Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Trent Richardson Interviews Fellow Brown Brandon Weeden

Salvador Perez Contract Breakdown

Dayton_tiny by Jeff Zimmerman on

ST. PETERSBURG, FL - AUGUST 10: Catcher Salvador Perez #13 of the Kansas City Royals chases a foul pop up against the Tampa Bay Rays August 10, 2011 at Tropicana Field in St. Petersburg, Florida. Perez played in his first Major League Baseball game. (Photo by Al Messerschmidt/Getty Images)

Salvador Perez signed a 5 year deal with the Royals yesterday for $7M with 3 club option years that total up to $19.75M. Here are his base salaries and incentive total:

Year 1: $0.75M
Year 2: $1M
Year 3: $1.5M
Year 4: $1.75M
Year 5: $2M
Year 6: $3.75M - option
Year 7: $5M - option
Year 8: $6M - option
$5M in unknown incentives

To begin with, the Royals would have to pay Perez ~$0.5M for Years 1, 2 and 3, for a total of $1.5M without even signing the extension. The Royals are basically paying $5.5M for years 4 and 5 of his contract which was $0.5M less than the Royals paid for Kendall's 2 years of service.

Star-divide

To determine how much value Perez needs to produce in those two guaranteed years, a few assumptions need to be made. Around 3 years from now, the dollar cost for each free agent WAR a player produces should be around $6M to $7M (assume $6M to be conservative). In year 4 of the cost controlled years, a player usually makes 40% of the free agent $/WAR value and 60% in year 5. The Royals just need Perez to produce over 1 WAR in those 2 years to break even. In 39 games in 2011, he produced 1.4 fWAR or 1.1 rWAR. Bryan Pena was able to squeak out 0.5 fWAR in 2011 with a rather disappointing 0.625 OPS. Unless Perez is completely unable to take the field in years 4 and 5, this deal has almost no downside. With the $/WAR near the $6M to $7M range at the end of the contract, the Royals can easily break even if he is near or above 1 WAR for the 3 option years.

The chances for upside do exist. Here is a look at how some people project him. Oliver projections at the Hardball Times projects him with 0.8 WAR in 2012 and going up to 1.4 in 2013. The Fans at Fangraphs, which have similar number to ZiPS, have him at 3.3 WAR for 2012. Generally, projection systems place him around the 2 WAR/season value.

The one huge advantage for Perez is that he is only 21-years-old. It is rare for a 21-year-old catcher to be in the bigs and hit as good as he did last year. I queried the top 21-year-old catchers with over 100 PAs since 1980 ranked according to their rWAR. There was no real need to look for the top ones. Only 9 catchers met the criteria and here they are:

Name: rWAR in age 21 season
Ivan Rodriguez: 2.7
Joe Mauer:1.5
Salvador Perez: 1.1
Dioner Navarro: 0.8
Rich Gedman: 0.7
Brian McCann: 0.5
Yadier Molina: 0.5
Mike Scioscia: 0.3
Orlando Mercado: -0.7

It is not a bad list when only Pudge and "Head and Shoulders" are the only catchers ranked higher than Perez. Here is how the 8 others did in the 8 years from age 22 to 29

Name, rWAR
Ivan Rodriguez: 40.5
Joe Mauer:38.8 (in 7 years)
Dioner Navarro: 1.7 (in 6 years)
Rich Gedman: 10
Brian McCann: 19.5 (in 6 years)
Yadier Molina: 13.6 (in 7 years)
Mike Scioscia: 16.2
Orlando Mercado: -3.2

In total, they generated 137.1 WAR in 58 season (2.4 WAR/season or 18.9 WAR for the eight seasons). The average catcher from this group looks to be between Mike Scioscia and Brian McCann.

I will make the assumption that Perez will be a 2 WAR catcher over the life of his contract even though some numbers say he may be worse or better than the 2 WAR. A 2 WAR catcher is basically a league average catcher.

To determine the value of his contract, I set my salary projection worksheet to these following values:

Dollar per win: 5
Inflation Amount: 1.05
Current Age: 21
Current Value (WAR): 2
WAR aging factor >= 28 and <= 32: 0.5
WAR aging factor > 32: 0.6
WAR aging factor < 28: 0

Assuming the Royals pick up all 3 option years, he will generate 15.5 WAR or $92M in value. Considering the Royals will spend anywhere from $21.75M to 26.75M for all 8 years, the surplus value of Perez's contract compared to picking up a free agent catcher, looks to be between $65.25M and $70.25M. Here are the surplus values assuming he is at different levels of production with all 3 of his option years picked up and he makes $25M total:

0 WAR (Mercado): $-25M ($-7M)
0.5 WAR (Navarro): $-5M
1 WAR (Gedman): $19M
2 WAR (Scioscia/Molina): $67M
3 WAR (McCann): $115M
4 WAR (Pudge/Mauer): $162M

One assumption that can be made is that Perez's options will not be picked up if he is a 0 WAR catcher. If his options are not picked up, the Royals would only be down $7M.

These values were compared to a free agent catcher. Now here they are assuming the Royals just kept Perez for his 6 arbitration years and then signed him to a 2-year free agent contract

0 WAR (Mercado): $-25M
0.5 WAR (Navarro): $9.5M
1 WAR (Gedman): $34.5M
2 WAR (Scioscia/Molina): $42.5M
3 WAR (McCann): $75.5M
4 WAR (Pudge/Mauer): $108.5M

The break even point for the Royals for offering the contract, versus him not signing it, is just below the 0.5 WAR level.

The contract offered to Perez is an example of the chance the Royals need to take on a player. The Royals are basically on the hook for $7M. If he happens to turn into a league average catcher, the contract looks to be great deal. If for some reason Perez happens to be an above average catcher, the contract may end up being one of the best team friendly contacts in the league. Good job Dayton Moore

Comment 335 comments  |  12 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

More from Royals Review

Royals M.A.S.H Report

May 2012 by Jeff Zimmerman - 16 comments

On Opening Day, Just Where Are the Royals Going in 2012?

Apr 2012 by Freneau - 133 comments

A Day Later, Your Take on the Escobar Contract

Mar 2012 by Freneau - 232 comments

Salvador Perez Suffers Torn Meniscus, No Timetable for Return

Mar 2012 by Connor Moylan - 90 comments

Salvador Perez Has Sore Knee, Worst Nickname Ever

Mar 2012 by Freneau - 97 comments

Improvement Chances for Hitters on the Royals

Mar 2012 by Jeff Zimmerman - 20 comments

Around SB Nation

Chipper Drives In Five, Braves Come From Behind To Win Slugfest With Rockies

May 2012 from Talking Chop - 35 comments

Where The St. Louis Cardinals Hitting Stats Are & Where They Project To Be

May 2012 from Viva El Birdos - 812 comments

This Week In Sun Sports: We Need To Talk Edition

May 2012 from DRaysBay - 18 comments

Atlanta Braves at Colorado Rockies: Series Recap

May 2012 from Talking Chop - 7 comments

Cubs Hit Three Homers In Foggy Win Over Braves

May 2012 from Talking Chop - 36 comments

Read More: Ivan Rodriguez (C - WAS), Dioner Navarro (C - CIN), Joe Mauer (C - MIN), Yadier Molina (C - STL), Brian McCann (C - ATL), Orlando Mercado (C - LAD), Salvador Perez (C - KCR), Kansas City Royals

Comments

Display:

Dayton's record in the homegrown player extension part of his job

Has been very strong, and it’s worth noting. This is one part of building a major league roster that he has nailed so far. I’m excited because it is evidence of the kind of thinking the Royals will need to have any sort of sustained success. Obviously the Royals like Perez and his potential. They were able to use their heads to make a sensible deal for a guy the “baseball people” have a gut feeling will be a good player, in case he gets hurt or falls short of their expectations.

It doesn’t make me forget about Gordon, but this major announcement is a nice distraction.

by thelaundry on Feb 28, 2012 1:21 AM EST up reply actions  

I think it actually helps in the pursuit of long term deals with Gordon, Hosmer and others

because we know that we have a very low-cost contract at one of the most important positions. The front office had probably earmarked a lot more than $21-$27m over the next 8 years for paying the starting catcher position – now we can take whatever we saved and throw that money in the Gordon/Hosmer/Moose/Greinke-in-2013-account.

by Loose Seal on Feb 28, 2012 1:31 AM EST up reply actions  

^this.

the best part of this deal is the potential it generates for signing more players long term. the deal saves KC a lot of dollars, and it lets guys like Gordon , Hoz, Moose, etc that the FO is serious about building a long term winner.

i’m hoping with KC locking up Perez, it helps in the Gordon negotiation. Hopefully this makes 5yr/$50 million a possibility for Gordo (or 4yrs/$40mill with option year).

by DickHowser4ever on Feb 28, 2012 8:49 AM EST up reply actions  

Why only eight years?

Why not ten? Just the Royals being cheap again!

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 28, 2012 10:45 AM EST up reply actions  

because...

the Royals want to eventually overpay him in his 9th and 10th years

I am the one who knocks.

by PhattStairs on Feb 28, 2012 12:55 PM EST up reply actions  

If a young guy was going to be extended

I was calling Perez all the way.

by WURoyal on Feb 28, 2012 8:33 AM EST via mobile up reply actions  

great stuff...puts into actual numbers what my thoughts were...

that this is very low risk with the potential for a huge reward

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Feb 28, 2012 12:22 AM EST reply actions  

Nice work

That list of similar young catchers is nice to look at, even if Perez’s bat doesn’t stake up with all of them

by Connor Moylan on Feb 28, 2012 12:25 AM EST reply actions  

No kidding.

That’s a pain in the comment section.

Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk

by Warden11 on Feb 28, 2012 9:37 AM EST up reply actions  

Note to self

Remember how to do this formatting during game threads…

by sterlingice on Feb 28, 2012 11:51 AM EST up reply actions  

I'm the only one who seems to care about ellipses.

That said, I feel as though this isn’t a situation in which the periods form ellipses but rather are space-holders to align columns. I am all right with this.

Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick, SVU at Munch My Benson and on Twitter at Old Man Duggan

by Old Man Duggan on Feb 28, 2012 3:30 PM EST up reply actions  

LS Is Relieved

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Feb 28, 2012 3:43 PM EST up reply actions  

In terms of punctuation philosophy, I tend to think that a period should suffice where so many use an ellipsis.

A period not only signifies the end of a sentence, and therefore a thought, but also implies a pause. It is simply part of what a period provides the writer. An ellipsis should be used to signify a long pause or a trailing off. When the train of thought is completed (but you are not done writing), start a new paragraph.

Then again, I believe an exclamation point should be used sparingly—and I mean sparingly.

Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick, SVU at Munch My Benson and on Twitter at Old Man Duggan

by Old Man Duggan on Feb 28, 2012 3:57 PM EST up reply actions  

my wife said I abused her ellipses

Christ, you don't need a quadrophonic Blaupunkt! What you need is a curveball! In the show, everyone can hit heat.

by BillyMojo on Feb 28, 2012 5:59 PM EST up reply actions  

The Beatles AND ellipses?

you’d a thought…the Third Reich won the war.

I am the one who knocks.

by PhattStairs on Feb 28, 2012 7:10 PM EST up reply actions  

btw, I have made an attempt to reduce ellipses.

I started using them when texting to imply scattered thought coming together into one cohesive thought. I realize that, when trying to bring home a point, that proper grammar is normally essential to the argument.

I now take more pride in my posts, instead of quickly rambling a couple thoughts together with ellipses.

I am the one who knocks.

by PhattStairs on Feb 28, 2012 7:12 PM EST up reply actions  

i blame texting as well...

i just havent cared to fix it yet

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Feb 28, 2012 7:37 PM EST up reply actions  

You, sir, apparently feel fit to commit an assault on the entirety of punctuation with unuse

with the sole exception being your abuse of the ellipsis. This is particularly frustrating as you have made the illogical decision to waste key strokes on two extra periods when rarely necessary while being too lazy to use a comma, a shift key, or {gasp} an apostrophe.

Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick, SVU at Munch My Benson and on Twitter at Old Man Duggan

by Old Man Duggan on Feb 28, 2012 8:32 PM EST up reply actions  

you are correct sir....

occasionally i’ll use an apostrophe though

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Feb 28, 2012 8:38 PM EST up reply actions  

Not often enough, though.

And goddammit, four periods? Really?

Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick, SVU at Munch My Benson and on Twitter at Old Man Duggan

by Old Man Duggan on Feb 28, 2012 8:41 PM EST up reply actions  

That's pretty funny.

And I have no idea what an ellipsis is except that it was the code word on one of the newer James Bond movies.

PineTarPress

by 306008 on Feb 28, 2012 8:56 PM EST up reply actions  

It is this (...)

Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick, SVU at Munch My Benson and on Twitter at Old Man Duggan

by Old Man Duggan on Feb 29, 2012 1:45 PM EST up reply actions  

I believe every sentence should end in a question mark?

I have very little confidence that we truly know anything?

This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.

by KC_Satchmo on Feb 28, 2012 3:58 PM EST up reply actions  

I like to ask questions in casual conversation

Then just kind of wander away while the person is answering.

This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.

by KC_Satchmo on Feb 28, 2012 4:03 PM EST up reply actions  

I care

Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448

by SagehenMacGyver47 on Feb 28, 2012 4:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Thank Jesus.

Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick, SVU at Munch My Benson and on Twitter at Old Man Duggan

by Old Man Duggan on Feb 28, 2012 4:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Great stuff as always Jeff

I compared the Buck 5 years to Sal in my piece for tomorrow. The Royals gave Bucko 6.207M during his 5 years for 3.4 brWAR / 3.7 fWAR. When you consider the raise of the minimum that gives a decent reference of perceived performance by the FO to equal the $7M.

Checkout Royals minor league notes at www.14for77.blogspot.com

by kcscoliny on Feb 28, 2012 1:29 AM EST reply actions  

Nice comp as a floor

Doubting Thomas, the patron saint of sabermetrics

by Jeff Zimmerman on Feb 28, 2012 7:01 AM EST up reply actions  

If his bat is anywhere around Buck's I'll be pleased.

His defense is on a whole different level from Buck. Great move for the good guys.

I'm waiting for my wave of talent to arrive.

by mitchfreakingmaier! on Feb 28, 2012 10:41 AM EST up reply actions  

Always liked John Buck

Nothing useful comment-wise other than that. He was one of the really nice guys for signing autographs after a game

by sterlingice on Feb 28, 2012 11:54 AM EST up reply actions  

He can hit the long ball...

always thought that if he did some insane speed drills and got quicker he would be a much better hitter.

I am the one who knocks.

by PhattStairs on Feb 28, 2012 12:59 PM EST up reply actions  

Definitely a great deal.

What’s even better, is that it works out for both parties. Salvador gets security and the Royals get value with a pretty small amount of risk.

I’m trying to look at it deals from the player’s point of view when I can – and for Sal’s situation, this was perfect. Question: Is this deal better or worse, in terms of value, compared to Longoria?

by hawkinscm87 on Feb 28, 2012 1:41 AM EST reply actions  

There is very little chance Perez provides as much value as Longoria

Both deals are team-friendly, but Longoria’s is on a whole different level

by Connor Moylan on Feb 28, 2012 1:49 AM EST up reply actions  

Almost certainly worse

Over the course of their contracts Perez is a 2 win player being paid like a .5 win player
Longoria is a 7 win player being paid like a 1.5 win player.

"We don’t have guys with a long history of being effective in the seventh and eighth innings."
~Trey Hillman, master of understatements.

by RoyalPug on Feb 28, 2012 2:36 AM EST up reply actions  

Probably closer to a 5 WAR player, but Longoria's deal is insane.

I may write a comp to the Matt Moore deal.

Doubting Thomas, the patron saint of sabermetrics

by Jeff Zimmerman on Feb 28, 2012 7:02 AM EST up reply actions  

Excellent news.

The Röyals may have gotten one of the best deals of all time if Pérez turns out to be a 2 WAR guy, and if he’s better than that, we’re smiling. And if he flops, the contract won’t kill the team.

+1 for Dayton.

"That fucking fucker of a general swears too fucking much." --Unnamed soldier about Gen. George Patton, 1943

by Juancho on Feb 28, 2012 2:36 AM EST reply actions  

My lands Zimmerman...

if you can show the value of a deal this clearly post facto, imagine what you could do for the Royals pre contract talks. (Hey Royals! Hire this guy! Pay him the big bucks to save you the big bucks!)

I am the one who knocks.

by PhattStairs on Feb 28, 2012 3:19 AM EST reply actions  

Great deal

There is absolutely nothing bad to be said about it. This is like one of the good Tampa deals. If he becomes great it’s an outright steal. If he’s just OK it’s still great. If he busts or gets injured, well, it doesn’t have that much guaranteed anyway.

This is exactly what a small market club should do.

A+

"Trying is the first step to sucking" -Jimmy Chance

by KHAZAD on Feb 28, 2012 5:46 AM EST reply actions  

Thanks everyone for the praise.

I am glad you could all follow it. The numbers can get a little over whelming at times.

Doubting Thomas, the patron saint of sabermetrics

by Jeff Zimmerman on Feb 28, 2012 7:04 AM EST reply actions  

Great job

He may already be the best catcher in the AL, catching skill wise.

by Terry L. Kelly on Feb 28, 2012 8:40 AM EST reply actions  

as others have said....nice article Jeff.

enjoyed the analysis and comparisons to the other catchers.

by DickHowser4ever on Feb 28, 2012 8:51 AM EST reply actions  

Not sure if you're serious.

Sal Perez isn’t going to make this team win the division. Sure, this is a great thing for the Royals because there is virtually zero risk thanks to the club options.

Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk

by Warden11 on Feb 28, 2012 9:38 AM EST up reply actions  

Perez may be the key

You have to be strong up the middle and he may be the best defensive catcher right now.

by maddirishman on Feb 28, 2012 11:49 AM EST up reply actions  

Also position scarcity

Hard to find shortstops, catchers, etc.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 28, 2012 11:57 AM EST up reply actions  

I agree that they are harder to find

I’ve just always thought the conventional wisdom, “have to be good up the middle” thought is a little cliche. If you are good enough on the corners (or better yet, on the mound), does it really matter how average you are up the middle?

by Rufus R. Jones on Feb 28, 2012 12:10 PM EST up reply actions  

Wil Myers is a good example of how it's hard to get "up the middle" guys

Great bat, but he couldn’t stick at catcher, so they’re moving him to a corner OF spot. Probably can’t play CF either.

Also, Moustakas was a shortstop in HS, but wouldn’t cut it there in the majors, so he had to move to third.

by Loose Seal on Feb 28, 2012 12:19 PM EST up reply actions  

Isn't it based pretty significantly on the fact that a much higher percentage of balls...

are hit to the middle of the field. So CF and SS aren’t fast because there is more ground to cover, but more so that they must have better range because more balls are hit to that area.

To be reductionist, if 30 balls a game are hit and 15 go to the CF and 8 go to LF and RF combined, then you want the most range and less error prone guy going to the place where the most balls are hit.

I am the one who knocks.

by PhattStairs on Feb 28, 2012 1:05 PM EST up reply actions  

if this sounds too elementary forgive me...

but it would thus prove to be really wise to shoot for above average defenders at CFers, SSs, and Cers (all people who handle the ball the most), while not worrying to much about the 3 balls hit to 3B a game.

I am the one who knocks.

by PhattStairs on Feb 28, 2012 1:07 PM EST up reply actions  

That makes perfect sense

But, if you’re LF and RF can cover a ton of ground themselves, isn’t a CF who does so less important? Also, how important the up-the-middle-defense is would also be in correlation to how good the pitching and offense are. In other words, if the Yankees are averaging 7 runs scored per game, their up-the-middle defense isn’t as necessary.

by Rufus R. Jones on Feb 28, 2012 1:26 PM EST up reply actions  

If you have a LF or RF who can cover a ton of ground

Why not move them to CF where more of the balls will land.

Using fast COFs to make up for a slow CF seems like increasing the degree of difficulty for no reason.

by KSinDC on Feb 28, 2012 1:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Either way, Rufus isn't far off about questioning the statement above.

Sure, you want good players up the middle. You want good players everywhere.

Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk

by Warden11 on Feb 28, 2012 2:22 PM EST up reply actions  

Yeah, I agree

It was a good question and a good point.

Just like it’s a good question as to whether you need to have an ace or whether having 5 no.2 or 3 starters is good enough. But I think it goes too far to suggest putting a better pitcher behind a crummy pitcher (you want your best pitcher to get the most starts) and it goes too far to suggest putting faster fielders in LF or RF (you want your best fielders where the most balls are hit).

So I agree with the underlying point, just not this extension of it.

by KSinDC on Feb 28, 2012 2:52 PM EST up reply actions  

I've always wondered how a team would do with...

8 Frank Thomas’s and a DH Frank Thomas. I think 9 Big Papi’s or 9 Edgar Martinez’s would really be beyond disasterous. But how would 9 MVP-level Frank Thomas’s fair in the field. Would they win games with offense alone?

I am the one who knocks.

by PhattStairs on Feb 28, 2012 7:15 PM EST up reply actions  

This is a question that can only be answered

by the OOTP series of computer games

This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.

by KC_Satchmo on Feb 28, 2012 7:16 PM EST up reply actions  

TO MOM'S BASEMENT!

I’ll get the Pop Tarts.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 28, 2012 10:03 PM EST up reply actions  

Also, the Rays have never had a really good catcher, and

they’ve never won a world series. BOOM

Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448

by SagehenMacGyver47 on Feb 28, 2012 2:49 PM EST up reply actions  

Articles like this are why this site is so hands-down the best if you want informed Royals info.

Not even close. In fact, I’m not sure there’s a team with a site quite like this; I’ve perused others linked to SB Nation, and both the articles and the discourse are not as advanced, even (and especially) when the posters here go off-topic. There are some amazing points of view residing at RR, imo.

Anyway, very nice break-down. It confirmed what I suspected: that it was a pretty good deal. And I agree with everyone who’s pointed out that this aspect of the job is one at which Moore has excelled. Thank you Jeff and Dayton.

If women only slept with nice guys...guys would only be nice. And they don't. And we're not.

by setupunchtag on Feb 28, 2012 9:19 AM EST reply actions  

Meanwhile ESPN doesn't have this story anywhere on the front page of their baseball section

but has stories about Bobby Valentine’s anger issues, Terry Francona’s opinion on beer in the Red Sox clubhouse, and Jason’s Veriteks possible retirement 2 days from now.

by Loose Seal on Feb 28, 2012 10:49 AM EST up reply actions  

Celebration Time

I’ll bring the Pop Tarts

by spamiam79 on Feb 28, 2012 12:08 PM EST via Android app up reply actions  

Parade?

Do these effectively hide my thunder?

by splitty on Feb 28, 2012 6:12 PM EST up reply actions  

virtual


I see a few Royals bloggers in there.

Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448

by SagehenMacGyver47 on Feb 28, 2012 6:17 PM EST up reply actions  

Jeff in the bottom left corner.

Johnny Damon over his shoulder. Will behind him. Looseseal behind on the right. Scott behind him. Recognize anyone else?

PineTarPress

by 306008 on Feb 28, 2012 9:01 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

No McKinney though.

I don’t think there’s an option for smiley face boxers, no shirt, and shades when constructing a mii.

I'm waiting for my wave of talent to arrive.

by mitchfreakingmaier! on Feb 29, 2012 11:39 AM EST up reply actions  

Salary projection worksheet

Did that include discounts for the arb years? And if so, at what percentage?

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 28, 2012 9:49 AM EST reply actions  

No on the arbitration years. I had to adjust in another spreadsheet. I should make one up that buys out arbitration years

there numbers are close

40% of FA value for year 4
60% of FA value for year 5
80% of FA value for year 6

Doubting Thomas, the patron saint of sabermetrics

by Jeff Zimmerman on Feb 28, 2012 9:54 AM EST up reply actions  

When all is said and done, I wonder where this deal will fall in Dayton's Top 5 moves of his career?

MAJOR LEAGUE (The Royals)
Rachel Phelps (Royals Management): I think he'll fit right in with our team concept.
Charlie Donovan (Royals Fans): That reminds me, I was going to ask you. What exactly *is* our team concept?

by Royals Medic on Feb 28, 2012 9:54 AM EST reply actions  

think of it this way

does Dayton have 5 better moves left in him? Than this one? I can’t imagine he does…

2011 Royals Review NCAA Bracket Challenge Winner, by process of attrition

by sfeldkamp on Feb 28, 2012 9:55 AM EST up reply actions  

The other side

I love this deal for the Royals, but I’m trying to figure out why Perez would sign for so little. Before they had the year-by-year breakdown, I figured we must have front-loaded the deal some (so he had more cash in the near term), but that doesn’t appear to be the case. Again, not trying to hate on the deal – just confused why Perez (and his agent) would go for this?

by HarryL on Feb 28, 2012 9:56 AM EST reply actions  

Ah, great point

I forgot about the fact he didn’t already have a big signing bonus. Thanks!

by HarryL on Feb 28, 2012 11:11 AM EST up reply actions  

Guaranteed Pay Day

Perez was a low-dollar Latin American signing; he has never seen a big payday. This guarantees him money, even if he gets injured or just isn’t good enough to play in the big leagues. This is a player taking a very realistic look at what the range of outcomes are. IMO it takes a smart player to take this deal, because most can’t fathom that they will get hurt or that they will not be good enough to play in the big leagues.

"Put that in your pipe and smoke it."

by Hal McRae's Telephone on Feb 28, 2012 10:00 AM EST up reply actions  

I know we're not supposed to put any stock in intangibles around here

but the more I hear about this kid, the more I like him. Things like this may not help him get on base, but it sure makes it easier to root for him.

And thank you as always for the great article.

This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.

by KC_Satchmo on Feb 28, 2012 11:08 AM EST up reply actions  

It's not that we're not supposed to put any stock in intangibles.

I don’t think anyone around here is denying that they exist in some way, shape, or form. It’s more that without unfettered access we have no way of knowing how this may or may not affect performance. Moreover, character and grit are often used by this FO to obfuscate the real issue, that a player isn’t actually that good. They use these intangibles to justify the signing of a great guy who is not a great player.

As a fan, it certainly is nice to know that a player you root for seems to have strong character. It’s just in talking about intangibles some like to talk about them as though the make up for objective shortcomings.

Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick, SVU at Munch My Benson and on Twitter at Old Man Duggan

by Old Man Duggan on Feb 28, 2012 11:56 AM EST up reply actions  

I get it

It’s just that I sometimes get the impression that any mention of a players personal qualities will be treated as a wholesale endorsement of grit > hit. This is a tough crowd. To be honest, I hold back from commenting on many many topics just to not have to deal with potential backlash. That’s my problem and not your (speaking of the communal ‘yours’ here) but the truth is that I cringe at the idea of saying that I think someone is a really good kid and that it somewhat colors my impression of them as a player.

It’s not a big deal, but I sometimes wish it wasn’t that way. But such is the interwebz…

This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.

by KC_Satchmo on Feb 28, 2012 12:03 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Let er rip, Satchmo

Who cares if someone on here doesn’t like it. Just take the heat. It’s just an opinion.

by Rufus R. Jones on Feb 28, 2012 12:24 PM EST up reply actions  

we could operationally define energy...

you could break it down into the way he looks on a certain play, the amount of times he backs up plays, and even whether he smiles or frowns in certain situations.

There are ways to quantify what you are talking about. Very, very hard to calculate though.

I equate it to the Soria thing last year. We saw something looked different, so one of us (was it Freneau?) looked at some stats and found that Soria was missing bats at a lower rate which is quantifiable, but, like you iterated, the reasons are unprovable.

In regards to hiring people, I am currently in an Industrial/Organizational Psychology class and found it interested that non-structured interviews are one of the lowest predictors of job performance. The highest predictor? IQ. Doesn’t this sound a lot like the arguments taking place among baseball fans right now?

With that said, I am with you. Salvador passes the eye test immediately. This first time I saw him I thought he was the real deal. That rarely happens for me. I often see pitchers who I think will get injured, just based on they look as they pitch the ball. I have often been able to predict that such pitchers would become injured, such as Deuscherer and Strasburg, but I, also, have no proof. But, from reading Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink, I don’t wonder if I am seeing something that my unconscioius picks up that is quantifiable, or if I am just lucky in predicting the injuries. The “inverted W” arm issue might provide evidence that what I am seeing is real (I think Greinke’s motion and Greg Maddux’s motion are positive predictors of health).

I am the one who knocks.

by PhattStairs on Feb 28, 2012 1:20 PM EST up reply actions  

I could certainly come up with some metrics for what behaviors I believe exhibit

willingness to work. I’m also sure they wouldn’t be comprehensive and in short order they would be completely irrelevant when compared to a good sample of performance data.

The problem with using I.Q. as part of the hiring evaluation is that there is simply no way to accurately gauge it during an interview process short of giving a real I.Q. test with a psychologist. People very often mistake being articulate for being intelligent. People mistake educated for intelligent. People mistake knowledge for intelligence.

I have no doubt that having a higher I.Q. helps. Although the data I have seen suggest that the correlation stops at about 120. Above 120, other factors (never adequately defined in any study I have seen) surpass I.Q.

The threshold ultimately becomes smart enough or not smart enough. Once that criteria is met (subjectively of course) I’ll take eager over smarter every single time and my track record (in an inadequate sample size) suggest I’ll outperform the a team that values other qualities.

This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.

by KC_Satchmo on Feb 28, 2012 1:44 PM EST up reply actions  

I think when Emotional Intelligence becomes widely quantifiable...

a mix of IQ and EI would prove pretty reliable

I am the one who knocks.

by PhattStairs on Feb 28, 2012 7:19 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm not sure if I agree

mostly because the EI measure wouldn’t be stagnant and when you’re talking about hiring it would tend to favor the developed over the developing. When the reality is that there is value in helping ssomeone grow.

I do think there is a tremendous ammount that could be learned from the research itself and overall the idea is a very good one.

This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.

by KC_Satchmo on Feb 28, 2012 7:24 PM EST up reply actions  

Damnit...

your right. IQ is damn near fixed, where as EI is growing. You win.

I am the one who knocks.

by PhattStairs on Feb 28, 2012 11:11 PM EST up reply actions  

I've read quite a bit about IQ not only improving and being fairly volatile

but that a little bit of studying can cause pretty decent gains in the results.

Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk

by Warden11 on Feb 29, 2012 11:38 AM EST up reply actions  

I don't think anyone would begrudge you liking a guy for one reason or another.

The only time this could conceivably matter would be if you are embroiled in a debate and using intangibles as support for an otherwise shaky argument. Strong character isn’t something that anyone here would bristle against. I’d imagine if given the choice between two players with equal skill-sets and on-field results and one seemed like a great guy and one was a shithead, 95% of the RR faithful would choose the great guy. It’s that character is used by so many as a crutch when the on-field results don’t measure up with what they see with their eye-tests that ruffles our collective feathers.

Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick, SVU at Munch My Benson and on Twitter at Old Man Duggan

by Old Man Duggan on Feb 28, 2012 3:39 PM EST up reply actions  

Damn you, erroneous comma.

Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick, SVU at Munch My Benson and on Twitter at Old Man Duggan

by Old Man Duggan on Feb 28, 2012 8:33 PM EST up reply actions  

such a great comment...

strangely, I both hate and like Kid Rock, depending on what mood I am end.

But for the life of me, can someone explain to me why some people treat Van Halen like they were the Beatles of the 80s.

I am the one who knocks.

by PhattStairs on Feb 28, 2012 11:15 PM EST up reply actions  

i dont know much about van halen

or music in general. i do know that the only argument about music that i will get into is with people who insist kid rock is a shit musician.

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Feb 28, 2012 11:17 PM EST up reply actions  

its definitely getting cheesier

i think thats inevitable though. he’s worth like $100 million, he cant sing about the same things that he did before…similar to eminem. i think it’s still quality music and quite impressive that he’s managed to basically switch genres in midstream without missing a beat.

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Feb 29, 2012 11:10 AM EST up reply actions  

True about the money

…see the aforementioned VH.

Kid Rock was a real pioneer in crossover circles. Great marketing strategy. Is he gonna end up in the country genre, like everybody else (cause it’s too easy not to)?

by Rufus R. Jones on Feb 29, 2012 11:25 AM EST up reply actions  

A shithead in what way though

Is the guy getting arrested, or does he just carry himself in a way that people don’t like?

by BeauJackson on Feb 28, 2012 8:55 PM EST up reply actions  

carries self in a way people dont like....

lebron, bryce harper, arod type of shithead

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Feb 28, 2012 9:02 PM EST up reply actions  

I guess it would just depend on the guy.

I can’t stand A-Rod or LeBron, but I like what I’ve seen from Harper. I also liked Karl Malone and hated Deion Sanders, so it varies. I wouldn’t automatically just like the “good guy” because he seemed nice though. Kind of like how I couldn’t stand Mike Sweeney.

by BeauJackson on Feb 28, 2012 9:35 PM EST up reply actions  

I always like to compare Randy Moss with T.O.

Randy was cocky, but likable

T.O. was the definition of locker room cancer

I am the one who knocks.

by PhattStairs on Feb 28, 2012 11:17 PM EST up reply actions  

ahhhhhh yes...

Straight Cash Homie…on the spot awesomeness…Ron Swanson would approve

I am the one who knocks.

by PhattStairs on Feb 28, 2012 11:28 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm the opposite there.

Didn’t really care about Moss either way, but I loved T.O.

by BeauJackson on Feb 28, 2012 11:22 PM EST up reply actions  

i loved the driveway workouts and such

and the bashing of that fraud mcnabb….it wore on me though…and i have no respect for someone stupid enough to go broke within a year of being out of the league after making 60 million or so

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Feb 28, 2012 11:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Sweeney preached.

Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick, SVU at Munch My Benson and on Twitter at Old Man Duggan

by Old Man Duggan on Feb 29, 2012 12:04 AM EST up reply actions  

I know that rubs me the wrong way.

I never disliked the guy, but if I’d known him, I’d imagine that the preaching would have turned me off of him.

Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick, SVU at Munch My Benson and on Twitter at Old Man Duggan

by Old Man Duggan on Feb 29, 2012 12:08 AM EST up reply actions  

I don’t care who you are or what you believe, but if I want you to preach to me, I’ll ask. If not, keep your personal beliefs to yourself. That was my biggest issue with Sweeney. Well, that and the fact that his contract absolutely crippled us because he was producing next to nothing for most of his contract.

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Feb 29, 2012 12:16 AM EST up reply actions  

Yeah, that didn't endear him to me.

His being an annoying salesman was the bigger factor though.

by BeauJackson on Feb 29, 2012 12:17 AM EST up reply actions  

I can't begrudge him getting a contract.

I don’t think he tried/wanted to be injured. I’m not going to hold injury against someone.

Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick, SVU at Munch My Benson and on Twitter at Old Man Duggan

by Old Man Duggan on Feb 29, 2012 12:23 AM EST up reply actions  

that doesnt make me hate him...

it does make me irate that he was chosen over carlos beltran. And I think in large part he was chosen because he seemed like a nice guy, was outgoing and spoke english.

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Feb 29, 2012 12:31 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

BARRY BONDS...

I never minded his cockiness because I understood it. How can you not be that cocky when you are that freaking good. Then we found out why.

I am the one who knocks.

by PhattStairs on Feb 28, 2012 11:16 PM EST up reply actions  

i wasnt ever a huge fan of bonds...

and his cockiness….i think that had more to do with me being a griffey guy though

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Feb 28, 2012 11:19 PM EST up reply actions  

Sal just looks like a smart player

We’ve seen enough of Yuni Fucking Betancourt to know what a dumb player looks like. I’m glad the team made a commitment to a young guy with real potential. That’s the only way the Röyals can succeed—get good young players and sign ’em cheap.

I am amazed Dayton pulled this one off. It’s very un-Dayton. Somebody sees something in this guy.

Now let’s get rid of Kendall and hire a Molina brother to tutor him. Or Macfarlane.

"That fucking fucker of a general swears too fucking much." --Unnamed soldier about Gen. George Patton, 1943

by Juancho on Feb 28, 2012 6:39 PM EST up reply actions  

How the hell does Mac not have a job with this organization?

“We’ve seen enough of Yuni Fucking Betancourt to know what a dumb player looks like. I’m glad the team made a commitment to a young guy with real potential.”

Which makes the signing of Yuni that much more maddening

This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.

by KC_Satchmo on Feb 28, 2012 7:18 PM EST up reply actions  

I hope that's it

This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.

by KC_Satchmo on Feb 28, 2012 9:41 PM EST up reply actions  

or perhaps the royals dont want him in the organization...

i dont understand where the idea that every former player deserves a job in the organization comes from.

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Feb 28, 2012 9:42 PM EST up reply actions  

There are many many former players I wouldn't want working for the team

I just really respect Mac. So sue me. ;)

This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.

by KC_Satchmo on Feb 28, 2012 9:53 PM EST up reply actions  

oh...i have no issues with mac at all

i just see this come up too often with too many guys….frank white deserves a job, mac should have a job…make banny the pitching coach….hire sweeney…it just seems very participation medalish. if a former beloved player wants to work for the organization, give him an interview, put him at the top of your list by all means, but make him earn it. no reason to have a bunch of dead weight because they played for the royals at one point.

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Feb 28, 2012 10:05 PM EST up reply actions  

Doesn't have to be Mac

Whichever Molina is currently out of work would be fine.

"That fucking fucker of a general swears too fucking much." --Unnamed soldier about Gen. George Patton, 1943

by Juancho on Mar 1, 2012 9:29 AM EST up reply actions  

I'd better not see Perez batting sans gloves this year.

Bat control be damned.

I'm waiting for my wave of talent to arrive.

by mitchfreakingmaier! on Feb 29, 2012 11:45 AM EST up reply actions  

let'r rip is right.

trust me know matter what you say. someone is gonna disagree. so might as well speak up

by DickHowser4ever on Feb 28, 2012 12:55 PM EST up reply actions  

I think the difference is this:

If you say, “He seems like a nice, fun person, so I’m a big fan of his”, then that’s great and hopefully we have lots of players like this and we’re all excited to root for them.

If you say “He seems like a nice (clutch/gritty/etc) guy, and that’s going to make him a better player (and/or make the team play better)”, then there’s a problem.

Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448

by SagehenMacGyver47 on Feb 28, 2012 2:54 PM EST up reply actions  

And it's lazy IMO to make statements about a guy being gritty

If he’s had a major league career without the benefit of outstanding size, speed or athleticism. “He works his butt off,” “he knows his role, never complains and is always prepared,” “he’s so versatile-he plays wherever the team needs him.”

I just tune this out, whether it comes from Ned or Lee Judge or anyone else. I think many infer character traits when looking at less talented players when the reality is that they are not good enough to be everyday players and have to show work ethic, versatility and compliance just to stay on a major league roster.

by thelaundry on Feb 28, 2012 3:19 PM EST up reply actions  

A-Rod is a choker, therefore he doesn't

QED

Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448

by SagehenMacGyver47 on Feb 28, 2012 4:05 PM EST up reply actions  

I agree with that

And thought about bringing up who is likely to be called gritty or a gamer and who is deemed arrogant or without baseball IQ. I just thought it might take the discussion in another direction needlessly.

by thelaundry on Feb 28, 2012 4:22 PM EST up reply actions  

I am going to try to get a short interview (5 questions) with the Royals on the deal.

What do you think I should ask?

Doubting Thomas, the patron saint of sabermetrics

by Jeff Zimmerman on Feb 28, 2012 10:15 AM EST reply actions  

Why did you target Perez for an extension?
Is this kind of deal you might be interested in offering any other players?
How long did the negotiations take?

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 28, 2012 10:25 AM EST up reply actions  

At what point did they become sold on the fact that Perez was their catcher of the future?

by Rufus R. Jones on Feb 28, 2012 10:53 AM EST up reply actions  

Are you working on a long-term deal with Alex Gordon?

"That fucking fucker of a general swears too fucking much." --Unnamed soldier about Gen. George Patton, 1943

by Juancho on Feb 28, 2012 6:41 PM EST up reply actions  

Question 1:

Are we sure this is real life still?

by Yodazilla on Feb 28, 2012 10:25 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Are guys like Duffy candidates for this type of deal?

For that matter given the volitile nature of pitching, are there any pitchers that are candidates for this type of team friendly deal?

I'm waiting for my wave of talent to arrive.

by mitchfreakingmaier! on Feb 28, 2012 10:47 AM EST up reply actions  

Are guys like Duffy candidates for this type of deal?

I would definitely hope not, at this point.

by Rufus R. Jones on Feb 28, 2012 10:54 AM EST up reply actions  

I think it would be a safe contract for the Royals to give Duffy

I think if he fails as a starter, he’d at least be a competent reliever (and quite possibly a very good one). And the guaranteed money is still reasonable for a reliever.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 28, 2012 11:07 AM EST up reply actions  

Pitchers get hurt though

And I just don’t see big time upside for Duffy.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 28, 2012 11:09 AM EST up reply actions  

But how much bigtime upside do you need for this contract to work out in the Royals favor?

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 28, 2012 11:15 AM EST up reply actions  

On the roster as a SP for the next 5 years

Or on the roster as a good to very good reliever for the next 5-6 years.

Have to account for the years the player makes essentially the minimum.

by WURoyal on Feb 28, 2012 11:29 AM EST via mobile up reply actions  

My calculations say that as a 1 WAR player, over five guranteed years, with Perez/Duffy’s service time, with $500K the hard minimum for the first three years, including salary inflation (5%) and appropriate discounts for arb years, is worth $6.5M. So Duffy wouldn’t really have to p.erform too well to earn his money on this kind of contract

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 28, 2012 11:33 AM EST up reply actions  

Much bigger risk though

$7 million isn’t a lot, but if you do this for a lot of players, and a fair amount fail, that’s a lot of dead weight.

I think its far from a sure thing that Duffy will be playing MLB four years from now. I’m confident Sal Perez will at least be a MLB backup catcher.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 28, 2012 11:38 AM EST up reply actions  

Risk/reward

I like the risk/reward balance for Duffy with this kind of contract. I can understand how some would not.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 28, 2012 11:52 AM EST up reply actions  

What's the prospect success rate for a top 100 pitcher?

If you know by each increment WAR, that’d be even better. I’d love to run the numbers

by Loose Seal on Feb 28, 2012 11:57 AM EST up reply actions  

For pitchers in the 60-70 range

(Duffy was #68 last year), the success rate is about 20%. And that’s 20% that average at least 1.5 WAR over their cost controlled years. It is about 40% for pitchers averaging at least 0.5 WAR.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 28, 2012 12:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Thanks - those numbers make me more hesitant to give Duffy this deal

Didn’t Jeff’s break-even point for this contract = .5WAR?

Though potential $ benefit of him over-performing ($67m for 8 years of 2 WAR) greatly outweighs the potential $ cost of him underperforming (-7m for 5 years at 0 WAR).

by Loose Seal on Feb 28, 2012 12:14 PM EST up reply actions  

on contracts like these,,,,

you dont have to hit often to come out way ahead

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Feb 28, 2012 12:15 PM EST up reply actions  

They're also really aware of the fact that

they think they effed up big time with Humber.

I'm waiting for my wave of talent to arrive.

by mitchfreakingmaier! on Feb 28, 2012 12:16 PM EST up reply actions  

FWIW, for prospects like Perez, the failure rate is much higher.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 28, 2012 12:16 PM EST up reply actions  

Well, that statement is based on last year's projections, right?

and the fact that Sal was un-rated in 2011. And I agree that a guaranteed $7m for an unrated prospect is a much riskier bet.

This year’s projections, if Sal were still eligible, would probably show Sal as a top 50-75 positional prospect – and they have pretty high success rates, right?

by Loose Seal on Feb 28, 2012 12:23 PM EST up reply actions  

I think 50-75 is higher than is likely

Quite frankly, I think he would have been borderline top 100. But if he made it, I think he would have been in one of the higher numbers. For position players in the 81-100 group, the success rate is 22%. And the at least .5 WAR is a little over 40%.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 28, 2012 12:33 PM EST up reply actions  

Correction

I was looking at the overall prospect success rates. For position players in that group, it is more like 26% and 45%.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 28, 2012 12:33 PM EST up reply actions  

A little sobering

but still points to this being a good deal

by Loose Seal on Feb 28, 2012 12:40 PM EST up reply actions  

I bet if you limited the group to Top 100 prospects that made the Majors at 21 years old and had positive WAR over their first 150 PA’s, the ’s would be more like 60 and 80%.

by kcdc1 on Feb 28, 2012 12:49 PM EST up reply actions  

comment got screwed up

*the success rates would be more like 60% and 80%.

by kcdc1 on Feb 28, 2012 12:50 PM EST up reply actions  

Wouldn’t be fair to include Perez in that group since he was never in the top 100. We can only speculate that he would have been this year.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 28, 2012 12:55 PM EST up reply actions  

right, but refining the stats by only his positives

starts to skew the results.

I could also limit the results by his negative attributes like prospects over 240 lbs, or with bad base-running, and get less successful rates.

by Loose Seal on Feb 28, 2012 12:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Sure, break it down however you want. But my point is that we have more information about Perez than the simple fact that he might have made BA’s Top 100 this year, and on balance, that information suggests that he’s more likely to have sustained success than a generic #90 prospect in High-A.

A lot of guys on BA’s list never make it to the Majors, so Sal’s already cleared one big hurdle.

by kcdc1 on Feb 28, 2012 12:59 PM EST up reply actions  

The lack of command concerns me I guess

I’d be amenable doing this for a guy like Monty if he bounces back and has a good minor league season, and maybe inking him in his first year or two of MLB service if he looks at all decent.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 28, 2012 11:58 AM EST up reply actions  

I see what you're saying about his command,

but it was his first partial MLB season. I saw enough in the strikeout department to like his potential going forward. Scott likened Duffy to Affeldt in another thread and he may not be too far off there. I do feel that he will stick as a starter though. He has to get the walks down, but you can’t argue with his stuff.

I'm waiting for my wave of talent to arrive.

by mitchfreakingmaier! on Feb 28, 2012 12:13 PM EST up reply actions  

I think you can argue with his stuff.

He didn’t have the stuff to get hitters out early when he was ahead in counts. He had to get them to chase or they fought off pitches very well against Duffy all year. It’s possible that he didn’t have the “stuff” to put away MLB hitters.

Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk

by Warden11 on Feb 28, 2012 12:21 PM EST up reply actions  

I think he has the stuff

Just has to learn how to pitch. And there are no guarantees that he will.

by Rufus R. Jones on Feb 28, 2012 12:27 PM EST up reply actions  

I had the opportunity to see him pitch several times last year.

Once from the 3rd row. He definately has the ability to put guys away at the MLB level. The game that really sticks out was in St Louis I think. I want to say he went right around 5 innings with 11 Ks and somewhere like 6 walks. It was ultimately the walks that chased him.

I'm waiting for my wave of talent to arrive.

by mitchfreakingmaier! on Feb 28, 2012 12:57 PM EST up reply actions  

Ok

I was wrong. He had 9 Ks in 5 IP with only 1 walk. His pitch count got out of control though. I remember him having really deep counts on a ton of hitters. The point is that he definately put them away.

I'm waiting for my wave of talent to arrive.

by mitchfreakingmaier! on Feb 28, 2012 1:00 PM EST up reply actions  

Right. But why were the pitch counts so high?

Lots of hitters were spoiling his pitches and he nibbled. I’m not saying he doesn’t have the stuff, I’m saying his “stuff” wasn’t special last year.

Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk

by Warden11 on Feb 28, 2012 1:09 PM EST up reply actions  

I think there are similar terms I could endorse.

Salary inflation helps me come around. If we gave this same contract to Monty, Odorizzi, Lamb, Dwyer, and Duffy would we expect one guy to cover the cost of all the contracts and then some?

by WURoyal on Feb 28, 2012 11:59 AM EST via mobile up reply actions  

Duffy is the one I would possibly consider

for a similar extension in the near future. Just have not seen enough yet to guarantee him shit.

by Rufus R. Jones on Feb 28, 2012 12:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Duffy is a Boras client

so an extension is probably not in his near future regardless.

by ElChupanibre on Feb 28, 2012 2:21 PM EST up reply actions  

And it may cost

them money in the long run, if he fizzles or blows his shoulder up. True about him being a Boras client, though. Anybody know of any examples of Boras clients signing early extensions. I’m sure it’s been discussed on here before, I just don’t remember and am too lazy to look it up.

by Rufus R. Jones on Feb 28, 2012 3:03 PM EST up reply actions  

The closest thing to it is probably the Weaver extension

Which is not an early extension at all, but was apparently against the advice of Boras. At the very least I would think he would want the final years of this kind of deal to be guaranteed. As we discussed with Hosmer, Boras would likely demand enough to give FA years that it becomes very risky for an unproven player.

And Boras appears to be such a master manipulator that if he is willing to talk turkey with a team, does that mean he doesn’t like his potential enough to take him to free agency?

by thelaundry on Feb 28, 2012 3:33 PM EST up reply actions  

If Hosmer would sign 10 years for $100 million, I’d do it right now.

by Rufus R. Jones on Feb 29, 2012 11:10 AM EST up reply actions  

"a fair amount fail"

If a lots of them fail, you’re in trouble no matter what. Assuming you offered the right guys (i.e., player/contract combos with positive expected value), then you just have to hope that they do pan out/stay injury-free.

If he would do it, I’d sign Duffy to this deal immediately.

Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448

by SagehenMacGyver47 on Feb 28, 2012 3:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Not necessarily

If lots of them fail, you still have financial flexibility to make other moves. If you are weighed down by a bunch of bad long-term extensions, you don’t.

Obviously I’d sign Duffy to a 5 year $7 million deal, but I would think a pitcher would command more than what Perez got and I’m not sure I’d offer more than this.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 28, 2012 3:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Scott once did a piece on which position prospects fail most

and if I remember right pitcher prospects are the riskiest and catcher prospects are the least risky, in part because that’s probably the position where there’s least competition.

"That fucking fucker of a general swears too fucking much." --Unnamed soldier about Gen. George Patton, 1943

by Juancho on Feb 28, 2012 6:44 PM EST up reply actions  

Nope. But given the success rates for pitching prospects, I’m not sure it’s worth it, especially if considering injury risk.

Non guaranteed contracts are really really valuable for pitchers.

by WURoyal on Feb 28, 2012 11:54 AM EST via mobile up reply actions  

Trying to project without asking about specific players

It’s unusual to offer a long term deal to a player with as little major league experience as Perez. Looking beyond Perez, what does a player have to demonstrate to make the Royals consider offering a long term deal so early in his career?

by HarryL on Feb 28, 2012 11:16 AM EST up reply actions  

Scott's point earlier about this being Perez first big payday

is likely the best and most relevant point in the entire thread. To a 1st round bonus baby, this isn’t huge money. To someone who has still pretty much been playing for normal working wages, this is a huge offer. I’m sure the conditions in Venezuela, where Sal’s family still lives, factor into this. A guy like him can’t pass up an opportunity to move his family here and kiss poverty goodbye, for a couple of generations, at worst.

by Rufus R. Jones on Feb 28, 2012 11:22 AM EST up reply actions  

I think it also helps that he gets some nice raises (at least on a percentage basis) in the short-term

Pretty much regardless of performance, he’d be making around $500K each of the next 3 years. But with this contract, he’s making $750K, $1M and 1.5M. So he’s getting a lot more money early than he’d otherwise get.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 28, 2012 11:25 AM EST up reply actions  

Ah, just to clarify

My question here was trying to find a way to ask the Royals about other players they might consider locking up based on such a small amount of major league data. Someone had suggested the Royals would probably not comment on specific players, so I was thinking we could instead ask them about what characteristics/data/factors they look for to lock someone up so early. Completely agree with Scott’s (and your) points about why Sal would take this offer.

By the way, as a sidenote, were Dayton and Ned calling him “Salvie” in yesterday’s press conference? I hadn’t heard that nickname for him before. =)

by HarryL on Feb 28, 2012 11:31 AM EST up reply actions  

Y NO MUTUAL OPTION?

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 28, 2012 11:39 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

What do they expect with his bat?

Is it their philosophy to lock up as many young guys as they can or is more of a case-by-case basis as it presents itself?

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 28, 2012 11:37 AM EST up reply actions  

Did they know contract extension was a strong possibility when they decided to burn a year of service time

The decision to call Perez up last year makes a lot more sense if the Royals were already confident that they could extend him.

by KSinDC on Feb 28, 2012 1:01 PM EST up reply actions  

The questions I want answered are stat questions that likely wouldn't be answered, such as:

Salvador’s at-bats constitute a relatively small sample size, what convinced you that his success will continue?

The main issue is that I really want to know how statistical the talks get between the agent and the team. Such as: does the agent say, “Look, 150 PAs is enough, Sal is going to be amazing and this projection system shows that he is worth x amount.”

I am the one who knocks.

by PhattStairs on Feb 28, 2012 1:26 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

I doubt the Royals are talking about small sample size or projection systems in these negotations. They just don’t speak that language. The Royals did this because they love his tools, period. Perhaps his minor leagues stats played a part, but that really isn’t how they evaluate players, IMO.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 28, 2012 2:18 PM EST up reply actions  

my wag on what they were thinking

The front office figures that with his defense, he is viable placeholder starter or backup catcher even if his bat does not really develop, he has enough contact skills to provide at least some value with the bat, and despite his huge size, his age and work ethic make it a reasonable bet that he puts off going “full Molina” for at least the five guaranteed years.

by Gopherballs on Feb 28, 2012 2:28 PM EST up reply actions  

Also, I don’t think this organization much cares about the hitting of its catchers. I think they see it as a position where pretty much everything else (defense, game calling, arm, leadership, etc.) is more important than hitting.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 28, 2012 2:34 PM EST up reply actions  

I think they see defense at C and SS is essential

And offense is a bonus, which is why I think Escobar is not in danger of being benched anytime soon, even if he hits more poorly than last year.

by thelaundry on Feb 28, 2012 3:40 PM EST up reply actions  

Don't forget arm tats.

Has anyone seen Sal this spring yet? Sporting any new ink?

I'm waiting for my wave of talent to arrive.

by mitchfreakingmaier! on Feb 28, 2012 4:25 PM EST up reply actions  

I think they would have evaluated how he looked in his MLB PA’s. Not so much the results as measured by BA or anything else, but if he looked like he could handle MLB pitching or if he was just flailing around out there. So it remains a scouting analysis, not a statistical one. That’s what I’m saying.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 28, 2012 9:18 PM EST up reply actions  

+1 for this question
Salvador’s at-bats constitute a relatively small sample size, what convinced you that his success will continue?

I would like to see them put on the spot about the scouting/stats evaluation here.

Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448

by SagehenMacGyver47 on Feb 28, 2012 3:03 PM EST up reply actions  

It looks like the interview is finally a go for tomorrow.

Looks like Jin Wong will be making his second appearance.

Doubting Thomas, the patron saint of sabermetrics

by Jeff Zimmerman on Feb 29, 2012 7:22 PM EST up reply actions  

Great work

Just about the only way this doesn’t pan out is if it quickly becomes clear that Perez is not a big leaguer and never will be (or he gets hurt). And even then you’re out less money than what you paid Bruce Chen. Hard to see this as a bad deal at all.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 28, 2012 10:54 AM EST reply actions  

Worst contract ever

Guaranteeing $7M based off of a month of success. This FO’s incompetence shines through once more.

by kcdc1 on Feb 28, 2012 11:40 AM EST reply actions  

hopefully no one

But Scott is around.

Doubting Thomas, the patron saint of sabermetrics

by Jeff Zimmerman on Feb 28, 2012 11:56 AM EST up reply actions  

It was a serious attempt to get someone to argue with him about whether not DM is a competent GM.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 28, 2012 12:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Nah, it was a joke, but I don’t believe in sarcasm font.

by kcdc1 on Feb 28, 2012 12:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Zing!

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 28, 2012 12:05 PM EST up reply actions  

Zingers are delicious

Twinkies can rot in hell

This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.

by KC_Satchmo on Feb 28, 2012 12:07 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

i dont think twinkies rot...

the chevy commercial on the super bowl taught me that they’re indestructible

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Feb 28, 2012 12:09 PM EST up reply actions  

Just like the American spirit

Vote Hostess 2012

This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.

by KC_Satchmo on Feb 28, 2012 12:12 PM EST up reply actions  

I dare ya ;)

This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.

by KC_Satchmo on Feb 28, 2012 12:37 PM EST up reply actions  

And Rufus R Jones is no

Bulldog Bob Brown

This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.

by KC_Satchmo on Feb 28, 2012 12:38 PM EST up reply actions  

BoBo Brazil & Rufus R. Jones tag team vs.

The Interns

Christ, you don't need a quadrophonic Blaupunkt! What you need is a curveball! In the show, everyone can hit heat.

by BillyMojo on Feb 28, 2012 6:10 PM EST up reply actions  

In a real fight I would bet on a tag team

of Bulldog Bob Brown and Rufus R. Jones against any of the guys wrestling today. They’ve got all the acrobatic moves, but Bob and Rufus would just headbutt them into submission before any bouncing off the ropes happened.

"That fucking fucker of a general swears too fucking much." --Unnamed soldier about Gen. George Patton, 1943

by Juancho on Feb 28, 2012 6:48 PM EST up reply actions  

I'd take Harley Race and anybody

over any two of the steroid freaks they have wrestling now.

This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.

by KC_Satchmo on Feb 28, 2012 7:19 PM EST up reply actions  

Plus

Bulldog would gouge their eyes out

by Rufus R. Jones on Feb 29, 2012 11:13 AM EST up reply actions  

Actually

Even Fetterolf likes this deal. In the comments on Royals Authority he compares it to a couple of Tampa deals, and then, in another comment analyzes how much WAR over 8 years would make it a positive deal.

I think you guys have rubbed off on him.

"Trying is the first step to sucking" -Jimmy Chance

by KHAZAD on Feb 28, 2012 6:58 PM EST up reply actions  

I think you mean
analyzes how much WAR Ron Polk Points over 8 years would make it a positive deal.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 28, 2012 10:05 PM EST up reply actions  

Yeah

I notice that Jim is has become a “numbers-guy” on some of the other forums now.

Obviously inspired by the Transformers movies.

by Rufus R. Jones on Feb 29, 2012 11:15 AM EST up reply actions  

Can I make one minor nitpick?

Contract is a definite A+ so no complaint there

But in the analysis, you pull out number of players who have X ABs under Age Y. One could argue that both are just functions of opportunity and so there’s not a lot of real data to pull from them. If the Royals had a halfway decent C in the high minors, Perez doesn’t make the majors at that age.

But it’s not really a representative sample as two pools feed into this. One is players who are just good enough but have great opportunity. The other that is really skewing the pool optimistically is the group that is so good that they would make it to the majors no matter the situation.

As much as I want to buy into this as a realistic sample of what Perez could be, it’s overly optimistic

by sterlingice on Feb 28, 2012 12:02 PM EST reply actions  

its not just the royals though...

and its not just catchers…players who make the majors at ages 19, 20, 21 tend to have very successful major league careers regardless of the quality of the team they made it with

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Feb 28, 2012 12:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Kyle Davies pitched his first MLB game as a Brave at the tender age of 21 years, 8 months, 13 days...

MAJOR LEAGUE (The Royals)
Rachel Phelps (Royals Management): I think he'll fit right in with our team concept.
Charlie Donovan (Royals Fans): That reminds me, I was going to ask you. What exactly *is* our team concept?

by Royals Medic on Feb 28, 2012 12:43 PM EST up reply actions  

Meh. There were some extenuating circumstances around the time he made his debut

He was their swing-man in his age 21 season. He made the Opening Day rotation the following year because of an injury. He then got injured in May and didn’t return until September.

He didn’t stick consistently until 2007 when he was traded at age 23.

There is strong indications that Davies was brought up before he was really ready and then just kept getting pushed out there.

We should trade for Vance Worley.

by JKWard on Feb 28, 2012 5:21 PM EST up reply actions  

Oh, I know.

I find it fun to look for the exception to the rule. As a Royals fan, Davies was the first bad player I thought of. Luckily, he actually debuted at age 21.

MAJOR LEAGUE (The Royals)
Rachel Phelps (Royals Management): I think he'll fit right in with our team concept.
Charlie Donovan (Royals Fans): That reminds me, I was going to ask you. What exactly *is* our team concept?

by Royals Medic on Feb 28, 2012 8:37 PM EST up reply actions  

Ruben Gotay would be another

I thought he was rushed and should have gotten a longer look. He debuted at 21 though.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 28, 2012 10:06 PM EST up reply actions  

I don’t think it was a dearth of half-decent catchers that got Sal to the Bigs. Even with Treanor’s injury and Pena’s 3-day leave, the Royals had Pina and May that they could have plugged in if they didn’t want to see what Perez could do. Judging by how few good catchers there are, I’d bet that a lot of catching prospects face even weaker competition on their final jump to the Majors.

by kcdc1 on Feb 28, 2012 12:41 PM EST up reply actions  

The team options really make this a good deal

The guaranteed money for $7 million over the next five years is probably pretty close to what the Royals would have had to pay if they went year to year with a league average catcher (the upfront payments above the minimum in the first three years basically offset any inflation). But by paying Perez almost $2 million more than he would have made in his first three years, the team was able to get the three option years at reasonable amounts. There is some risk even with the $7 million — if he only turns into a backup, he will get paid $4 million more than what Brayan Pena made in his first five years, and there is always a decent risk that a prospect flames out, gets hurt (especially among catchers), or becomes the catching version of Angel Berroa or Carlos Febles. But given Perez’s defensive reputation, he is a reasonable bet to stick as a decent catcher even if he is not a good hitter, and the pure team options significantly reduce that risk.

The one caveat is that major league catchers’ salaries appear to exist in a bizarro world where teams pay substantially less than ~$5 million per win and salary inflation never seems to happen. Catchers are one of the lowest paid positions. In 2011, Joe Mauer was the only regular catcher to make more than $10 million (Posada made $13 million but did not catch, and Victor Martinez made $12 million but was signed as a DH and made only 26 appearances behind the plate). The next highest paid catcher was McCann at $6.7 million, the fifth highest paid catcher was Yadier Molina at $5.3 million, and the tenth highest was Kurt Suzuki at $3.4 million. If you go back 10 seasons to 2002, the highest paid catchers were Piazza at $10.5 million and Rodriguez at $9.6 million, the fifth highest was Kendall at $6.5 million, and the tenth highest was Dan Wilson at $4.5 million. Given the way MLB teams have been reluctant to pay full value for catchers, the dollars per WAR comparison probably deserves an asterisk.

by Gopherballs on Feb 28, 2012 1:50 PM EST reply actions  

I wonder if catchers are underpaid,

because so few make it to their FA years as productive regulars, and have to take significant time off for rest/injuries or have to move to another position pretty soon after free agency hits.

I know that WAR gets reduced for playing time and for playing at less valuable positions, but maybe the arbitrators/agents haven’t figured this out.

Another likely explanation is that WAR values the positional adjustment at catcher much more than front offices do.

by Loose Seal on Feb 28, 2012 2:08 PM EST up reply actions  

yeah, those all probably play a part

It is kind of funny that teams might be underpaying catchers (in comparison to value-based metrics) due to the playing time and injury concerns, yet still crazily overpaying relief pitchers despite their limited playing time and high injury concerns.

by Gopherballs on Feb 28, 2012 2:22 PM EST up reply actions  

Another idea to consider:

WAR might overstate the actual value of a catcher. The positional adjustment for catcher isn’t derived from any serious mathematical rigor—it’s more based on feel.

It might be the case that the positional adjustment is screwy and that players that score 1 WAR by the current metric are more or less freely available. This would skew every catcher’s value up by 1 WAR.

If you look at recent Royals seasons, the Royals have filled their catching position on the cheap for each of the past 4 years (forever really if you want to sum up data going back further). But the motley collection of Buck, Olivo, Tupman, Pena, Kendall, Treanor, Pina, May and Perez has averaged about 2 WAR per season during that time. That group was stitched together on the fly at bargain prices, and yet they performed decently well. Maybe it’s just not that hard to piece together a catching rotation that can put up 2 WAR per season, and teams simply don’t have a compelling reason to pay more unless they’re getting a star hitter.

by kcdc1 on Feb 28, 2012 2:44 PM EST up reply actions  

The positional adjustment for catcher isn’t derived from any serious mathematical rigor—it’s more based on feel.

Really? I believe Tom Tango came up with the standard positional adjustments. And I thought it was based on the actual production of players by position. Do you have support for the contention that positional adjustments aren’t based on stats, that they are just based on “feel”?

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 28, 2012 2:49 PM EST up reply actions  

Look it up

There are 2 competing methods for how to find positional adjustments.

#1: Compare average defensive skill at each position by looking at players that play multiple positions, and measuring their performance relative to average at each position. The idea is that a single player will probably have similar defensive skill at each position he plays, so his changes in his performance relative to average between positions will be primarily due to differences in the average level of defensive performance at those positions.

This works well enough between OF slots where the skillsets are similar, and a player is probably equally skilled at running down flies regardless of where he stands on the field. It doesn’t work for catching tho since the skillset is totally different than at any other position.

#2: Measure the difficulty of playing a position by how well hitters that play that position hit. The idea is that it’s so hard to find a player that defends well enough to play shortstop that teams will have to field bad hitters at SS. The flip side is that it’s easy to find players that defend well enough to play 1B, so teams can freely select the best hitters for 1B without worrying about their defensive qualifications.

The problem with this method is that it assumes talent is smoothly distributed (it’s not), and that managers efficiently allocate playing time to optimize their teams’ offensive and defensive skills (they don’t).

Last I checked, sabermetrics had just generally agreed that catcher defensive adjustments would have to be imprecise, and that we could just live with it that way.

by kcdc1 on Feb 28, 2012 3:01 PM EST up reply actions  

What you just described (which did not include measuring average hitting performance of players at various positions), does not sound like “no mathematical rigor” and is “more based on feel.” I think your characterization of positional adjustments and how they have been figured is way, way off. Does that mean they can’t be improved? Certainly not. They may well be off. But we can only speculate, unless we can come up with a better calculation.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 28, 2012 3:07 PM EST up reply actions  

.....

I don’t think you understood what I was saying. Tango, among others, think method #2 is straight up bad. Method #1 is how the adjustments we commonly use for the rest of the positions were derived, but it doesn’t work for finding the positional adjustment at catcher. So the catcher positional adjustment is a guesstimate.

You can search for this information pretty easily on your own.

by kcdc1 on Feb 28, 2012 4:08 PM EST up reply actions  

So your bottom line point is that you think the methodology might work for other positions but doesn’t work for catchers. I don’t see any reason to assume that it doesn’t work for catchers.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 28, 2012 4:19 PM EST up reply actions  

I explained why above. You can also Google search this. Matt, do you want to chime in?

by kcdc1 on Feb 28, 2012 5:13 PM EST up reply actions  

You don’t think the positional adjustment methodology works for catchers and you claim that the positional adjustment for that position is just a guesstimate. Are you under the impression that this is the sabermetric consensus which you are just reminding us of?

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 28, 2012 9:20 PM EST up reply actions  

I don’t think you really understand what I’m saying or how positional adjustments are found, but I can try to explain a little more clearly.

Method 1 that I outlined above is used for finding the positional adjustments we commonly rely on, but it relies on an assumption that players that play multiple positions have generally equal skill at the various positions they play. This is a reasonable assumption for outfield positions and a decent assumption for infield positions, but there’s no reason to think that utility players are generally equally skilled at catcher and at 1B (or whatever position you’re using as your reference point). For this reason, this method does not work well to find the positional adjustment at catcher.

In response to your questions, yes, I don’t think the methodology for finding positional adjustments works well for catchers, and yes, I think that the positional adjustment is more or less a guesstimate. I suspect that many baseball statisticians would agree.

But I think you’re really trying to ask me a different question—do I think that the positional adjustment applied at the catcher position is reasonable, and similarly, do I think that WAR is a usefully accurate metric for evaluating catchers? To those questions, I would say yes, I think that the positional adjustment for catchers is close enough to be useful, even tho the method for arriving at that positional adjustment was more art than science.

by kcdc1 on Feb 29, 2012 12:11 AM EST up reply actions  

I think the problem

with WAR on catchers is there isn’t any good ratings of catcher defense out there. ( at least that are used in WAR) It is the same problem with the historical WAR ratings of players in the time when defensive metrics were mostly guesswork.

I always thought the position adjustment should change year to year, or at least by era. Much harder to get a good offensive shortstop in the 90s than the 70s, much easier to get a good third baseman in the 70s and later as opposed to previous eras. To me, the positional adjustments do seem a little arbitrary.

I know I am in the minority on this one (so don’t lose your mind Mckinney, you won’t convince me.) but I have always thought they should figure the average offensive production at each position, start everyone out at 81 and do wins above average. Positional adjustment would take care of itself, and it would be easier to see whether a players offense made up for his defense and vice versa. The mythical replacement player also seems arbitrary to me. Sometimes your replacement ends up being an above average player, sometimes it’s a poor fielder who doesn’t hit much better than a pitcher. If you used wins above average and did the averages by position, it would be much simpler to compare players at different positions, and easy to read. Positive players add wins in comparison to the league, negative ones subtract. A bad regular player at his position (who in WAR adds more, although not much for playing time) would become more negative with more playing time.

"Trying is the first step to sucking" -Jimmy Chance

by KHAZAD on Feb 28, 2012 7:30 PM EST up reply actions  

I noticed that...

looking at John Buck’s numbers they were rather sporadic. Are catchers offensive numbers more randomized that other positions?

I am the one who knocks.

by PhattStairs on Feb 28, 2012 11:25 PM EST up reply actions  

That system would be similar to the Method 2 I outlined above, tho you’d scrap the concept of replacement level. It’s one way of dealing with positional adjustments, but it has its own problems.

For example, if in 2012, every team fielded a Joe Mauer clone (healthy version) at catcher and a Yuniesky Betancourt clone at SS, your system would be unable to identify the talent gap between those position populations, and your metric would indicate that Joe Mauer was no better than Yuniesky Betancourt.

by kcdc1 on Feb 29, 2012 12:18 AM EST up reply actions  

Hell

even first base doesn’t have 30 Joe Mauers (healthy version), and there will never be a year without some good SS fielders, so Yuni has no chance even if he is an average hitter.

Truth be known, for my own charts I only break it down to runs. I suppose I could go by the average # of runs that equal a win, but that can change year to year as well. I am happy with knowing how many runs a player is above/below average. I do it without regard to position first, so I can see the overall above average players. But then I want to see where we (The Royals) are above or below average compared to each position in the league. It also gives me a baseline to see what the true differences are.

When it comes to fielding, players are basically compared to those that play the same position, why not do hitting the same way?

"Trying is the first step to sucking" -Jimmy Chance

by KHAZAD on Feb 29, 2012 3:40 AM EST up reply actions  

With the Mauer/Yuni example, I was giving an extreme case for purposes of illustration, but my point is that a system which arrives at positional difficulty by measuring offensive performance will be inaccurate if there is a talent difference across positions in the MLB pool.

Take the 2011 AL, for example. Last year, qualifying AL left fielders hit pretty crappily, posting a combined 103 wOBA+, and qualifying AL right fielders hit much better, posting a combined 118 wOBA+. If we used these offensive levels to infer the difficulty of playing LF relative to the difficulty of playing RF, we’d conclude that playing LF is much harder than playing RF, and we’d things like, “While Carl Crawford didn’t hit well last year, he was playing a demanding position in LF, and due to that positional adjustment, he was an above average player on the season.”

by kcdc1 on Feb 29, 2012 12:59 PM EST up reply actions  

correction

We wouldn’t think Crawford was above average, but we’d think he was about a 1 WAR player when in fact he was a 0 WAR player.

by kcdc1 on Feb 29, 2012 1:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Interesting - that also makes it sound like

WAR is normalized between the non-catcher positions, so the value to a team of a 2 WAR SS = 2 WAR 1B. However, catcher can’t be normalized so a 2 WAR catcher may or may not be equal to a 2 WAR SS or other position player.

by Loose Seal on Feb 28, 2012 4:19 PM EST up reply actions  

Have I got this straight?

Isn’t it harder to find a 2 WAR SS than a 2 WAR 1B?

As for catchers, wouldn’t the most important statistic be passed balls per inning, and the second one caught stealing percentage?

"That fucking fucker of a general swears too fucking much." --Unnamed soldier about Gen. George Patton, 1943

by Juancho on Feb 28, 2012 6:59 PM EST up reply actions  

It should be equally hard, i think

For example, Alcides was a 2.2 WAR player last year and Hosmer was a 1.8 WAR player, in part because of positional adjustments.

And for catchers, I think “calling a good game” and pitch framing would also be very very valuable.

by Loose Seal on Feb 28, 2012 8:36 PM EST up reply actions  

Look at Miguel Olivo, 130 games with a .273 wOBA

worth 1 WAR.

Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk

by Warden11 on Feb 28, 2012 2:57 PM EST up reply actions  

Better than a .273 wOBA.

Using catchers that had a minimum of 150 PA last year, that puts Olivo 38th. So that’s not good. But he played a bunch of games, so he gets credit for that. But his hitting was bad all around and his defense has been questioned often by scouts.

Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk

by Warden11 on Feb 28, 2012 3:07 PM EST up reply actions  

As Olivo was at 1 WAR, he was considerably below average (which would be about 2 WAR). By WAR, he was considerably below average. What seems wrong about that?

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 28, 2012 3:09 PM EST up reply actions  

And that was for 130 games. Add in a competent backup and we're seeing "average" production.

Looking at the team leaderboards for catcher last year, all but 8 teams got at least 2 WAR out of the catcher position (and one of those is at 1.9). If greater than 70% of the league reaches that mark, is it average production? Maybe that’s where I’m confusing myself. Does that happen for most positions or is this something that only pops up at catcher?

Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk

by Warden11 on Feb 28, 2012 3:16 PM EST up reply actions  

Well, approximately 2 WAR for an average player doesn’t mean for a player with average production over 162 games. It’s for what average players actually play, which I think is more like 150 games (which is why UZR has a UZR/150 version). So if you add up all of a team’s players at a given position, you’re getting 162 games and you’ll get a number that skews higher.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Feb 28, 2012 3:22 PM EST up reply actions  

SS has 12 teams that are below 2 WAR.

3B has 12 teams below 2 WAR

CF only has 2

RF has 6

2B has 10 teams below 2 WAR

Just found this interesting so far.

Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk

by Warden11 on Feb 28, 2012 3:33 PM EST up reply actions  

interesting question

looks like all positions, except LF, have more than 15 players with more than 2 WAR for 2011, and some positions like CF have 20 or 25 “above-average” players.

by Loose Seal on Feb 28, 2012 3:30 PM EST up reply actions  

The team leaderboards at FG include playing time by catchers at other positions too

Mike Napoli, Victor Martinez, Carlos Santana, and Joe Mauer are skewing it, plus the NL teams who use catchers as pinch hitters and at different positions.

As Scott mentioned, the 20 runs for replacement is also set at 150 games, not 162, and some teams with good catchers are going to give them extra at bats above and beyond the average for 162 games.

I am not sure if FG does it, but some versions use 25 runs as the replacement for the AL and 20 runs as the replacment for the NL.

by Gopherballs on Feb 28, 2012 3:34 PM EST up reply actions  

But if you look back at catcher production in 2011,

.273 wOBA is about what most back-up catchers did – so 1 WAR is about right. The third string catchers (“replacements”) were putting up wOBA more in the .250 range. So Olivo’s numers pass the eye test in my opinion.

by Loose Seal on Feb 28, 2012 3:10 PM EST up reply actions  

OT: If you watch only the last 5 minutes of the various episodes of

“Top 10 Right Now” you get the impression that we’re the best team in baseball. They talk about a Royals in the “might make the list next year” section of damn near every episode.

This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.

by KC_Satchmo on Feb 28, 2012 3:57 PM EST reply actions  

Are we not the best team in baseball?

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 28, 2012 4:15 PM EST up reply actions  

touche

This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.

by KC_Satchmo on Feb 28, 2012 4:17 PM EST up reply actions  

ESPN's AL only fantasy rankings have Perez ranked #142 overall.

He’s the 9th catcher out of 15, and is one rung behind Russell Martin at #141.

For the laughs, A.J. is the 12th catcher at #156 overall.

He’s projected for .304 BA, 2nd in the league behind Mauer. He’s also projected at 9 HR, tied for last with A.J.

MAJOR LEAGUE (The Royals)
Rachel Phelps (Royals Management): I think he'll fit right in with our team concept.
Charlie Donovan (Royals Fans): That reminds me, I was going to ask you. What exactly *is* our team concept?

by Royals Medic on Feb 28, 2012 8:47 PM EST reply actions  

Seems way too high of a batting average.

Although if I remember correctly his average last year wasn’t out of line with his batted ball profile.

by BeauJackson on Feb 28, 2012 8:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Sal had something like a .362 BABIP and a 28% LD%

The line drives are encouraging, but unsustainable.

by Loose Seal on Feb 28, 2012 9:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Rany's got his article up...

http://www.ranyontheroyals.com/2012/02/perezence.html

This story brought a smile to my face… the “If this is true it’s such a cool story” type smile.

*: Quick diversion to a (second-hand) story from last year’s camp: the first time Perez caught Joakim Soria, he took charge the way he did with every pitcher, gently encouraging Soria, chatting up his pitches, and generally acting like he was the veteran helping the kid along instead of the other way around.

Soria was a little taken aback by the way this 20-year-old from A-ball was projecting his authority, so he decided to test out the kid: without warning, he purposely buried his next pitch three feet outside and in the dirt. In one smooth motion, Perez slid over, snagged the ball out of the dirt like he was fielding a grounder, yelled out some more words of encouragement, and threw the ball back to Soria like nothing had happened. To no one in particular, Soria mouthed a single word: "nice".

MAJOR LEAGUE (The Royals)
Rachel Phelps (Royals Management): I think he'll fit right in with our team concept.
Charlie Donovan (Royals Fans): That reminds me, I was going to ask you. What exactly *is* our team concept?

by Royals Medic on Feb 28, 2012 9:03 PM EST reply actions  

That's a neat little anecdote

I feel like we don’t get nearly enough insight about the Latin players. They’re like a mystery to me. And Soria speaks fluent English! Enough with the Frenchy and Moose stories, talk to Soria!

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Feb 28, 2012 10:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Hell, Soria is smart enough

that he speaks better English than some of our American players. The guy comes from an upper-middle-class family, whose traditional profession is dentistry.

Seems like “Jack” isn’t just a Treyism, it’s actually what the other guys call him.

Cuthbert is going to be interesting. He comes from the Corn fuckin’ Islands in the middle of the Caribbean, where they only have a few thousand people. I think they belong to Nicaragua.

"That fucking fucker of a general swears too fucking much." --Unnamed soldier about Gen. George Patton, 1943

by Juancho on Mar 1, 2012 9:26 AM EST up reply actions  

I haven't looked this up

but the Nicaraguan Caribbean coast and the Corn Islands used to belong to Britain, and many people there are blacks or East Indians or whatever brought in there to provide plantation labor. Cuthbert and other English surnames apparently dominate there.

"She's the Kansas City Bomber, let her roll, let her roll, let her fly through the fury of the race
The cry of the crowd is the keeper of her soul, you can see by the rage on her face."

--Phil Ochs

by Juancho on Mar 2, 2012 1:30 PM EST up reply actions  

Makes sense.

Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, and pontificating on pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick.
Twit. Old Man Duggan

by Old Man Duggan on Mar 3, 2012 5:51 AM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed

Search

User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Kansas City Royals.

Related FanPosts on Royals Review

51631390_small
What Will the Kansas City Royals' Lineup Look Like in 2016?

by KCBoy 20 days ago

30 comments

Royalsretro_small
Previously, on KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL

by RoyalsRetro about 1 month ago

25 comments | 32 recs

220px-mgmt_congratulations_small
Random Royals Open Thread: EVERYONE SETTLE DOWN (!!!) Edition.

by Jack Marsh about 1 month ago

112 comments

Small
Yost suggests a possible closer by committee?

by Brad Ebert 2 months ago

45 comments

Small
Offensive Projections

by baseball27 2 months ago

9 comments | 1 recs

220px-mgmt_congratulations_small
Revisiting the Sports Illustrated BFSE Article. (Part 1)

by Jack Marsh 4 months ago

9 comments | 1 recs

Related FanShots on Royals Review

Most common last names in Royals History

by cmkeller 10 months ago 20 comments | 1 rec

Ramon Castro signs with Blue Jays for 1/1$M

by Matt Klaassen over 2 years ago 42 comments

Butler is AL Player of the Week

by chiefstatnut almost 3 years ago 7 comments

doublestix's five MAJOR League predictions, March edition

by doublestix about 3 years ago 8 comments

Scott Boras and Ethics

by Matt Klaassen over 3 years ago 51 comments

Toriii Hunter, tough guy and class act. "He pushed me pretty hard, like a fight in the 'hood," Hunter said. "The ghetto came out. I hate that. I want to apologize to the fans for my temper flaring." --Hunter

by Matt Klaassen over 3 years ago 1 comment

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Royalsretro_small
Would Royals Review Make Better Decisions Than Dayton Moore?

by RoyalsRetro 5 days ago

32 comments | 10 recs

Funny-tattoos-hey-look-they-found-a-royals-fan_small
Mitch On the Bench

by Tracer Bullet 82 9 days ago

8 comments | 9 recs

Royalsretro_small
Happy Mother's Day From Royals Review

by RoyalsRetro 14 days ago

33 comments | 10 recs

Recent FanPosts

Dignan_small
Friday Game 43 Open Thread

by Crooow 1 day ago

498 comments | 3 recs

Funny-tattoos-hey-look-they-found-a-royals-fan_small
MORE Mitch on the Bench

by Tracer Bullet 82 2 days ago

5 comments

Sexy-beast-original_small
OT Friday: The generic boilerplate template desert island gambit

by Nighthawk at the Diner 2 days ago

164 comments

Tumblr_lwfiy4qkgv1r204zxo1_500_small
RR Poetry Contest

by splitty 2 days ago

7 comments | 1 recs

Small
Extrapolating the First 43 Games over the Full Season

by 1040X 2 days ago

6 comments

Small
Is Dave Eiland doing ... anything?

by KyleM 3 days ago

43 comments | 2 recs

Small
Alcides Escobar's Bat

by RoyalTreatment 4 days ago

19 comments | 2 recs

Download_small
Was Dayton Moore Right on Bruce Chen?

by Hal McRae's Telephone 4 days ago

7 comments | 1 recs

Chalmers2_small
2012 Royals vs 2012 Ex-Royals

by BlitzAce71 5 days ago

11 comments | 1 recs

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Recent Posts

Yahoo_full_count

In Association With

Baseball Nation Recent Stories

Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig and Major League Baseball Players Association Executive Director Michael Weiner speak at a news conference at the headquarters of Major League Baseball in New York City. Selig and Weiner announced a new five year labor agreement between the MLB and the MLBPA. (Photo by Patrick McDermott/Getty Images)

How MLB Should Punish Players Who Drink And Drive

BOSTON, MA: Carlos Pena #23 and Ben Zobrist #18 of the Tampa Bay Rays have words with pitching coach Bob McClure #22 of the Boston Red Sox after teammate Luke Scott was hit by a pitch in the ninth inning at Fenway Park in Boston, Massachusetts. (Photo by Jim Rogash/Getty Images)

Joe Maddon, Bobby Valentine Trade Public Jabs

Baltimore, MD, USA; Baltimore Orioles center fielder Adam Jones doubles against the Boston Red Sox at Oriole Park at Camden Yards. The Red Sox defeated the Orioles 6-5. Credit: Joy R. Absalon-US PRESSWIRE +2 updates

Orioles, Adam Jones Reportedly Agree To Extension

More from Baseball Nation >

Managers

Cimg0036_small Freneau

Editors

Dayton_small Jeff Zimmerman

Authors

Royalsretro_small RoyalsRetro

Headshot_small Old Man Duggan