2011.

Juliano finishes with the following conclusion:

Read the rest of this entry »

Yesterday, Brian Kenny and I spent a few minutes talking about relief pitchers on Clubhouse Confidential, and specifically, about the differences in the role of a middle reliever versus a closer. Both Kenny and I believe that the idea of a “closer mentality” is mostly a myth, but we do spend some time talking about why some guys aren’t cut out for the traditional closer role. If you want to watch the segment, I’ve embedded it after the jump, and will expand on one of the things I said on the show below that.

Read the rest of this entry »

As expected, there were two basic responses to yesterday’s news that the Tigers had agreed to pay Prince Fielder $214 million over the next nine seasons:

1. “That’s just way too much money.”

2. “As long as he helps them win, the cost is irrelevant.”

I’m part of the group that says the former, as I simply don’t think that the Tigers are going to get a very good return on their investment in Fielder, and if they had this kind of money to spend to upgrade their roster, I think there are far better ways they could have used that money to produce a better team overall. However, while I think the second point ignores the fact that signing Fielder wasn’t the only option available to to the Tigers, I understand the desire to focus on total wins rather than cost efficiency. After all, the point of baseball is to win a championship, not to finish first in the $/WAR standings. Efficiency is a method to help create a championship caliber roster, but it isn’t the goal in and of itself.

And, those that argue in favor of the deal are arguing from a premise that holds some truth – the Tigers were absolutely in a position where each marginal win is significantly more valuable than the average. I referenced the win curve theory in the post yesterday, but it’s worth expanding on briefly. If you’re not familiar with the concept of the win curve, this article by Vince Gennaro from 2007 is a good place to start. I’ll highlight one of the important passages:

Read the rest of this entry »