The First Sixteenth of the Hosmer Deal Is Complete
The 2017-2018 offseason was not one of the more exciting winters in memory, to put it mildly. A large part of that, no doubt, was the result of a relatively undistinguished free-agent class and the absence of some larger clubs from the market, teams saving their ammunition for the likely more exciting 2018-2019 period. Add into that the hard-to-gauge effects of more unanimity among front offices in how to evaluate veteran players and the whispered rumors of the collusion poltergeist, and it was a formula for not a lot happening. And not a lot happened.
For about three weeks around the holidays, the only news in town was the rumbling surrounding Eric Hosmer’s new home. Now, in most offseasons, Eric Hosmer wouldn’t be one of the marquee free agents, having been a rather up-and-down first baseman with some high points, but also some low ones, enough so that he entered the 2018 campaign having never strung together consecutive years of one or more wins. The 2017 season was one of the highlights, however, with Hosmer avoiding those half-long slumps that doomed 2014 and 2016 to sub-mediocrity. It was a legitimately excellent season, Hosmer hitting .318/.385/.498, to the tune of a 135 wRC+, and reaching that four-win mark that serves as an informal threshold for an All-Star season.
In the end, the Royals attempted to retain Hosmer, though the truth of whether he was actually offered $147 million, as the rumors went, will probably be lost in history unless Scott Boras writes a tell-all book after his retirement. San Diego, a team in the middle of their own rebuild, signed Hosmer to an eight-year, $144 million contract, with an opt-out clause exercisable by Hosmer, allowing him to forgo the last three years and $39 million for free agency. To get an estimate, here are the full ZiPS projections for the Hosmer contract at the time.
Year | BA | OBP | SLG | G | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | BB | SO | OPS+ | DR | WAR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | .275 | .344 | .447 | 155 | 582 | 86 | 160 | 27 | 2 | 23 | 90 | 62 | 116 | 116 | -2 | 2.6 |
2019 | .277 | .349 | .452 | 148 | 553 | 83 | 153 | 27 | 2 | 22 | 86 | 62 | 110 | 118 | -3 | 2.7 |
2020 | .276 | .347 | .449 | 144 | 537 | 79 | 148 | 26 | 2 | 21 | 83 | 59 | 104 | 117 | -3 | 2.4 |
2021 | .270 | .340 | .439 | 138 | 519 | 75 | 140 | 24 | 2 | 20 | 78 | 56 | 99 | 113 | -3 | 2.0 |
2022 | .267 | .336 | .428 | 131 | 495 | 69 | 132 | 22 | 2 | 18 | 71 | 52 | 90 | 109 | -3 | 1.5 |
2023 | .265 | .332 | .415 | 120 | 453 | 61 | 120 | 19 | 2 | 15 | 62 | 46 | 76 | 104 | -4 | 1.1 |
2024 | .261 | .326 | .398 | 104 | 394 | 51 | 103 | 16 | 1 | 12 | 52 | 38 | 62 | 98 | -4 | 0.5 |
2025 | .259 | .320 | .386 | 84 | 324 | 40 | 84 | 12 | 1 | 9 | 41 | 29 | 46 | 93 | -3 | 0.2 |
One thing to note is that there is a bit of a discrepancy between the zWAR (ZiPS WAR) and FanGraphs WAR figures, as we haven’t always used the exact same park and league factors for future seasons and have utilized a slightly different methodology. For next year’s ZiPS, I hope to report both zWAR and fWAR to reduce this occasional confusion. But for right now, I’m still figuring out how to not break FanGraphs.