jocketty's legacy: part 1 of 2
a few months ago, Baseball Analysts ran a guest column by dan levitt analyzing terry ryan's performance as the minnesota gm. using win-shares as his unit of measure, levitt counted up --- one transaction at a time --- how much talent ryan brought into the organization (via trade, free agency, etc) and how much talent he let get away. then he added it all up and concluded that ryan's roster management netted the twins about 200 win shares between 1994 and 2005 --- about 18 win shares per year, which translates into an average of 6 wins per season. that's a phenomenal performance --- an 18 win-share player is a borderline all-star. in the comments section, somebody wondered how walt jocketty would fare in such an analysis; you'll find the answer right here.
but before i show you the bottom line, i have to address some problems i have with this methodology. first and foremost, it doesn't account for payroll. since walt jocketty had vastly more financial resources to work with than terry ryan, his decision-making process was completely different; he could afford to trade young players for walk-year stars such as mark mcgwire, jim edmonds, and scott rolen because he knew his owner would bankroll long-term extensions. ryan couldn't even consider trades of that type; he simply didn't have that type of option available. which leads to a second limitation of the methodology, ie it doesn't capture the ability to choose the best move from among a range of available options, which is perhaps the defining measure of a gm's performance. to take one example from walt's career: under this method, jock gets credit for netting 26.4 win shares for the organization via the signing of tino martinez in 2002. in my opinion, that transaction should show up as a debit on the ledger rather than a credit, because jocketty passed up other, better options --- e.g., he could have moved pujols from left field (his home at that time) to 1st base, then signed a free-agent to replace albert in left field. reggie sanders, kenny lofton, johnny damon, and moises alou were available that year; sanders and lofton signed for far less money than tino, alou signed for about the same in dollars and years, and damon signed for a lower annual salary but for one extra season. the most accurate way to evaluate that transaction is to say that jocketty only added 26.4 win shares, but this method doesn't reflect the fact that walt failed to maximize the use of the roster spot and the dollars. it simply credits him for acquiring 26.4 win shares.
finally, this method assigns the gm no credit at all for talent development --- ie, for players who come up through the farm system. i don't think that's fair. while the gm doesn't make individual decisions regarding whom to draft, when to promote them from A to AA, and so forth, he does hire the personnel who make those decisions, and he helps to set the organization's overall priorities and philosophy. he also sets the budget for player procurement at the draft, which as we have seen recently has a major impact on the draft results. and the gm can create or foreclose opportunities for young players. when jocketty brought in sidney ponson in 2006, he closed off an opportunity for wainwright / reyes; when he let supps and weaver and marquis go in 2007, he created opportunities for the same two pitchers. player development is an important part of a gm's responsibility, and this method simply ignores it; talents such as pujols, morris, and drew are treated as accidents, rather than as products of the pipeline the gm helped to create and manage.
levitt acknowledges some of these limitations at the end of his Baseball Analysts piece:
one final note to clarify for you before i show you these numbers: for each player involved in each transaction, this method counts career win-shares remaining. to return to the tino martinez example: when jock signed him in 2002, tino had 48.9 win shares left in his career; that number goes into the "to st louis" column. when tino was traded away in 2004, he had 22.5 win shares remaining; that goes into the "from st louis" column. the net is 26.4 win shares --- that's the number tino delivered while wearing a st louis uniform. got it? i hope so. here's how this method breaks down walt jocketty's tenure as the gm:
| from STL |
to STL |
|
|---|---|---|
| free agents signed | 1156 | |
| waiver claims | 87 | |
| rule V claims | 40 | |
| free agents let go | 624 | |
| waiver losses | 105 | |
| players released | 63 | |
| trades | 1508 | 1742 |
| TOTAL | 2300 | 3025 |
that's counting win shares through the 2007 season. i ran those numbers twice and got the same result. in 13 years as the gm, jocketty's transactions netted 725 win shares for the franchse --- an average annual gain of 56 win shares, or roughly 19 wins a season. now, before we get carried away with our praise of the departed gm, realize that the vast majority of that surplus --- a net gain of 532 win shares --- is accounted for by free-agent comings/goings, which are as much the owner's doing as the gm's. i'll also note that jocketty's stellar record in the trade market --- plus 234 win shares --- was built largely on 2 deals for players who were headed into free agency and only stayed with st louis because the owners ponied up for costly extensions (ie, they were de facto free-agent acquisitions). those 2 trades --- for mcgwire and edmonds --- netted 162 win shares for the cardinals. all the rest of walt's exchanges brought an aggregate of 72 win shares into the organization, which is still an outstanding performance (worth nearly 2 wins per year) but not quite so breathtaking.
now here's the next caveat: the ticker is still running on many of these transactions, and the drift is not in jocketty's favor. for most players, the effects will cancel each other out; each win share that jeff suppan earns from here on out will be counted both as a win share that jocketty gained (by signing supps in 2004) and a win share lost (by allowing supps to leave in 2007). guys like rolen and edmonds and eckstein fall into that same boat. but the talent walt traded away from within the organization --- that's gonna kill him. dan haren and daric barton will be adding to his debit column for years and years and years; there's a chance those two alone will wipe out his entire win-share advantage in trades. players like coco crisp and jd drew and placido polanco and even dmitri young and matt morris are still out there racking up win shares in jocketty's "from st louis" column while adding nothing to his "to st louis" total. of course, wainwright will help to counteract that, and whatever carpenter has left will also accrue to walt's credit, along with the win-share scraps kicked in by ludwick, looper, miles, spiezio and franklin. if there is a single, solitary win share left in mark mulder's arm, the greater walt jocketty's glory.
on thursday i'll take a closer look at this record, take it apart year by year and identify the most advantageous and disadvantageous individual transactions.
0 recs |
27 comments
Comments
The methodology doesn't convince me
by StanTheManFan on Feb 12, 2008 9:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
re walt's development record
jack wilson
adam kennedy
matt morris
albert pujols
jd drew
dmitri young
coco crisp
and a number of others who may yet reach that total
dan haren
daric barton
chris duncan
yadi molina
colby rasmus
that's about 1 100-win-share player per year of jock's oversight --- not a terrible record at all.
by lboros on Feb 12, 2008 10:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You forgot Polanco
Dave
by Sydney dave on Feb 12, 2008 12:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure
by eglasier on Feb 12, 2008 9:55 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Not a huge WJ fan, but
I still maintain that WJ was deficient in two of the main three responsibilities of a GM: player development and free agent signings. The other responsibility, trades, he was pretty good most years except for buying the somewhat obviously damaged Mulder.
by giveml on Feb 12, 2008 10:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
but giveml,
i would agree with you that he didn't always go after the free agents i wanted him to. but based on these numbers, i have a hard time characterizing him as "deficient."
by lboros on Feb 12, 2008 10:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It is always possible that I am either confused or
I guess I need to get with the program. Given the comments above about WJ's prowess on draft day maybe I am just a grouchy old hater. I do think the draft analysis is somewhat suspect. I asked some time ago who would have the best teams if we composed all-star teams based solely on the organization that originally drafted the player.
I would be surprised if we were in the top half of that, especially if you include a 4/5 man rotation as part of the challenge.
by giveml on Feb 12, 2008 7:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd like to see
by vinniefromjersey on Feb 12, 2008 11:05 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
that would be a tremendous job
by lboros on Feb 12, 2008 11:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I ran the numbers a couple of years ago
Here are the two articles:
http://stlcardinals.scout.com/2/559433.html
http://stlcardinals.scout.com/2/569616.html
All the stats were through the end of the 2005 season, so they are a bit dated--but it's clear the Cards under Walt were one of the best teams at drafting based on the major league performance of the players drafted.
I've been meaning to do a followup using Win Shares but I've never taken the time to do it (and given a change in the draft stats at bbref.com, it will be more difficult).
I can tell you the Cards drafting four players with over 1,000 hits during Walt's era--Wilson, Albert, Drew, and Kennedy--and that is better than any other team.
Heck, by drafting Albert alone, the Cards probably did better than half the teams--but as the articles note, the Cards would still rate highly even if they hadn't drafted Albert.
When you combine the Win Share advantage you note above, plus the advantage gained in the draft, is it suprising the Cards were successful from 2000 to 2006? Not to me.
Dave
by Sydney dave on Feb 12, 2008 11:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
interesting articles
I guess one reason is that so many of the players drafted by the Cards that made a name for themselves did so for another team. JD Drew, Jack Wilson, A. Kennedy, Coco, Dan Haren, Politte. It stings a little when you know that fellow putting up the video game numbers could have been wearing the BOB.
by cdb on Feb 12, 2008 12:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The grass is always greener on the other side
Part of the issue is fans hear about other team's prospects and assume they are producing players hand over fist--only when you look at the roster of other teams, you don't see a lot of players they have drafted. Atlanta has had a great rep of drafting pitchers, yet the best they have drafted of the past ten years have probably been Marquis and Wainwright.
As I note in the article, Mike Shannon always talks about the Giants drafting hitters. Over the last decade, they have been absolutely horrible at drafting batters, which is why they are such an old team.
When you actually run the numbers, the Cards have done extremely well--but most people haven't run the numbers (and the St. Louis sportswriters, as a whole, have not--so all you hear is typically negative).
As to Cards' draftees playing for other teams, that's water over the dam. Drafted players are chips to be used. Kennedy got Edmonds; you make that trade 10 times out of 10. Drew got us Adam and three years of Marquis (two good ones), two reasonable years of King (and Aaron Miles, who is maligned, but he is by far not the worst backup IF in MLB). Wilson didn't have a spot (Renteria had him blocked), so trading him was a benefit to him--same with Crisp.
If you look at the potential 2008 lineup, the list is dotted with Cards' draftees--Yadi, Albert, Kennedy, Ankiel, Duncan, and perhaps Ryan, Schumaker, and Rasmus. Yet the perception is the Cards have not drafted well.
Part of that is because the Cards have done so well, they have drafted later in the first round, and it's harder to draft a Joe Mauer unless you are drafting in the top five or ten. The blue-chip, high ceiling studs are the ones that make a teams' drafting reputation--and ignores guys like Duncan who come up and hit far better than a lot of the top five guys.
Dave
by Sydney dave on Feb 12, 2008 12:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Eck, Rolen and Edmonds
Add this to your list of methodology problems, since Walt is effectively being rewarded or penalized for decisions that are no longer his. Perhaps WJ would have re-signed David. He might have kept Jimmy or failed to find a suitable trade partner for Scott. For that matter he could have flipped Wainwright for Matt Morris...who knows.
I understand why to continue to calculate WS for players who the GM sent away (in whatever form) but we don't know if the win shares from Edmonds or Rolen would have counted for or against Jock if he were still around. We're essentially assuming that whatever moves were made subsequently would have been the exact moves he would have made had he been around...or am I reading this wrong?
by Martini Agonistes on Feb 12, 2008 11:59 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Also
I love much of the stats work done here, but I'm not convinced that the best way to measure/compare Jocketty to other GMs isn't to simply count his 7 or 8 playoff appearances, 2 pennants, and 1 WS.
by ahunter on Feb 12, 2008 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
my mistake
thanks for correcting that ---- my apologies for the confusion.
by lboros on Feb 12, 2008 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Edmonds Best trade, Mulder Worst trade for Walt
- 29
- 30
- 29
- 22
- 33
- 25
The Mulder deal looks like the worst trade, with Mulder's last three years producing 13, 1 and 0 win shares and Haren 13, 14 and 17.
by DYNASTYLeagueBaseballMike on Feb 12, 2008 12:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Great article
by sdrone on Feb 12, 2008 1:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Very interesting...
I never see anyone talking about this and I'm wondering if it is a topic that has been proven wrong or if it is just too unprovable to discuss (I don't know of any numbers that could prove this either way.
Just because Colby Rasmus might be our best option in centerfield this year, isn't there a logically theory that building confidence in AAA (while learning in a more forgiving environment), is the right path for him? Sometimes aggressive promotion is not the right choice (especially with pitchers like Wainright who may find it easier to develop other pitches in less competitive environtments, etc.).
There have been a lot of can't miss prospects who miss. Could the Cardinals past promotion strategy be the reason why they mine more from less?
by MRCARD on Feb 12, 2008 1:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I never liked the WS methodology
by Zubin on Feb 12, 2008 3:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
off topic
the new sb nation platform went up today at Athletics Nation go check it out.
by stlcardinalsfang on Feb 12, 2008 4:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
i like the look, i guess
We've simplified the tagging system. The big change here is that only the authors of stories or FanPosts (diaries) can add tags to their posts...
by _pistol_ on Feb 12, 2008 5:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
couchy language
With admirable reserve, he tightened his jaws enough to call the Tino Martinez signing a possible debit rather than a credit.
LB's measured temerity is admirable, but I do not suffer from having such a quality, so I deign to say it for him: Martinez' arrival was a first-class DEE-zaster.
Not just because of TM's crappy contribution, but also how it clogged up the pipes. I'm not saying I was smart enough to think of it back then, but it's a very interesting (and positive) fantasy to imagine how much better, and more settled, we would have been to get Albert on 1b a few years earlier.
If Tino Martinez has any sense, he is presently rooting for Adam Kennedy to play another full season with the Birds. Then he may ease down from his spot of top of the list.
by the Tewk on Feb 12, 2008 5:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Fine analysis
by Hungry Jack on Feb 12, 2008 5:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Walt should get more love
Backing out of the details and looking at the entire WJ tenure, I'm always a little surprised by the frequent criticism of Walt by various well-intentioned, intelligent and passionate VEB posters.
Maybe it's the only one championship or the Mulder trade or the 2004 World Series but I tend to be very grateful to Walt for fabulously ending the nightmare that was St. Louis Baseball 1988 thru 95. That was seven years of hell.
Granted, alot of folks had their hand in the hell (indifferent ownership) and many had their hand in the heaven (TLR, Pujols) but I can think of no one that had a bigger influence on the last wonderful 11 years than Walt. By the way, with no Walt there may have been no LaRussa or Duncan.
The 2006 inexplicate championship was likely the baseball gods way of rewarding Walt for a job well done and a great stretch of regular season baseball where we kicked some serious National League tail.
All praise to Walt!
by Hinkster on Feb 12, 2008 7:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Totally Agree
by flynn on Feb 13, 2008 10:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Totally agree with totally agree
by Hinkster on Feb 13, 2008 12:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs



















