Players

March 8 Patton $ Updates/Corrections

by

News of Rafael Furcal’s decision to have elbow surgery last week suggested there was some chance he might be back in July of this year. In the software I cut him down to a projected 235 optimistic at bats. It now seems that he’s going to miss the whole of 2013. I’m cutting his projected AB to 0. Pete Kozma, Daniel Descalso, and Kolten Wong absorb the at bats.

Outliers: Shopping for VMart at Walmart

by

walmartlogo One of the players my projection and my initial bid price deviated on most was Victor Martinez. VMart was one of the game’s best hitting catchers, but he missed all of 2012 (his age 34 season) with a torn ACL. After earning $26 and $21 the preceding two years before the injury, he would seem to be a $20+ player this year, even while aging. But a closer look made me wary.

Between 1947 and 2000, four players earned 10+ dollars in their 33rd year and then missed all of their 34th year. None of them played again.

In that same time frame, five players earned 10+ dollars in their 32nd year and then missed most of their 33th year. Only one, Danny Tartabull, came back, and he had one $10 season and then retired.

During that same period, four hitters earned $10+ dollars in their 31st year and then missed most of their 32nd year. None of them earned more than $6 the next year, though two did earn $17 in their 34th year.

Obviously these are small samples, but when we widen it to include even hitters who weren’t that good the year before they missed a season, the tendency is clear: Once you’re in your 30s it’s hard to come back.

None of which is to say that VMart can’t come back. He’s swinging a hot bat so far in camp, and is going to be hitting behind Miguel Cabrera and Prince Fielder, which isn’t going to hurt. But while the projection, which doesn’t really figure in the injury, is strong, my sense of where the bargains lay makes me wary. History says he’s not likely to be nearly as good as he was before he missed the entire year, because of rustiness and conditioning and aging issues. I wouldn’t be unhappy with him for $10 at all, but he’s likely to go for more like $17-20. At that level I’ll pass.

Outliers: Finding Disagreement With Myself

by

Creating my initial Bids and my initial Projections are two discrete processes.

For the Bids I sit with a player’s history of Cost and Earnings, look at his age and any injury information, and try to determine how much I think he’s worth and how much I think everyone else thinks he’ll be worth, since everyone else is who I’ll be bidding against. If I’m way higher than I think the market will be, I’ll shave my bid down so that it will win, but not tower above the competition. And if I’m way lower than I think the market will be, I’ll bump my bid up to just below the market. I want to indicate my predilections, but I’m also trying to describe the market as a whole, so the prices are useful even if you disagree with me.

My projections come in two phases. The first is running a player’s historical data, including a bunch of component parts (batted ball data, mostly), through my projection formula, which also takes into account age and league and home field and league. This gives a rough idea of what players will do but has to be adjusted for playing time, and for changes in roles. After those adjustments the projections run in the Guide, and a similar but more complex set (more categories, mostly, and more time to smooth anomalies) run in the Patton $ software, at first. As spring training progresses I tweak the projections manually, mostly for playing time with veterans, but also to deal with differing situations on teams with platoons and competition and as I get a better sense of new players and their roles.

Once the projections are loaded into the Patton $ software they get priced using Alex’s formula, which is an excellent way to discover what the projection formula is telling me, especially when it differs substantially from the bid price. I’ve been going through the lists, looking at some of the substantial differences, assuming that these are players who might be of special interest this year.

HITTERS (Proj$, PK5)

Mike Trout ($49, $41): The bid predated the reports about Trout’s reporting weight. It assumes he’s not going to be nearly as good as last year, but still plenty good. THe projection is a result of increased playing time, even though he’s projected to not be nearly as good as last year. Verdict: Assuming he can run once the season starts, I would be fine standing by the projection, but I think there’s enough risk of sophomore slump and/or other issues that I wouldn’t bid more than $41.

Albert Pujols ($36, $31): The projection is remembering Albert’s past greatness. Age deductions of significance don’t kick in until the mid 30s. He could be great again, but the trend is clear. Verdict: One reason to bid $31 on Pujols is that he could put up another $36 year. But counting on an aging player to keep running is a mistake. I’ve bumped his projection down a bit, especially the SB.

PITCHERS (Proj$, PK5)

Joaquin Benoit ($15, $1) The bid is wrong. It is the standard bid for a setup guy in 5×5. Especially a guy on a team with a different pitcher named as closer (Bruce Rondon) and at least two other worthy CIW candidates (Al Albuquerque and Phil Coke). But it’s wrong because I’m projecting Benoit to be the closer at some point this year, and to do a good job at it. So, I’m bumping him to $3. That may seem silly, but that’s what he’s worth if Rondon does the job (I doubt it) or one of the other guy ends up the closer. Verdict: Right now Benoit is a closer in waiting. Maybe not even first on line. The reason closers in waiting are valuable is because you don’t pay much for them. So until there’s more smoke, I’m going to keep the bushel on this fire.

Andy Pettitte ($12, $1) He’s 41 years old this year. He only pitched 79 innings last year, and took the year before that off. It’s fine to say last year’s injury was not age related, but not many pitchers stay effective and healthy into their 40s. The projection reflects what he might do if he stays healthy, but the bid is a severe hedge. Verdict: It will be in the $8-$10 range if he emerges from ST in the rotation.

More to come!

Rolen in the Deep: Will he sign?

by

Scott-Rolen-2012-Reds One of the biggest, most time consuming tasks putting out the Guide is selecting which 1400 players get in.

I wish I could say there was some science to it, but over the years I’ve tried different rules-based approaches and have always ended up with a similar ratio: About 200 hitters and 200 pitchers we profile don’t play in the majors that year, and about 200 hitters and 200 pitchers we don’t profile do play in the majors that year.

Many of the guys we don’t profile who are called up from the minors would be impossible to select, don’t play very much and I’m resigned to missing them. In recent years, however, I’ve been more aggressive about cutting guys. The rule used to be, if you played in the majors last year you were in, unless you had announced your retirement, but now I let the standard be, “can you write a profile about him that really assumes he’ll be active this year?”

It was on those grounds that I cut Scott Rolen from the 2013 list. Always with an affinity for injury, the last two years he has been hurt a lot and failed to produce when he did play. I could not imagine how you could write a profile that didn’t assume his retirement.

I still can’t imagine it, but the reports today that the Dodgers are interested are interesting because the Dodgers don’t have a third baseman. (Apologies to Mrs. Cruz.) If Rolen does end up in camp we’ll profile him here and at pattonandco.com. My bet is he’s going to do the right thing and go fishing, but I’m sure it galls him to contemplate ending it on such a low note. If he thinks he can do better he’s probably wrong, but I wouldn’t blame him for trying.

The Mike Napoli Problem

by

My take on The Worst Trade in the World Ever was that clearly the Angels’ motivation was to get rid of Mike Napoli, who everyone acknowledges is a bad catcher and a somewhat limited hitter against right-handed pitchers. These are not insignificant problems for a player who, though he hits well for a catcher, is not nearly so good for a first baseman or DH.

The Angels also as well as upgrade the aging and unreliable Juan Rivera in the outfield.

This isn’t to excuse the Angels’ side of this. It’s near impossible to imagine that if they had insisted that the Blue Jays throw in, say, $10M (or heck, $25M) along with Vernon Wells for Napoli and Juan Rivera, that the Jays wouldn’t have gone for it. But I think it’s worth noting that Napoli was unlikely to be a positve force this year on the Angels because Mike Scioscia wasn’t going to let him catch, he wasn’t going to displace Kendry Morales at first base, and the Angels needed room for Bobby Abreu and Torii Hunter to DH a fair amount.

The Jays’ subsequent dumping of Napoli on the Rangers is further evidence of that. Johan Keri tries to argue that this is a good trade for both sides, but his reasoning is a little mushy, even if you follow his own argument. It’s really more like a shuffling of resources and money, to which both teams find some appeal.

Napoli’s role on the Rangers, apart from injury, appears to be about 200 AB vs. left-handers while platooning at first base with Mitch Moreland, and an occasional turns behind the plate and at DH. The Rangers signed a catching regular (Yorvit Torrealba) in the offseason, and according to Keri the Rangers’ braintrust likes good defensive catchers (like backup Matt Treanor). With DH filled by Michael Young, there aren’t that many additional at bats to be had for Napoli with the Rangers unless Moreland fails or there is an injury.

But there may well be more than he would have had with the Jays. Not only is Toronto committed to JP Arencibia this year at catcher, but they have Edwin Encarnacion and Adam Lind at 1B and DH. The marginal advantage of Napoli over any of them, especially given his defensive limitations at catcher, was small, and now he’s gone.

The point here isn’t that Napoli is a waste, but rather that despite his admirable and somewhat overlooked offensive skills, as a complete player he clearly isn’t a valued commodity. His poor defense reduces his marginal value substantially at catcher, and he doesn’t hit enough to be a regular first baseman. With a price of somewhere around $5-$6M this year he’s an expensive platoonist versus lefties. It seems the Rangers recognize that and are willing to pay.

So were the Angels, in their own way.

First Pitch Arizona 2010

by

I’m back from the best baseball event of the year. That’s where we watch the coming young ballplayers of the Arizona Fall League, with great weather, lots of friends, and endless talk about baseball (and rock and roll for some reason). This year’s big conversations were about Bryce Harper (he just looks like a ballplayer, but he’s awfully young, too, so we’re going to have to be patient) and Brandon Belt (coming off a breakthrough minor league season, he made great contact when he made contact, but I saw some troubles with the curve) and Michael Taylor (big dude) and Jeremy Jefferies (cracked 100 multiple times on the scoreboard gun, and was scoring higher on those of the scouts).
MLB.com’s Mike SIano was there and made a video, inwhich some of us talk about what the event means to us.

Clint Barmes is Dead to Me.

by

I try to draft my fantasy teams based on my state of the art diagnostic mathematics, but as we all know other stuff happens.

In this case, I paid the going rate this  year for Clint Barmes, a player I’ve long hated, because he was the best available dude and he earned $19 last year.  Was that stupid?

Don’t answer that. It appears to have been. Stupid, I mean.

Calculating the nexus between talent, opportunity and foregiveness is complicated, and one of the great joys and/or pains of playing fantasy baseball is the verdict. I wouldn’t mind being wrong about Barmes if he was hitting for me the way he’s hit for all the years he was hitting for someone else!

Well, the joy is getting it right, which is delightful!

So let me be blunt: As we all knew, Barmes isn’t much good, and has now apparently lost his job. And at this point I don’t care if he’s ever any good, except I know he will be as soon as I find some sucker to take him off my hands. Grrr.