King's Ransom: Holliday's Similars
What was going to be a two-part look at giving a "King's Ransom" for a soon-to-be 30-year-old outfielder has been blown away by VEB's response to my initial King's Ransom: Are Left Fielders Worth It? Fanpost. What was meant as a cautionary tale for throwing contracts long in years and high in dollars at players who are entering their decline years by showcasing two free agent conquests still under contract with our division rivals, the Cubs and Astros, quickly exploded, and I saw the error of my ways. Matt Holliday is not Alfonso Soriano. But, it's much more than that. The two aren't even really all that similar types of players, despite the fact that they both play left field. In my opinion, Holliday is a bit more similar to El Caballo, but that doesn't say much, does it? The comparisons between Holliday, Lee, and Soriano aren't really all that apt (even if the duo's albatross contracts and Holliday's forthcoming deal might make the three all too similar come 2013, at least for the winner of the Holliday sweepstakes).
Baseball-Reference.com has "Similarity Scores" available for free on its wonderful website, and the founder explains the concept of the Sim Score like so:
Bill James introduced them nearly 15 years ago, and I lifted his methodology from his book The Politics of Glory (p. 86-106). To compare one player to another, start at 1000 points and then you subtract points based on the statistical differences of each player.
For batters, you subtract a point based on the following:
One point for each difference of 20 games played. One point for each difference of 75 at bats. One point for each difference of 10 runs scored. One point for each difference of 15 hits. One point for each difference of 5 doubles. One point for each difference of 4 triples. One point for each difference of 2 home runs. One point for each difference of 10 RBI. One point for each difference of 25 walks. One point for each difference of 150 strikeouts. One point for each difference of 20 stolen bases. One point for each difference of .001 in batting average. One point for each difference of .002 in slugging percentage.
There is also a positional adjustment involved, but I won't dally on that. (Baseball-Reference.com has everything you would want to know.) What I will point out is that there is a Career Sim Score, and that this score can then be broken down with a "career to age" function and then one showing players with similar career numbers from an age of your choosing to age 40. (So, you can't compare anyone to Barry Bonds, Julio Franco, or Roger Clemens, because, ya know, they played into their 40s.)
CAREER SIMILARS
Matt Holliday's Career Similars, starting with most similar, are as follows:
1) David Wright
2) Jason Bay
4) Johnny Frederick
6) Chase Utley
8) Lefty O'Doul
9) George Selkirk
10) Hank Leiber
First of all, let me just say, "Wow." Look at the Similars amongst Holliday's contemporaries. Wright, Bay, Matsui, Miggy, Utley, and Sizemore. That's quite a list. Of course, getting the production Wright's club is getting from him at third and Utley's from second, what with their defense and all, makes those two much more valuable, in my opinion, but, nonetheless, that's impressive company to be keeping for one's offensive production. If you doubt that Matt Holliday is worth a top dollar contract, this should give you cause to reassess your valuation of him. That said, it's not surprising that when we do a Career Sim, we get a fair number of contemporaries, roughly the same age, as these players have all been offensive forces through the primes of their respective careers. Lets look at Holliday's top comparables through Age 28 (the oldest sortable age for him) and then see how those Similars performed moving forward, from Age 30 through Age 36 (a ballpark for the length of Holliday's forthcoming contract).
SIMILARS THROUGH AGE 28
Here is the list of the top 10 players with offensive numbers most similar to Matt Holliday's through their Age 28 season:
1) Wally Berger
4) Chick Hafey
5) Dave Parker
6) Fred Lynn
7) Larry Walker
8) Tim Salmon
9) Bobby Abreu
10) Mike Sweeney
A very helpful feature on Baseball-Reference.com allows us to take this group of Similars and then compare their offensive cummulative production from, say, Age 30 (Holliday's 2010 seasonal age) to the end of their respective careers. But, for our purposes, I'm going to break the players down for each season of production from Age 30 on, since that is the age Holliday will be in the first year of his gigantic new contract.
RUNS CREATED
We will begin by looking at Runs Created, partly inspired by Michael Jong's wonderful post, "Runs Created: A First Step," over at Into Sabermetrics 101 (and further inspired by Baseball-Reference.com providing Runs Created on its "More Stats" page). I think it is a post worth reading for anyone, but especially for folks who are a little fuzzy, or, completely ignorant, as to "Runs Created" as a stat. It also has some must-read links to other pieces on Runs Created within the post itself. Jong describes "the advantage" of Runs Created as a stat:
Runs Created is derived from a fairly simple formula that is also dynamic rather than linear, which better reflects how baseball runs are scored, and it boasts low acceptable errors across the span of MLB talent and the course of a full season at the team level.
Jong also discusses the problems. An excerpt:
...the critical problem with RC: it is not an intuitive model on how baseball works, but rather a model that reflects the context and environment of a normal MLB season. In other words, RC does a fine job predicting "normal" major league teams, but struggles at the extremes because its basic formula is not actually grounded in baseball realism, but rather modeled based on MLB results.
The excerpts of the post which I have chosen by no means do the post or the stat justice. Let me repeat my recommendation that you read up on the stat, if it is new to you.
Here is a chart (thank you, Flim) showing the Runs Created for Holliday's top 10 Similars, beginning with their Age 30 and through their Age 36 seasons respectively. If the player is a currently active player who has not yet played a season, that is denoted by a question mark. If the player retired, or, did not play a season due to injury, there is a dash.
| Player | Age 30 | Age 31 | Age 32 | Age 33 | Age 34 | Age 35 | Age 36 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wally Berger | 91 | 57 | 73 | 48 | 7 | - | - |
| Chick Hafey | 83 | 90 | 12 | - | 37 | - | - |
| Lance Berkman | 144 | 115 | 137 | 96 | ? | ? | ? |
| Magglio Ordonez | 33 | 48 | 96 | 152 | 96 | 72 | ? |
| Dave Parker | 30 | 34 | 67 | 80 | 112 | 94 | 77 |
| Hack Wilson | 192 | 62 | 94 | 50 | 27 | - | - |
| Fred Lynn | 91 | 76 | 90 | 70 | 69 | 58 | 55 |
| Mike Sweeney | 71 | 81 | 34 | 32 | 16 | 36 | ? |
| Tim Salmon | 69 | 128 | 73 | 98 | 96 | 20 | - |
| Larry Walker | 187 | 130 | 143 | 64 | 155 | 123 | 98 |
Now, here is a table (thank you, Braken) demonstrating the average Runs Created by Seasonal Age for the Top 10 Holliday Similars. A large grain of salt to consider is the fact that, as the top 10 ages, fewer of them contribute to the average. Some retired before Age 36 and others have not played their Age 36 Season just yet. So, that "average" is of three players.
A fitting graph, since skiing season is upon us (I think, but am not sure, because I'm from Iowa, where we don't really have hills, let alone mountains). Because the Age 36 average comes from three players, I'm certainly not using it as a basis to demand that the Cardinals give Holliday that seventh year because his production is certain to increase after Age 34 and 35 seasons which are worth nowhere near the $20MM salary he will command. Nonetheless, we'll take a look at the downward slope of offensive production after we take a glance at his Similars' OPS+ by seasonal age.
OPS+
Quite conveniently, Yahoo! Sports' Big League Stew blog just did a primer on OPS+ this week, when this Fanpost was half-done on my SBN Dashboard. I highly recommend reading this post, as I think it does a good job of exploring the OPS+ pros and cons (undervaluing OBP as compared to SLG, for example).
If you have access to baseball-reference.com, which automatically calculates OPS+, it gets rid of your need for OPS. OPS+ does share the core weakness of OPS — namely, it gives equal value to both OBP and SLG, though sabermetricians agree that, point by point, OBP is a more valuable stat than slugging.
But because OPS+ incorporates league average and park factors into the calculation, it makes comparing one player to another much easier, both for a single year and across leagues and different eras. For example, Mickey Mantle and Albert Pujols have the same career OPS+ (172) while Babe Ruth is the career leader with a whopping 207 mark.
I chose this excerpt because we all have access to Baseball-Reference, which already has OPS+ and Runs Created calculated. I'm just utilizing the ready-made stats that they have over at their wonderful site. I also included it because it shows how great Albert Pujols is, and how good Matt Holliday is as a hitter. However, even his 168 OPS+ during his torrid time as a Cardinal does not stack up to Albert Pujols's career average (El Hombre had an OPS+ 188 this season. Just give him $300MM already...)
Again, my plucking of this portion of the post in no way does it justice. If you need to butch up on OPS+, give it a read.
Here are the Top 10's OPS+ by Seasonable Age:
| Player | Age 30 | Age 31 | Age 32 | Age 33 | Age 34 | Age 35 | Age 36 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wally Berger | 131 | 140 | 128 | 107 | 118 | - | - |
| Chick Hafey | 121 | 122 | 150 | - | 112 | - | - |
| Lance Berkman | 163 | 130 | 159 | 139 | ? | ? | ? |
| Magglio Ordonez | 114 | 113 | 112 | 166 | 129 | 109 | ? |
| Dave Parker | 105 | 113 | 97 | 104 | 149 | 117 | 92 |
| Hack Wilson | 178 | 112 | 141 | 117 | 104 | - | - |
| Fred Lynn | 143 | 129 | 131 | 117 | 137 | 113 | 118 |
| Mike Sweeney | 117 | 127 | 102 | 88 | 97 | 106 | ? |
| Tim Salmon | 119 | 135 | 98 | 133 | 122 | 67 | - |
| Larry Walker | 178 | 158 | 163 | 110 | 160 | 150 | 121 |
Most of the players had their best season at Age 30. (Look at Hack Wilson, for example.) The average of the group is 140 for their Age 30 season. Matt Holliday had an OPS+ of 139 for the 2009 season as a whole, and of 158 during his time playing with the birds on the bat adorning his chest. His career best is 151, during the magical '07 run into "Rocktober," but he has generally been in the 130s, often just below 140. In fact, he'll probably be right around his Top 10 Similars Age 30 seasonal average in his Age 30 season. Here is how the Top 10's OPS+ has averaged through their Age 36 seasons. (The large grain of salt mentioned before the Runs Created graph against applies.)
The average of the Top 10 (or, Top 3, by the Age 36 season) is above average throughout, but not so far above average as to merit Mark Teixeira money, no matter how slickly the stats roll off of Scott Boras's allegedly forked tongue. Would you want to pay $40MM for two years of a 110 OPS+? I would not, but, the Top 10's decline doesn't necessarily mean that Holliday's will be so precipitous.
PAYING TOP DOLLAR FOR THE DECLINE YEARS
Not surprisingly, the trend in offensive production--whether we look at Runs Created or OPS+--is a downward one. Whether a MLB player's peak is at Age 29 or Age 27, that late-20s peak is inevitably followed by a decline as the player's career heads into the seasons of his thirties. The question is whether the rate of decline is more analogous to the slope of a central Iowa "hill" or the Grand Canyon. For the vast majority of MLB players, the decline phase of one's career, sans PEDs, is in his thirties. While the sample size for the above Top 10 analysis is tiny, it is fairly representative of what happens to the offensive production of the MLB player population as a whole when they leave their twenties and age into their mid-thirties. That said, J.C. Bradbury, who has looked far more extensively into this than I ever will, states the following:
Age is often used as a reason to chastise GMs for picking up players past their prime. Though old players may not be what they once were, the evidence indicates they can still be valuable. According to my estimates, a hitter who has a .900 OPS at his peak would be expected to post around an .850 OPS at 35...
Matt Holliday's 2009 OPS? .909. So, how does that 6-year deal sound to you folks now?
Note: I'm also going to look at the big contract outfielders from the last fifteen years or so to give this a contemporary view, as well, that takes into account (hopefully) the advancements of the 21st century. That will be Part III...
48 comments
|
8 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Very well done post sir
I kind of disagree, not with your thinking, but Bill’s system itself, it seems to place too much emphasis on percentages like slugging and BA, which are variable based, but other than that, very well done.
My halloween costume: the Indiana secondary iPhone- no matter how much you want to love it, you know the coverage area sucks.
-ChronicHoosier
The thing is....
the Cardinals don’t seem to have much choice but to overpay for him. Their inability to develop another good hitter besides Pujols (who was more luck than anything else) really hurts them.
But is it better to overpay for Holiday, make a run now while you have Pujols and Wainwright and Carpenter under contract. Or save the money in the future, 5 years from one, when Carp is retired, and Wainwright and Pujols are possibly gone?
And heck, an OPS of .850 would still be the best on the team next to Pujols. The rest of the offense is really just that awful. The 2nd best of a starter was Ludwick at .775. Also at age 30. Imagine what he will be hitting in 5 years. (Still better than Ankiel, probably)
this is kind of my thinking
though I’d still be hesitant to give Holliday more than 5/90 (though I am willing to budge a little, since it’ll probably take more than that). But what can we do? We sorely need another offensive threat. Some poster—fourstick maybe—repeatedly pointed out during the playoffs that every other team had at least 3 players with wOBAs above .360. We had two, Pujols and Holliday. In an ideal world, we should be worrying about finding that third guy, but in this world there’s a good chance Holliday walks and we’re down to just one…in which case I don’t have very high hopes for the season.
This is a very good point.
And one that I think we should all keep in mind as the Hot Stove unfolds. As great as Pujols is, he is not going to carry us to a World Series title with his bat alone. A club that hopes to win the Series needs a handful of very good batters, a la the MV3. Maybe Colby Rasmus makes a leap forward and becomes that type of hitter. Maybe Ludwick picks it up, as well. But, those are by no means whatsoever sure bets. Matt Holliday is as sure of a bet as there is to be had. Given our need for such a hitter, how do we value him?
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
a few more $$ for fewer years
4/80 is much more tolerable than 6/110
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
Posts like this are the reason I was surprised that bgh didn't end up with a front page job when chuckb retired
Not tha VEP and tom are doing a bad job — they’re doing a great job — but I love these long bgh analyses.
why don't people take into account....
that the value of $20MM six years from now is not the value of $20MM today?
I doubt that 1 WAR = $4.5MM (or whatever the ratio is today) will be constant. If Holliday is a 3 WAR player six years from now, but 1 WAR = $7MM then, then he will be “worth” his contract under this method of analysis.
In other words, it’s plausible that a proposed 6yr/$120MM contract could track Holliday’s expected decline so that he’s worth his contract the entire time. shit, given current monetary policy and the expected devaluation of the dollar, i wonder what FOs are using as their discount rate. (not to mention, billion dollar orgs like the Cards undoubtedly hedge)
by Willie McGee's Twin on Nov 29, 2009 12:53 PM EST reply actions
I am certain that the Cardinals, and most MLB clubs, do.
There is little doubt into mind that they have people putting together complex formulas to value players in each future year. The problem, of course, is that occurrences like The Great Recession are difficult to project. Another point that is related to your question is that, in my mind, 1 WAR has a different value to each of the individual MLB clubs. The Yankees can place more value on Mark Teixeira than the Nationals. They may be “overpaying” compared to, say, St. Louis, for a player, but, as a share of payroll, they aren’t “overpaying” for the Yankees. I would love to see how the Cardinals value players looking forward. It would be terribly interesting, I would think.
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
yeah, but...
you don’t need to project the great recession, you (or whoever) just need to do some basic financial modeling incorporating inflation, expected payroll, and expected baseline WAR/$. this should be much less involved than the comparative analysis you’ve undertaken here.
in any event, i constantly see people say on VEB (like you do here) that Holliday won’t be “worth” $20MM per season in his age 34-35 seasons because of modeling showing his expected decline – but everyone (at least that I’ve seen) seems to assume that $20MM is worth the same in 2016 that it is now, when clearly it is worth much less.
your point that WAR/$ is different for each team is a flaw with the WAR/$ metric but it’s really irrelevant to my point. I don’t care what metric is used to try to detemine the “worth” of a player in comparing performance vs. dollars vs. time – the failure to incorporate the time value of money is going to seriously skew your analysis.
utlimately, all i’m saying is that you’ve spent a lot of time trying to show whether Matt Holliday is worth a “king’s ransom” – especially vis a vis paying him during his decline phase. it seems like you’d want to recognize that money changes value over time too.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Nov 29, 2009 4:56 PM EST up reply actions
When I took a look at Holliday
I factored in a compound 10% increase per year in the value of a WAR.
by vivaelpujols on Nov 29, 2009 5:18 PM EST up reply actions
Thing is,
in any case you’re still paying FA retail price. You don’t want to pay the league average cost of 1 WAR- you want to pay less or at least have a shot at some surplus value. Pujols is “worth” over $30m/year, but by paying him $16M per year we have the ability to pay other players with that extra money, giving us a better shot at contention. Very few teams succeed by paying sticker price.
"Of course Kolby Rasmus was going deep! That’s what Kolby Rasmus does! You don’t give Kolby Rasmus second chances!" -Kolby Rasmus
I think this is an overstatement that continues to arise in the
advent of WAR valuations and Fangraphs.
You don’t want to pay league average for every 1 WAR. You almost never want to overpay beyond a player’s WAR (though I still think a non-linear application at the outliers makes sense even if the markets haven’t shown it to date). But you have to get yourself to a threshold in order to contend. That may require you to pay full cost for what Holliday brings while reaping the benefit of your young players.
I don’t think it’s smart to draw a line in the sand and say that you have to recoup surplus on every contract. That’s a losing battle and players would constantly feel like they’re getting screwed. The Cardinals NEED another bat in the lineup and Holliday is a player that’s a plus offensively and fits a position the Cardinals have available.
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
by azruavatar on Nov 29, 2009 7:50 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yep.
It’s just a matter of whether or not they can actually afford him.
I would also say that actual wins almost certainly don’t add up linearly—having a high obp guy in one place in the lineup creates RBI opportunities for everyone else, etc. I would think the true effect would be closer to a multiplicative one.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
if no one ever overpaid for 1 WAR
then the market value of a WAR would drop. Presumably, somewhere around half of the WAR in the league cost more than the average value.
by brackenthebox on Nov 29, 2009 8:05 PM EST up reply actions
With the current state of the economy,
how do we know that the cost per WAR is going to go up over the next five years?
I’m okay with overpaying for Holliday’s decline years. I’m just trying to figure out at what point we should draw a line and not cross it while overpaying for Holliday’s decline years. How much overpaying is too much overpaying?
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
To me
anything over $18M AAV or anything longer than 6Y has to be a walk away point for the organization. I’m fine with a team option for a 7th year or something like that, but 6 guaranteed has to be the point where we say “no mas”.
I would be willing to go 5Y$100M if it meant not having to go 6Y$110, if you get what I’m saying.
Please consider any Hot Stove talk in the above comment is spoken under the assumption that the Cardinals are not signing Matt Holliday.
I think it's very hard to project the "value" of 1 WAR going forward
what if, say, the average MLB owner’s business interests have been hit hard by the economy (not an unreasonable assumption) and, as a result, they are generally less inclined to increase payroll than any time in the recent past. However, most teams still have a bunch of pre-recession contracts on the books, so they’re kind of required to spend more money in the next year or two to build a team around those contracts (unless they’re totally in sell-now rebuild mode). Isn’t it possible that, as those pre-recession contracts run out over the next few years, teams (due to their restricted budgets) become less likely to sign those sort of deals as “replacements” of the deals signed in a different climate, so the “contraction” of the baseball economy as a result of the recession may actually be delayed by a year or two?
That is, the majority of tha FA dollars being paid this year will actually have been guaranteed pre-recession; we can’t say what impact the recession will have on FA prices (and thus the value of 1WAR) unless we exclude those from the analysis somehow. With the exception of the Yankees, so far no-one’s given out a monster contract (Lowe to the Braves is the only other 50m+ one I can think of) last off-season or this one (so far), so it’s very difficult to gauge this value figure without totally guessing. With at least 4 or 5 teams actually REDUCING payroll this off-season, is it not actually possible that the value of 1 WAR could DECREASE over the term of a Holliday contract? Food for thought.
Felonius Monk - bitching to contact since 2008
by Felonius_Monk on Dec 1, 2009 3:14 AM EST up reply actions
ok, fine
but one is “projecting” even if one assumes that $/WAR (or whatever metric is being used to assess $ v. performance v. time) is constant.
So, you’re either making a case for keeping $/WAR constant or even decreasing the metric in the later years of a potential 5-6yr Holliday deal OR you’re arguing that discussing whether Holliday is going to be “worth” his contract in the later years of his deal is a fool’s errand because no one can accurately estimate the value of a $ 5-6 years from now.
If it’s the former, fine, that’s all I asked of people who purport to determine whether Holliday will be “worth” his hypothetical contract 5-6 years from now. I.e., don’t just do the performance projection, do the $ projection as well.
If it’s the latter, fine, I pretty much agree. I think it’s likely that by the time one projects player performance 5 years into the future and compares it to the value of $ 5 years into the future, the error bars are going to subsume any “answer” (as long as in year one, the performance is “worth” the money).
by Willie McGee's Twin on Dec 1, 2009 12:39 PM EST up reply actions
less?
20m in 08 was probably 21m in 09
estimating 3%/yr inflation, even in baseball, over the next six years is probably flawed
check the yield on even 10 yr treasuries
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
10 yr treasuries are a terrible way to check inflation.
"Of course Kolby Rasmus was going deep! That’s what Kolby Rasmus does! You don’t give Kolby Rasmus second chances!" -Kolby Rasmus
Deflation rules the land...
I know you don’t like that but it’s an honest-to-god, measurable fact.
As for the future, Bernanke might pull back or he might not. But right now, there is no inflation.
MB for LF in 2010!
and if that continues to be the case, then
anyone trying to make a profit anywhere is going to be running into solvency problems.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
Again, this is a very good analysis...
but it doesn’t answer the basic questions pertaining to a Holliday signing, in my mind:
- Can the Cardinals get similar value in left field over the next 3 seasons (and the 3 after that) by going a different route?*
- How badly do we need another hitter of Holliday’s caliber on our lineup?
I’ll take the second part first, if that’s ok….
We desperately need a player with Holliday’s offensive skill in our lineup. Even if Ludwick returns to a .850 OPS guy and Rasmus improves to around .750-.800, another .900-1.000 OPS player like Holliday is a must, imo, if we are going to make runs at the National League pennant over the next 3-4 seasons.
As to #1, I don’t think that we can. I think there are some solutions out there that merit analysis (Cameron, a platoon involving Craig and Damon, trade for Matt Murton, etc.) but those are really only solutions for next year or maybe the year after, and there are no other 4 WAR players that are at a similar age or younger than Holliday is that are available as either a FA or through a trade that the Cardinals could afford. He’s simply the best option for getting another .400 wOBA bat in the lineup, so I think that he’s worth the downside risk on the back end of the deal so that we have him for the next three seasons***, when he should still be at or near his peak as a player.
***The reason I keep saying the “next three seasons” is that Molina, Carp, Wainwright, and Rasmus all are under contract through at least 2012. 90% of building a good baseball team is timing, and I think that we have a shot to be the best team in the NL over the next three years. Of all the contenders out there, it seems like we have the fewest issues of any of them except the Phillies (Dodgers and Mets have some pitching depth problems, Braves need another impact bat, Cubs are in payroll hell, are aging, and have a shitty farm system, Brewers and Astros have gone all-in, lost, and are rebuilding, Giants need more offensive help than we do, Rockies will have to break up their team due to payroll issues.) I have a “strike while the iron is hot” mentality, and the best way to do that is to pony up for Holliday, look for some options at 3B for the next few years, and work hard to rebuild the farm system so that we will have young, cost-controlled players to help offset the big contracts that Holliday, Wainwright, Pujols, and Rasmus will command from 2013 on forward.
Please consider any Hot Stove talk in the above comment is spoken under the assumption that the Cardinals are not signing Matt Holliday.
For your #1 question,
an analysis by Az over at Future Redbirds on the internal alternative options for left field should Holliday sign elsewhere. It focuses on Craig as the primary, if not only, realistic alternative and gets into fun things like MLEs at the plate and projecting his left field defense. Definitely worth a read. No, he’s not going to be Holliday. Nobody thinks he will be. But, it’s not as bad as I had feared. Definitely worth a read during the slow news stretch of late November into early December. Obviously, the choice is not Holliday OR Craig; it involves other free agents.
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
I've read it...and it kinda goes towards my point
We don’t have internal options to replace Holliday in LF.
If you look at it marginally, like Az states at the end of his post, Az’s projection of Craig is that he could be worth about 1.3 WAR and will cost $0.440M. Let’s assume that he hits exactly that for the purposes of this discussion. How much more would I pay more for Holliday, who as a baseline will probably be worth at least 5 WAR (over a full season he has never been worth less than 4.4 WAR)? That’s a 3.7 WAR upgrade over Craig. If we use the $4.5M per WAR cost, that works out to about $16.65M more for Holliday, or about $17M total.
I’ve said that I would pay about $18-$20M AAV, depending on the length of the contract, so that’s right about in line with what I would pay, although a bit less than Holliday is asking for, considering that it’s a pretty fair bet that he’ll be worth more than 5 WAR for at least his first three seasons in the BOB.
Now, I’ll put the question back to you: Would you rather roll the dice with Allen Craig in LF, who’s upside is probably around 3 WAR (Baseline 1.3 WAR) or would you rather pony up and get Matt Holliday, who’s upside is around 6.5 WAR (Baseline 5 WAR)? It’s a false choice, since the Cardinals would surely sign someone else (although maybe not to man LF) if Holliday walks, but in the spirit of Az’s argument in his post, I think the question posed is a good one.
Please consider any Hot Stove talk in the above comment is spoken under the assumption that the Cardinals are not signing Matt Holliday.
I've sensed near uniformity on this point here at VEB,
even from the Faberge Egg enthusiasts, that our LF option for 2010 is not currently under the control of the St. Louis Cardinals. I don’t think anyone is clamoring for Allen Craig to be installed in LF. I’m certainly not. I don’t believe that anyone is, no matter how many milk cartons we post. I think you have to look at as Matt Holliday for six years or short-term FA signing and Allen Craig for six years. That’s a more difficult choice and why I’m trying to figure out how I would feel about us giving Holliday $20+MM per year (with inflation). All in all, I’d be thrilled if Allen Craig becomes the new Speez (minus the off-field problems, obviously).
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
Right
But, let’s say you platoon Craig in LF with, say, Eric Hinske. In 133 games with the Rays in ’08 he was worth 2 WAR. In 93 games with the Bucs/Yanks this season he was worth 0.8 WAR.
So Allen Craig’s likely WAR if facing only LHP the majority of the time is probably around, say, 0.5 WAR (guessing here), and Hinske might be worth around 2 WAR if facing strictly RHP all season. (Hinske might be an excellent defender in LF, but he only has a little more than 400 innings played out there, so it’s hard to say. His UZR is 13.2 for his career in LF, so let’s just assume that he’s a 0.5 WAR player with the glove to play it safe.)
But you have to pay Hinske. You could probably get him on a 1 year contract for around $2M or so, which is favorable. So you’ve just bought yourself 2 WAR (estimated) on the market for less than market value, and have spent a total of $2.44M in 2010 vs. $20M for Holliday.
I would agree that his is much more favorable position for us to be in than just sticking Allen Craig out there, and if Craig hits really well, we could always trade Hinske to another contender at the deadline if needed and he’s a useful utility player since he can player both the outfield and infield corners. He also upgrades our bench with a solid LH bat when he’s not in the lineup.
It’s more favorable financially than signing Holliday, but, then again, neither Hinske nor Craig will probably ever be 5 WAR players, even combined in a platoon, and there just aren’t many players capable of a .400 wOBA out there, and even fewer that don’t play 1B, a position in which we already have the best player in the game. I would still advocate for signing Holliday, unless we think that he’s going to get more than 6Y$110M. I do think that there’s some leverage to be had over Holliday in our present situation, because we still have the best right handed hitter in the game even if we don’t land him.
If we had Jason Heyward in our minor league system I would be all for signing a one year contract with someone like Hinske or Cameron and then letting Heyward try to win the job in spring training. But we don’t, so we don’t have that luxury, nor are we in a rebuilding mode considering out pitching staff. We also don’t have much in the minors for trade bait, so it’s going to be tough for us to make a deal for any kind of good outfielder that’s cost-controlled should Craig stink it up and Hinske/Cameron suddenly drop off in production.
Please consider any Hot Stove talk in the above comment is spoken under the assumption that the Cardinals are not signing Matt Holliday.
The best thing about Hinske
is that if Craig explodes in an unexpected way and mashes at MLB level from the go, Hinske’s still a really useful bench bat AND can play 3B in a pinch – in the unlikely but possible event Craig does brilliantly and Freese struggles as badly as he did on call-up last year, we can always give Hinske 3 or 4 starts a week at 3B against RHP, where his superior glove will offset his less than great defence, and, say, use Lugo or Freese or someone vs LHP.
Felonius Monk - bitching to contact since 2008
by Felonius_Monk on Dec 1, 2009 3:21 AM EST up reply actions
depends on the opting for that 16m
figgins and polanco type deals (<16m) would, i think, make us a stronger overall team
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
2012 is when the world ends, though. so all we have to do is book a ride on Bud's spaceship.
"It was like two ankles." AVENGE BOOG
"But listen, and understand: more Molinas are out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear." - THT
I'd hate
if we went anywhere past 5 years.. I know it’s probably gonna take at least 6, but I’m not a huge fan of using over 15% of our final payroll on guys that late in their career. Unless, of course, his name is Albert Pujols. Give that guy a blank check lockin him up until he’s 40, because he’s already earned it.
"So Taguchi, who wears number 99, unless you stand him upside down and then it’s 66." - Mike Shannon
I hate this line of thinking
Give that guy a blank check lockin him up until he’s 40, because he’s already earned it.
I’m not trying to pick on you individually, but the fact that anyone has earned a $300M contract because of past performances with no regard to what they do, or can be expected to do, in the future really rubs me the wrong way.
It’s antithetical to our proposed “cost-control” system of player management to simply lock up superstar players because they’ve been so good in their team controlled seasons that we now “owe” them a huge contract that locks them up into their late 30’s when they may not be their superstar selves any more. The whole purpose of cost control is to get more than market value out of a players cost controlled years so that we don’t have to overpay them when they are on the downside of their careers.
Pujols is an incredible player. A once-in-a-generation type of talent. I hope that he stays a Cardinal for the rest of his career and that the team does right by him, but also does right by the team. Flags fly forever, and I’d hate to see a sub-.500 Cardinal team in 2019 with a 39 year old Albert Pujols that looks like Ken Griffey does right now, and all because we “owed” him that contract for what he gave us from 2001-2010.
Please consider any Hot Stove talk in the above comment is spoken under the assumption that the Cardinals are not signing Matt Holliday.
i will let you in on my secret fear.
my fear is that matt holliday’s last half of 2009 is representative of his prowess in the field going forward, that he has reached some serious age-related drop-off in fielding. my fear is that we sign him for six years and he spends four of them being an overpaid jason bay.
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
Isn't "overpaid Jason Bay" a bit pleonastic?
"Of course Kolby Rasmus was going deep! That’s what Kolby Rasmus does! You don’t give Kolby Rasmus second chances!" -Kolby Rasmus
It depends on whether or not Jason Bay winds up "overpaid," doesn't it?
"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."
--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS
"even more overpaid"?
the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus
your mom is a bit pleonastic!
Felonius Monk - bitching to contact since 2008
by Felonius_Monk on Dec 1, 2009 3:22 AM EST up reply actions
my secret fear is it's the seeds.
"It was like two ankles." AVENGE BOOG
"But listen, and understand: more Molinas are out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear." - THT
Is it more likely
that the Cards split the Holliday money between say Beltre and Bay? Or possibly Bay and a SP instead? I like Holliday but I just think you can get 2 very above average players to fill 2 more critical spots than LF.
just my .02
Look at it this way
You’re really not gaining any WAR by doing that. Maybe one WAR overall. All you’re really doing is spreading the risk, assuming that you could sign those two players for the same money on shorter term contracts.
Let’s assume Adrian Beltre projects at his career averages for wOBA (.335) and UZR (13.9). With those numbers he is a 4.0 WAR player, assuming that replacement and positional adjustments stay the same. I think this is a reasonable projection, although not completely statistically sound since we’re not valuing age regression or weighting the most present seasons higher.
Let’s do the same for Bay: Career wOBA (.384) Career UZR – LF (-8). He projects as a 3.6 WAR player with those numbers. Again, I think this is reasonable, assuming he doesn’t get worse on defense.
So if they both hit career averages they would be worth about 7.6 WAR total.
Holliday (.400 wOBA, 6.9 UZR/150 LF) would project to be a 5.5 WAR player if he hits his career averages. I think a Freese/Hinske platoon at 3B could easily be worth 1.5 WAR. Freese is probably worth about a win with his defense alone although less so playing half time), and Hinske has been slightly below average at 3B for most of his career, but he’s probably better with the bat. That would put you at 7.0 WAR for about the same amount of money. The differences?
- In your example the money is spread across two different players; with Holliday all the money is invested in one guy
- Beltre and Bay will probably get shorter deals than Holliday will, so you’ll have less money committed to guaranteed contracts long term.
This isn’t a bad way to go, but I wanted to point out that you’re probably only going to gain maybe half a win going that route than you would with Holliday, and I’m not sure you can get both Beltre and Bay for $20M per season, whereas I’m getting more and more sure that Holliday will sign for around that on a 5-6 year deal.
Please consider any Hot Stove talk in the above comment is spoken under the assumption that the Cardinals are not signing Matt Holliday.
+1
from a business/investing point of view, spreading risk is the way to go
just so much more flexibility at any given time
less likely that your whole WAR is DL’ed at one time
etc
ps i’m opposed to holliday for the reasons above and that he will no doubt get 6 years, and it will be in january, at least
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
That's not necessarily the case in baseball, though
the marginal gain you get by signing a bunch of median players is smaller than the marginal gain you get by signing a smaller number of spectacular players.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
doesn't it really depend
on what the incremental additions replace?
i mean, i hope fereeze craig do well, but their projections have much larger errors associated with them
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
Which is why you would probably supplement them
with some more $1-3M depth-type players, too. The point is to avoid signing David Eckstein-type average players at $10M/yr. Sign awesome players, and then fill out the roster with whatever you have left.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
But if it's 6Y$90M
why wouldn’t we do that deal? He’ll easily be worth that contract.
Please consider any Hot Stove talk in the above comment is spoken under the assumption that the Cardinals are not signing Matt Holliday.
I don't totally disagree with this
But it doesn’t necessarily work in a closed market system like baseball, because you can’t just continue to spread risk for a finite number of positions on the field. You also usually get a huge marginal gain by having 2-3 superstars on your offense versus having 8-9 average players.
Please consider any Hot Stove talk in the above comment is spoken under the assumption that the Cardinals are not signing Matt Holliday.
my comment
On your second point
Do the Cardinals really want to pay Holliday for that 5th and 6th season?
The Cardinals are usually pretty good about leaving themselves payroll flexability and not over spending on free agents.

by 
















