Zduriencik Is the New Beane

[Ennder]

We most certainly have needed innings each of the 3 years Suppan has been here. When we signed him I said I understand why we did it and that we actually needed a starter, I just thought we gave him way too much money because of his peripherals. This team would be in a very ugly place if we hadn't signed Suppan and hadn't replaced those innings with another player though. That is the entire point of an 'innings eater'. Just someone to soak up some innings while your guys progress in the minors.

 

What we needed most last year was another major league arm. Parra could have gone down earlier and stayed down longer. Bush could have gone on the DL much earlier than he did instead of trying to pitch through it. Suppan could have rehabbed longer before coming back after his injury. Just having another starter capable of coming up probably would have lopped at least a quarter run off our ERA if not a half run even if he just pitched at replacement level.

 

We absolutely need another arm going into this year, even if it just a Mulder type that will give us uncertain results.

[TheCrew07]

I thought Hall was fine in CF, especially after the first month or so. You'll also find lots of people go by stuff like "getting turned around", but that is meaningless if they catch the ball.

So let me this get this straight... A jump on the ball doesn't matter until it matters? So I guess Braun is a good fielder until he isn't or Soriano is good fielder until he isn't? How is that logic even defensible? Even if you get to a ball and catch it your feet may not be set as well as they otherwise could be if you had time to circle the ball thus allowing a runner to move up on a weak throw, maybe it adversely affects the accuracy of a throw, etc... it could affect any number of variables on given play other than catching the ball or not. This is one aspect of baseball and outfield play that's pretty black and white, either you get a good jump or you don't, and it certainly has an effect beyond just catching the ball or not.

 

By the quoted logic you could say just about anything... it doesn't matter if you miss the cutoff man until a runner takes an extra base, it doesn't matter if you throw ahead of the lead runner until the runner behind him takes an extra base, it doesn't matter how you grip a ball until you airmail a throw, it doesn't matter if you get your glove down until a ball goes under, and so on. If you're a professional, someone who's paid to play the game, you'd better be able to execute the routine or you are opening yourself up to criticism, well deserved criticism in my opinion.

 

There is absolutely some natural aptitude involved, some guys just have a knack for it, but that certainly doesn't excuse poor fundamentals on regular basis.

[danzig6767]

I thought Hall was fine in CF, especially after the first month or so. You'll also find lots of people go by stuff like "getting turned around", but that is meaningless if they catch the ball.

So let me this get this straight... A jump on the ball doesn't matter until it matters? So I guess Braun is a good fielder until he isn't or Soriano is good fielder until he isn't? How is that logic even defensible? Even if you get to a ball and catch it your feet may not be set as well as they otherwise could be if you had time to circle the ball thus allowing a runner to move up on a weak throw, maybe it adversely affects the accuracy of a throw, etc... it could affect any number of variables on given play other than catching the ball or not. This is one aspect of baseball and outfield play that's pretty black and white, either you get a good jump or you don't, and it certainly has an effect beyond just catching the ball or not.

 

By the quoted logic you could say just about anything... it doesn't matter if you miss the cutoff man until a runner takes an extra base, it doesn't matter if you throw ahead of the lead runner until the runner behind him takes an extra base, it doesn't matter how you grip a ball until you airmail a throw, it doesn't matter if you get your glove down until a ball goes under, and so on. If you're a professional, someone who's paid to play the game, you'd better be able to execute the routine or you are opening yourself up to criticism, well deserved criticism in my opinion.

 

There is absolutely some natural aptitude involved, some guys just have a knack for it, but that certainly doesn't excuse poor fundamentals on regular basis.

Yea, guys with good natural instincts in the outfield who don't run around in circles are guys who get to balls that the less instinctual ones miss by a few feet and end up rolling to the wall. It won't get called an error because it's not an error, instead it's just the case of a subpar defensive outfielder who is unable to get to balls the better ones do.

 

Watching Cameron in his time here, he had fine speed, but what made him a special defender was the way the minute a ball was hit in his direction, he just instinctively knew the precise route/angle to take to for tracking the ball. Thus, he'd make catches without having to dive for that a guy like Hall would fail to get to because he wasn't able often enough to read a ball off the bat instantly. That split second of indecision is often the difference between a ball in the gap or a deep fly hitting the ground/wall instead of being caught. Andruw Jones before he got fat was the best i ever saw reading balls off the bat and making catches look simple that would have better made to look tough for lesser centerfielders.

[rluzinski]

There's tremendous value in healthy league average pitching. A starter like that might be worth oh, say, $10 million a year. At least that was about right in the market where Suppan was signed.

 

I simply don't understand why people act like the value of an "innings eater" is somehow magical. The value of ANYTHING is its quality times its quantity. In this case, "quality is measured as the difference between Suppan and the alternative. The worse case alternative is the AAAA scrub. A 5.5 ERA is often used for them but the exact ERA is certainly up for debate.

 

Suppan had averaged about a 4.65 FIP the previous 3 years before being signed, which made many of us concerned that his averagish ERA was helped by the Cardinals very good defense. But let's presume that Suppan WAS an average starting pitcher going into the 2007 season (I didn't think he was). Let's also assume that $10.5 mil per year was the going rate for an average starting pitcher (it wasn't). Suppan was 32 years old! As a GM, you simply HAVE to assume his production is going to get worse over the course of his contract. And no matter how durable one presumes a starting pitcher to be, to project a 30 something pitcher to average 190 (or whatever) innings over a four year deal is setting yourself up to be wrong. It's just not going to happen.

 

Even is you assume Suppan's makeup (crafty soft-tosser) suggested Suppan would age gracefully, there's no way you or anyone could have thought he was going to be average in 2010. I sure hope not.

 

As for Hall, my mistake. His UZR doesn't "prove" he was an above average CFer that year but it suggests I was wrong to call him bad. In the broader sense, I think Melvin has shown a disregard for defense above and beyond the average team. I could throw a bunch of anecdotal evidence out there but there's no real point. It's just my opinion.

 

For the record, I'm not suggesting I think Melvin is a bad GM that needs to be replaced. Maybe he's an average one. But there are such terrible GMs out there at I can appreciate the value of average in this case. I just wish Melvin would get better.

[Ennder]

I know at least one of the systems showed Hall as one of the worst defensive CF in baseball the year he played it. So there is certainly room for interpretation on his abilities out there. Pretty sure plus/minus absolutely hated him out there.

[joepepsi]

I simply don't understand why people act like the value of an "innings eater" is somehow magical. The value of ANYTHING is its quality times its quantity. In this case, "quality is measured as the difference between Suppan and the alternative. The worse case alternative is the AAAA scrub. A 5.5 ERA is often used for them but the exact ERA is certainly up for debate.

 

Suppan had averaged about a 4.65 FIP the previous 3 years before being signed, which made many of us concerned that his averagish ERA was helped by the Cardinals very good defense. But let's presume that Suppan WAS an average starting pitcher going into the 2007 season (I didn't think he was). Let's also assume that $10.5 mil per year was the going rate for an average starting pitcher (it wasn't). Suppan was 32 years old! As a GM, you simply HAVE to assume his production is going to get worse over the course of his contract. And no matter how durable one presumes a starting pitcher to be, to project a 30 something pitcher to average 190 (or whatever) innings over a four year deal is setting yourself up to be wrong. It's just not going to happen.

In three years with the Brewers he's averaged 182 innings a season. So, really, it did kinda happen.

[kramnoj]

Here is a blog that I remember from after the 07 season when Cameron was signed. http://skyking162.com/2008/01/mike-cameron-savior/

 

Based on data available at that time, Hall was considederd a poor defender, -5 to -15. My recollection was that Hall started poorly and started to improve. I believe UZR was using a different data set at the time, which is why some of us have memories of Hall rating poorly, despite now showing a positive rating for that season (that of course provides reason for some to doubt def metrics, but that's another topic).

 

IIRC, the Brewers had 3 positions where they ranked last defensively for 2007, CF, 3B and 2B. One of the ways that Melvin tried to improve the 2008 pitching was by improving the defense.

[Postseason2006]

I totally like what Jack Z has done this offseason. And this argument about giving up these top prospects for one year is laughable. The Brewers gave up two top prospects for less than half a season of CC so consequentially 2 = less than half is > than 3 = 1 year. Speculation and rumor is that Lee may still sign in Seattle. Even if he hits FA, there is the possibility that Lee will be the highest rated player in FA which means Yankees, Red Sox or whomever will have to give up their first round pick.

[marty22]

Sorry if someone has already noted this here, but I find it very amusing that Jack Z is being labled as a "Pitching/Defense guy" after all the all-bat/no-glove picks he made here and the dearth of pitching prospects he left us with. Very interesting.

[BREWCREW5]

Jack Z is loved here. He can do no wrong.

 

The man just traded for Milton Bradley and he is being honored here. Wow.

[MJLiverock]

I look at the Mariners as the winner mainly because he trade a horrid pitcher with a bad contract for a decent player with a bad attitude and contract. He at least has some upside with Bradley being a decent player, Silva was bad with no upside.

[BREWCREW5]

Can anyone explain why Silva has been so bad? The guy was pretty good pitching in the AL in 2007.

 

2007 was also a contract year.

[Ennder]

Can anyone explain why Silva has been so bad? The guy was pretty good pitching in the AL in 2007.

 

2007 was also a contract year.

2008 he had bad luck with BABIP and LOB% and 2009 he was hurt. His xFIP trend from 2006-2008 was 4.81, 4.57, 4.64 which is really steady. In 2009 it jumped up to 5.53 but it was only 30 IP and he was hurt.

[rluzinski]

This contract year silliness has to stop. Players do not perform better in contract years than they otherwise would be expected to.

[BREWCREW5]

This contract year silliness has to stop. Players do not perform better in contract years than they otherwise would be expected to.

 

For some players certainly.

 

You are silly if you dont think they are going to train harder, work harder in games, stay longer in games and be more focused when they are going into a contract year. It is human nature my friend.

[Invader3K]

Have their been any studies to show if players actually do perform above their career norms in contract years or not?

[Funketown]

I've never really seen anything worthwhile on the subject of career years, but I would guess that on average baseball players put up slightly better numbers in their contract years than other years. There may be something about players working harder, etc., and it wouldn't surprise me at all if they did. The reason I think you'd see a slight improvement in numbers in the contract years is that many of these 'contract years' are the players' sixth or seventh full seasons, which are typically when the player is in their prime, and should be producing at their highest level regardless of contract year. I don't have anything formal to back that notion up, but I'd be willing to bet it holds a little weight.

 

As for the classic Adrian Beltre career year, which is the one I always think of, I don't that it being a contract year was what drove that performance. Heck, if Joe Mauer had been in his contract year last year, a lot of people probably would have called it a career year (Yes, I know how absurdly good Joe Mauer is at playing baseball, but his 2009 season was unbelievable).

[kramnoj]

Players do not perform better in contract years than they otherwise would be expected to.

 

Players as a whole? No. Have some players done so? Obviously.

 

Players aren't random number generators. Their performance will vary based on all kinds of factors. It would be strange to believe that some humans don't put forth full effort 100% of the time and will seek to improve themselves when a huge payout could be a reward.

[TooLiveBrew]

Have their been any studies to show if players actually do perform above their career norms in contract years or not?

Baseball Prospectus's book, Baseball Between the Numbers, studied this. Iirc they actually did find an uptick in player production.

[Thurston Fluff]

I look at the Mariners as the winner mainly because he trade a horrid pitcher with a bad contract for a decent player with a bad attitude and contract. He at least has some upside with Bradley being a decent player, Silva was bad with no upside.

 

Bradley is a 12 year veteran he is not going to get better than what he has been. He has all of 4 years in his career where he played more than 100 games. That is essentially a part time player. I think there is some argument to be made that a guy who has some value as a 5 the starter is as good as a part time player. Especially when the 5th starter is aquired for that part time player and a portion of his contract is paid for by the team getting a part time player with a bad attitude.

Garbage for garbage.

 

 

 

If a player is in it for the money I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him work harder in a contract year. I also think during the Steroid era there was a number of players willing to take them for one year to get a better contract. I think for the large majority of players it's a non factor. It's why a team has to know what type of player they are spending moeny on.

[rluzinski]

For some players certainly.

 

Some players do better, some players do worse, some players do about the same. How does that begin to prove that performance correlates to a player's contract status?

 

You are silly if you dont think they are going to train harder, work harder in games, stay longer in games and be more focused when they are going into a contract year. It is human nature my friend.

 

The majority of players who are being hyped in their contract years are soon to be, first time free agent players. For almost as long as they played baseball, they have had the dream of making the majors. And the closer they got, the harder they worked and the more focused they got. When they finally did get there, they worked their buts off to stay there. After a couple of years, they were finally a year away from being arbitration eligible. The first chance to be a millionaire! They must have worked even harder and been even MORE focused! But after that first taste, they realized more hard work and focus would equal an even larger paydays in their second and third year or arbitration.

 

Finally, it's the year before they become a free agent. Are you telling me that it should be obvious that not only will the player train even harder and be even more focused, but that the extra hard work and focus will translate into even greater performance? I don't think that's a common sense conclusion at all. If you simply mean that after years of the athlete maximizing his on field performance, we should expect a noticeable drop off the first year of his new contract, I find that much more reasonable. But the plausibility of a theory is not evidence, nor is a mountain of cherry picked, anecdotal evidence. A systematic study is needed.

 

Here is a slideshow from one such study, which also includes a summary of some previous studies:

 

http://www.philbirnbaum.com/freeagent.ppt

 

While it's hardly a settled matter, there is not some obvious and significant "contract year" effect that can be seen from a mile away. I would not be surprised if some professional althletes' performances suffer through lack of effort after a contract year. But there simply is not enough evidence to conclude that there is a systematic effect. If you want to point to an individual player and suggest that his new contract MAY have factored in a drop in his permance the following year, great. When can speculate all day long.

[BREWCREW5]

I dont think anyone here is saying that EVERY time someone is in a contract year they will somehow magically perform better because of it.

 

Im not sure if you think that is what I am arguing. What originally started this is that you wrote "this contract year silliness needs to stop". I do not agree.

 

Some players/people are going to play harder and prepare better when they know that a several million dollar, guaranteed contract is on the line. Now, once that large, guaranteed contract is signed maybe one does not feel as inclined to take extra batting pratice, work out as hard, dive for that ball, etc.

Because not many of us personally know many of these players, at times, bringing up a possible "contract year" result, such as I did with Silva, should be brought up.

[Thurston Fluff]

For comparison's sake I looked up Jeffery Hammonds career totals. He had a .787 OPS and 4 years where he played more than 100 games. Bradley has an .821 OPS with 4 seasons over 100 games played. I realize 34 points difference is no small matter but given the rest of his issues I think they would both have close to the same impact on a team. Unless of course a person thinks attitude has no impact what so ever. Then Bradley is the clearly the better choice. I don't think it matters except in a few extreme cases. Bradley is one of those IMHO.

[TooLiveBrew]

I finally gave in & checked Baseball Btw. the Numbers. Forgive me for only quoting, as my math skills are rudimentary at best. If anyone really wanted to get the ins & outs of the calculations, either buy/check out the book, or shoot me a PM & I'd be happy to detail what methodology is given.

 

Dayn Perry authored the chapter on Free Agents' performance. He presented a table entitled "Percent of Players Peaking in Walk Year, Before, or After, 1976-2000, Top Free Agents". He utilized WARP for player performance.

 

 

Players Peaking

• WY: 37.7%
• WY-1: 34.0%
• WY+1: 28.3%
   
  

According to this table, players: (1) perform better in their walk years, (2) do so at an age that doesn't lend itself to peaking, and (3) perform better in their walk years than they do in their pre- or postwalk seasons. Whether this phenomenon is a function of accident, unconscious design, or willful self-interest is impossible to say, but the trend in manifest. Of course, WARP is a measure that's dependent, to some extent on playing time. ... it's possible that players, rather than actually performing at a higher level during walk years, merely soldier on, playing through minor injuries and fatigue that might have sidelined them in other seasons.

He then presents another table, "Average Games Played/Pitched in Walk Year, Before, or After, 1976-2000, Top Free Agents"

 

 

Average games played/pitched

• WY: 89.2
• WY-1: 82.9
• 
  
• WY+1: 84.4
   
  

Indeed, players do play or pitch in more games in their walk years, by a margin of 6.3 over their prewalk seasons and 4.8 over postwalk seasons. The bump in playing time explains away part of the walk-year WARP advantage, but, in light of what we learned about average age and the degree of the WARP edge, it's not enough to nullify the trend completely.

 

Everything I've cited here is from p.202 in the book. Also, I'm not sure why that last bullet point won't format correctly. I typed it in exactly the same as the other 5... so to any mod, help would be appreciated http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[rluzinski]

Some players/people are going to play harder and prepare better when they know that a several million dollar, guaranteed contract is on the line. Now, once that large, guaranteed contract is signed maybe one does not feel as inclined to take extra batting pratice, work out as hard, dive for that ball, etc.

Because not many of us personally know many of these players, at times, bringing up a possible "contract year" result, such as I did with Silva, should be brought up.

 

If you were simply bringing it up as a possibility, fair enough. Anything is possible, so it's impossible to rule it out. I just find the whole "contract year" theory pretty unpersuasive in general (beyond playing time) and Silva's 2007 performance as a weak "contract year" candidate overall.

 

If anyone really wanted to get the ins & outs of the calculations, either buy/check out the book, or shoot me a PM & I'd be happy to detail what methodology is given.

 

Consider yourself shot. What is his data set? Is this the study that focused on "prominent free agents"? How did he define that, exactly?