Earlier today, Eric Longenhagen previewed baseball’s lesser bullpens. Now, Dan Szymborski takes a look at the relief corps projected to be the league’s best.

Over the last 10 to 15 years, there have been gradual changes to how bullpens are built and deployed. Clubs are more willing than ever to admit that their closer is simply the best pitcher on their roster rather than one blessed with magical abilities, able to secure the final outs of a game where lesser men would fail. Closers are still a fairly big deal, mind you, but the trend of late has been to talk more about bullpens in terms of the entire unit, rather than just the closer and his backing band. As such, that’s how we rank them. There’s not a lot of turnover this year, with 11 of the top 15 teams from last season returning.

It will be interesting to see what effects the shortened 2020 season has on bullpen usage in 2021. By the time we get to October, it will have been two years since any pitcher threw 200 innings, and teams are likely going to protect their starters more than usual this season. Nobody really knows what the long-term effects will be of throwing pitchers into a 162-game marathon after a weird, shortened sprint season, one that featured two spring trainings set three months apart. Tommy John surgery may have a high success rate these days, but that doesn’t mean anyone wants to flirt with it.

We sometimes pooh-pooh the value of bullpens because of their volatility, but the fact is, the share of innings thrown by relievers has steadily increased over the last half-century, with their proportion of innings going from just over a quarter in the mid-70s to nearly half last year.

Forty-four percent of innings in 2020 were thrown by relievers and there’s no reason to expect a sudden reversal in 2021. It’s not outside the realm of possibility that 20 years from now, there’s no actual distinction between starters and relievers, with those classifications largely considered a relic. That’s still speculative, but for now, even if a reliever can’t match the value of a Jacob deGrom, bullpens have a very real effect on who makes the playoffs and who pops bubbly in late October. Read the rest of this entry »

12:05

Dan Szymborski: Hello, been trying to figure out why it’s not on the front page!

12:05

Dan Szymborski: Oh wait, NOW it is!

12:05

Dan Szymborski: lol

12:06

Dan Szymborski: I don’t know who is in it yet!

12:06

Dan Szymborski: I want to see some 19th century mustache petes

Read the rest of this entry »

It may seem a little bit early to start talking about postseason hardware, but what’s the fun of a projection system if you’re not looking at every way to separate the best of the best? In any case, it’s not as interesting an exercise when the season ends, given that we already know what happened (though it’s way more accurate).

Naturally, voting is not going to be a simple ranking of WAR. Each award has 30 different voters, all with differing priorities and philosophical beliefs in the way of excellence. Rather than kidnapping my colleagues and subjecting them to a series of lab tests about voting, our best solution is to use past votes to infer how they’ll vote going forward.

While using a neural network is always tempting, we’re handicapped by the real scarcity of data; 30 votes per award is not a lot to work with. As I’ve worked with the models over the years, the other issue is that there does seem to be a change in how voters are voting, enough to have an effect on who is winning the awards and by how much. I’ve found that chucking out anything before 2000 improves every model and every approach I’ve tried. By and large, we’re not voting on WAR, but it and other analytics have affected the results both directly (more sabermetric-friendly writers joining the BBWAA) and indirectly (influencing existing voters). I could probably make a very accurate model for how I vote, but we’d be treading far too deep into meta territory at that point.

So, what’s new this year? One variable I’ve added to the mix is past award performance — something I wish I had checked in the past, but better later than never. Essentially, players who have received votes recently tend to do slightly better than equally excellent players who have not received votes recently.

Let’s jump right in.

Read the rest of this entry »

Earlier today, Meg Rowley introduced this year’s positional power rankings. As a quick refresher, all 30 teams are ranked based on the projected WAR from our Depth Charts. Our staff then endeavors to provide you with some illuminating commentary to put those rankings in context. We begin this year’s series with first base.

In last year’s positional rankings, Jay Jaffe wrote that first base just “ain’t what it used to be.” The diminished status of what was once one of baseball’s premier positions went unchanged in 2020. Even worse, one of the few young players near the top of those rankings, Pete Alonso, took a step back. First base has almost become baseball’s oldies station, chock-full of memories of the early hits of Albert Pujols or Joey Votto or Miguel Cabrera, but never airing their newest singles.

So what’s caused the collapse in the Q Score of the game’s first basemen? Offense is still sexy, but the truth of the matter is that home runs are cheap and plentiful. In baseball’s last full season, 135 players qualified for a batting title, and only five of them failed to finish with double-digits home runs. In 2009, there were 31 such players. There were 27 single-digit sluggers in 1999; in 1989, before the early-90s offensive explosion, there were 47. There aren’t just more home runs in baseball, they’re spread more widely among its players. Teams finding more guys who could play shortstop and hit home runs didn’t magically result in the game’s first basemen also thumping more round-trippers.

What’s more, it sometimes seems like there aren’t any actual first base prospects anymore, just prospects at other positions that teams eventually settle for playing first. The Jays haven’t totally given up on Vladimir Guerrero Jr. at the hot corner, and one of the few genuine phenom first basemen to come up in recent years, Cody Bellinger, has turned out to be a dynamite center fielder instead. The Tigers have made no secret of the fact that they would prefer that last year’s number one overall pick, Spencer Torkelson, play at third, a position he didn’t even play in college. It makes one wonder whether Jim Thome and Pujols, both third basemen in the minors, would have been moved to first so quickly if they had been born later.

It’s hard to pinpoint the exact moment that baseball fell out of love with the position, but I’d highlight November 28, 2016 as a key date in the story. That was when reports came out that the Milwaukee Brewers weren’t going to tender Chris Carter, the National League’s home run leader, a contract for the 2017 season. And no one seemed especially shocked! The AL’s home run leader, Mark Trumbo, was also a free agent that offseason and neither he nor Carter attracted significant interest in free agency. Trumbo eventually settled for going back to the Orioles in late January; Carter signed a one-year deal with the Yankees and was done as a major leaguer by midseason.

Will first basemen ever return to prominence? Not everything is cyclical after all, and I think you’d need a change in how the numbers work in baseball to make first basemen desirable again. Perhaps a deadened ball will hurt the less-impressive power hitters at some point, resulting in first basemen reemerging as the game’s princes of power. Or maybe ball or rule changes will result in more balls in play for first basemen to field, giving a top player at the position the potential to post truly significant value on defense. But for 2021 at least, look for more of the same, with lots of familiar names and only a few players who excel enough at every aspect of the game, like Freddie Freeman, to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with baseball’s elites. Read the rest of this entry »

12:00

Dan Szymborski: And greeting! Sorry about no chat last week, but I was not feeling well!

12:01

Dan Szymborski: He’s certainly played well! I haven’t seen him play though, so I can’t say much for the change. Spring stats are *slightly* meaningful, but it’s smart to be careful about excitement.

12:02

Dan Szymborski: Yo!

Read the rest of this entry »

How do projected wins translate into salaries in free agency? That’s a fundamental question that front offices have to answer and, in fact, have had to answer ever since free agency opened up baseball’s labor market after the 1976 season. No, no GM back then was using Wins Above Replacement or fancy-pants computers spitting out ZoRPs or Stonker projections. But decisions are always based on some kind of projection, whether that exercise is explicit or not. When Grizzled Greg the GM went after a player for X hundreds of thousands of dollars after the 1976 season, he was still estimating how the player would play in the future and whether that benefit was worth the cost. Heck, I’ve never made a taco-based projection system. Still, when I see a taco, I’m projecting whether or not the DAR (Deliciousness Above Refrigerator) is worth the dollars that will be debited from my bank account.

Naturally, one of the ways we estimate player salaries has been a linear relationship between dollars and wins above replacement. There’s still a debate over whether player salaries should be treated in this way. Many analysts have argued that the price of wins should not be linear because of the efficiency of getting a lot of wins from a single player. After all, there’s a limit on roster size and utilization; you can’t just sign five one-win first basemen and combined them into a horrifying amalgamation whose twisted, fear-inducing form approximates a Freddie Freeman season. And even if you could, I wager that the MLBPA would file some kind of grievance about players being used for twisted medical experimentation. Well, at least players on the 40-man roster.

Matt Swartz is probably the most prominent advocate for the opposite view, that worrying about whether to add a four-win player instead of a pair of two-win players don’t really come up in the real world all that often. I’ve come to side more strongly with the majority in recent years than I used to, simply because I believe — though I can’t prove it conclusively — that good teams are becoming better at not leaving as many obvious holes. For teams like the Rays, Dodgers, and Padres, as well as other teams that prize serious depth, replacement level is probably higher than replacement level. Read the rest of this entry »

Last Wednesday, I looked at some of the hitters who cause me the greatest worry as we approach the start of the 2021 season. Today, this year’s booms-and-busts pieces finish up with the pitchers I’m most grumpy about. Like the hitters, these “busts” represent a combination of players who I think will fall significantly short of their 2020 stats, fail to meet their 2021 projections, or have some troubling flaw that gets me wondering. Only one pitcher is on this list due to injury; given pitcher injury rates, every pitcher has a disturbingly high bust potential stemming from the likelihood that they might make an unfortunate appearance on the 60-day Injured List.

Corey Kluber, New York Yankees

I know, ZiPS isn’t super concernced about Kluber, forecasting a solid 3.87 ERA and 4.12 FIP for the right-hander. But after two years of injuries, I’m far more bearish on him than the projections are. It’s good that the injuries didn’t involve anything elbow-related and that his torn teres major muscle isn’t connected to the rotator cuff. Still, one thing I’ve found in pitcher projections is that the volatility after two consecutive lost seasons is massive. Kluber may be fine, but the downside scenarios are so scary that I’m not sure he’s a good fit for the Yankees, who have a lot of risky pitchers after Gerrit Cole. Given how plentiful the worst-case scenarios are, I sadly have to put Kluber as a serious bust candidate. Read the rest of this entry »

The Mets acquired Francisco Lindor and Carlos Carrasco for little more than a song this offseason, the team’s new ownership making a splash just two months after officially taking over. A one-year rental of Lindor’s services plus Carrasco was enough to give New York an argument for being the favored squadron in the NL East in a likely battle with Atlanta. But what’s the fun of being a large-market team if you’re not going to act like one? Just like the Dodgers, who quickly moved to ink Mookie Betts for the next dozen years after their blockbuster pickup, the Mets have deep pockets and play in a city with limitless revenue potential. Keeping Lindor, if possible, ought to be the team’s priority. Reggie Jackson didn’t go into the Hall of Fame as an Oriole!

While no concrete terms or even loose parameters have leaked, both Lindor’s camp and the Mets have been interested in talking deal. Waiting around to see what happens is one option, but it’s a good deal more fun to play fantasy billionaire ourselves. I didn’t develop a projection system just to get people mad at me — at least not entirely.

Mega-star contracts are difficult because you don’t have a lot of direct comparables. Fernando Tatis Jr. signed a monster 14-year, $340 million pact with the Padres, but there are reasons he should get more than Lindor: He’s five years younger and coming off an MVP-caliber season. On the flip side, Tatis also had less leverage, with four full seasons until free agency.

The best place to start is the basic projection for Lindor from 2022 on. I’m letting ZiPS decide where the endpoint is, given that we don’t have any specifics to work with.

Read the rest of this entry »

Last week, we looked at my favorite breakout candidates for the 2021 season. Today, we shift to the players I’m more bearish about, and I’m not talking about pilfering picnic baskets. Whether it’s players who I don’t believe will match their 2020 performance, meet their 2021 projections, or who have some aspect of their game that worries me, each of these eight hitters is one who I would place firmly in the “sell” column. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they’ll be awful or bad, but it does mean I don’t think the best is yet to come.

José Abreu, Chicago White Sox

Busts are a relative notion, and a player can make this list and still be a contributor. Abreu was terrific in 2020 and is one of the few players in baseball you could inarguably call a leader, but the fact remains that it was by far his best performance in years. Sure, he pasted the ball to the tune of the 10th-highest average exit velocity in the league, but he destroyed baseballs in 2018 and ’19 as well and was far less valuable in those full seasons. Abreu’s far more likely to be an average player than he is to contend for the MVP again, and when you have a guy whose WAR projection for an entire season comes in under his 60-game WAR from last year’s short season, who you have to admit he has some bust potential. That’s doubly true when he’s in his mid-30s; sluggers aging like Nelson Cruz are the exception, not the rule.

Jackie Bradley Jr., Milwaukee Brewers

The popular conception of JBJ is that he had something of a comeback season in 2020, and that’s true on the surface, as his wRC+ of 120 was 30 points above anything he’s done in recent years. The only problem with that part of the tale is that in this case, his .343 BABIP, 45 points above his career average, was the driver of his flashy line. Remove that and his season looked a lot like 2019, when one of the questions entering the offseason was whether the Red Sox would even tender him a contract for 2020. From the specific hit data, ZiPS thinks that he played like a player with a .306 BABIP rather than one in the .340s. He’s still a solid defensive player, but his speed numbers are starting to slip, which tends to be a leading indicator of defensive decline for an outfielder. The relatively small outfield in Milwaukee isn’t the best park to take advantage of JBJ’s talents; his defensive performance would have been more welcome in places like San Francisco or Kansas City. All that said, I should note that ZiPS disagrees with me on this one.

Justin Upton, Los Angeles Angels

Read the rest of this entry »

The Astros attempted to deal with the fallout of the Framber Valdez injury this weekend by signing free agent Jake Odorizzi to a two-year contract that could be worth up to $30 million with incentives, including a third-year option with a buyout.

Full terms on Odorizzi deal aren’t known but with incentives he has a chance to make $30M over 2 years that would include a buyout on the 3rd year player option #Astros

— Jon Heyman (@JonHeyman) March 6, 2021

Odorizzi took a qualifying offer from the Twins after the 2019 season with the hope of further establishing his value for a possible long-term deal after 2020, when he would no longer be saddled with the loss of a draft pick. Unfortunately, last year didn’t pan out that way, as his season was ruined by a series of injuries: an intercostal strain that bothered him over the summer; a chest contusion from a line drive; and blisters that kept him from taking part in Minnesota’s latest doomed playoff run. Ultimately, he only managed to pitch four games and wasn’t particularly effective, with a 6.59 ERA and 6.12 FIP in 13 2/3 innings.

Odorizzi was reportedly looking for a three-year deal (I heard this as well, and I’m not anywhere near as connected as the tireless Ken Rosenthal). The problem is, only a single free-agent pitcher received a guaranteed three-year contract this offseason: Trevor Bauer. And Odorizzi is not coming off winning a Cy Young award.

Read the rest of this entry »