Elegy for ’18 – Los Angeles Dodgers

(Photo: Arturo Pardavila III)
Though undoubtedly a successful franchise, World Series victory again eluded the Dodgers in 2018. After finishing as the runner-up, or first loser, depending on how inclined you are to glasses being empty or full, the Dodgers have now gone 30 years without winning the Fall Classic. It’s hard to weep too much at the funeral dirge of a team coming off six consecutive first-place finishes, but it’s been a disappointing run of not being able to close the deal.
The Setup
The Dodgers are an organization that represents, in some ways, the worst fears of the analytical community of 15 years ago. It’s one thing to tell small-market teams to be smarter and not have the Cam Bonifays or Chuck LaMars or Dave Littlefields making decisions. But what would happen when, one day, a very rich team also puts together an extremely progressive, highly competent front office?
That’s not to say the Dodgers were a backwards organization; the team was run by the extremely competent Dan Evans and then by one of Billy Beane’s chief paladins in Paul DePodesta. But what those two did not have was an organizational commitment to put together a bleeding-edge unit with a unified, top-to-bottom purpose like those we see in organizations like today’s Astros or Indians.
Ned Colletti did an excellent job of keeping the farm system running at top-notch efficiency, but he also wasn’t the one to fully leverage the team’s assets in a modern way. To do that, team president Stan Kasten saw the opportunity to bring in Andrew Friedman from the Rays, who in turn hired Farhan Zaidi and Josh Byrnes.
The Dodgers didn’t suddenly become the Rays or anything, but there was a definite avoidance of aggressive spending in free agency back before thrift was cool. We’re starting the fifth year of the Friedman era and the Dodgers still haven’t signed a player who wasn’t most recently a Dodger to a $50 million contract, instead focusing on bringing back incumbent Dodgers such as Justin Turner, Kenley Jansen, and, most importantly and recently, keeping Clayton Kershaw from hitting the open market.
No one was completely irreplaceable; the Dodgers would have preferred to hang onto Zack Greinke, but the cost proved too great. Instead of giant commitments, the Dodgers have been more interested in shorter, more targeted pushes, bringing in Rich Hill and then Manny Machado for stretch drives. But even then, the team will frequently say no when the price is too high, being willing to see pitchers like Walker Buehler, or earlier, Julio Urias, as real crunch-time contributors, not just as assets to flip for veterans.
The winter of 2017 was especially quiet for the Dodgers, with the team joining its large-market brethren in a quest to stay under the luxury tax threshold for 2018. Los Angeles’ biggest signing was the return of Chase Utley, a bit of a gamble for a team that seemed to be falling off a cliff for much of the final month of the 2017 season.
Nor did the team make any big trades. Yes, they flipped Adrian Gonzalez, Scott Kazmir, Brandon McCarthy, and Charlie Culberson to the Braves in return for Matt Kemp, but 2012’s blockbuster was simply 2017’s accounting stratagem.
The Projection
Coming into the season, ZiPS projected the Dodgers tying with the Houston Astros for the best mean projection in baseball, at 95 wins. That represented a significant drop — nine wins — from the team’s 104-58 2017 season, but as anyone who pays attention to these sort of things can guess, 104 wins needs some things to go right; it’s literally no team’s projection.
Even with that fairly yummy forecast, ZiPS saw some divisional risk for the Dodgers, giving the NL West a one-in-five chance of being conquered by a team that doesn’t play in Chavez Ravine. ZiPS saw Arizona, San Francisco, and Colorado as all having winning records in 2018, and it would only take one of the three teams hitting their upside to end LA’s divisional streak.
The Results
The projection didn’t end up too badly, with the Dodgers winning 91 games before seasonal overtime, just four wins below the projection; that isn’t a bad miss as these things go. But the Dodgers certainly didn’t feel like a top team for much of the 2018 season.
For a time, it seemed like all three of the Dodgers’ non-Padre rivals could best the team in the West. Los Angeles was in fourth place as late as June 6 with a 30-31 record, and unlike their early 2017 struggle to get some space from the rest of the division, the team actually just wasn’t playing all that well.
Matt Kemp, basically acquired as a luxury tax MacGuffin, actually proved to be fairly necessary early; the team’s .707 OPS through May ranked just 23rd in baseball. Cody Bellinger wasn’t hitting, Yasiel Puig wasn’t hitting, Joc Pederson wasn’t hitting, Corey Seager was out for the season, and Justin Turner, recently returned from a broken wrist, wasn’t hitting yet.
That was a lot of talent not performing well and it would have been far worse without the contributions the Dodgers received in unexpected places. Kemp finished May with a 150 wRC+ and was playing defense like an actual major leaguer, and while that wouldn’t persist throughout the rest of the season, it was very welcome at the time. Max Muncy, a 27-year-old who entered the season with a .195/.290/.321 line, had a 133 wRC+ through the end of May and nearly made the All-Star Game (he did make the Home Run Derby).
Then, everything just kind of worked out. Ten Dodgers got at least 200 plate appearances after May and the worst wRC+ of the group was Matt Kemp’s 107, with eight better than 120, and four eclipsing 140. Clayton Kershaw stayed healthy in the second-half, and while he appeared to be the post-peak Kershaw version of himself, 90% of peak Kershaw is a damn good pitcher. The team added to their riches by closing a deal for Manny Machado, the best player realistically available at the deadline.
From that June 6 line, the Dodgers went 62-40, the best in the National League. And after all that, it almost wasn’t enough. The Colorado Rockies hung on to force a 163rd game.
What Comes Next?
The Dodgers haven’t closed any deals with Bryce Harper or Manny Machado yet, but the expectation remains that they are going to be much freer with the pocketbook than in recent years. The team has moved $60 million off their payroll from several years ago. At one point, the Dodgers had more than half a billion in payroll baked into the cake; now their guarantees are only half of that, with none of the deals looking like bleeding disasters, and only Kenta Maeda’s dirt-cheap contract stretching past a third season into the future.
That’s not to say the Dodgers are going to splash cash. The team cleared some payroll commitments by trading Yasiel Puig, Alex Wood, and Matt Kemp to the Reds, a deal in which the only notable salary they brought back was Homer Bailey’s. I won’t venture a guess as to the exact savings, since I think you need a forensic accountant to figure out who is paying Matt Kemp what in 2019.
Even if they stood pat — and I don’t think they will — the Dodgers will almost certainly enter the 2018 as the favorite, and perhaps by a better projected margin than last season despite having a worse year. The Giants are a lot less threatening than they appeared to be entering 2018, Arizona is rebuilding, and the Rockies are an organization that, well, still thinks that Ian Desmond is a major leaguer.
ZiPS Projection – Clayton Kershaw
I mostly wanted to see how Kershaw’s recent durability issues and minor downturn would affect with career projections.
| Year | W | L | ERA | G | GS | IP | H | ER | HR | BB | SO | ERA+ | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 11 | 6 | 2.91 | 26 | 26 | 164.0 | 138 | 53 | 18 | 27 | 170 | 139 | 4.1 |
| 2020 | 10 | 5 | 2.97 | 24 | 24 | 151.3 | 131 | 50 | 17 | 25 | 155 | 136 | 3.7 |
| 2021 | 9 | 5 | 3.10 | 23 | 23 | 145.0 | 128 | 50 | 17 | 24 | 143 | 130 | 3.3 |
| 2022 | 9 | 5 | 3.11 | 21 | 21 | 133.0 | 118 | 46 | 16 | 22 | 132 | 130 | 3.0 |
| 2023 | 8 | 5 | 3.21 | 20 | 20 | 123.3 | 110 | 44 | 15 | 21 | 122 | 126 | 2.7 |
| 2024 | 7 | 5 | 3.27 | 18 | 18 | 113.0 | 103 | 41 | 15 | 20 | 111 | 123 | 2.4 |
| 2025 | 6 | 4 | 3.34 | 17 | 17 | 102.3 | 94 | 38 | 14 | 19 | 100 | 121 | 2.1 |
| 2026 | 6 | 4 | 3.49 | 15 | 15 | 90.3 | 86 | 35 | 13 | 17 | 87 | 116 | 1.7 |
| 2027 | 5 | 4 | 3.65 | 13 | 13 | 79.0 | 77 | 32 | 12 | 15 | 75 | 111 | 1.3 |
| 2028 | 4 | 3 | 3.84 | 11 | 11 | 68.0 | 68 | 29 | 11 | 14 | 63 | 105 | 1.0 |
| 2029 | 3 | 3 | 4.08 | 10 | 10 | 57.3 | 59 | 26 | 10 | 12 | 52 | 99 | 0.6 |
| Past | 153 | 69 | 2.39 | 318 | 316 | 2096.3 | 1570 | 557 | 145 | 536 | 2275 | 159 | 61.6 |
| Future | 78 | 49 | 3.26 | 199 | 198 | 1226.7 | 1113 | 444 | 158 | 217 | 1208 | 125 | 26.0 |
| Total | 231 | 118 | 2.71 | 517 | 514 | 3323.0 | 2683 | 1001 | 303 | 753 | 3483 | 143 | 87.6 |
ZiPS is clearly worried about Kershaw’s inning totals, which is really putting the kibosh on his final win total, the projection for which peaked as high as 270 at one point. Kershaw hasn’t had any major injuries of the Tommy John surgery-requiring variety, but the truth is that he’s failed to throw 200 innings for four of the last five seasons, and failed to qualify for the ERA title in two of the last three (you can’t add an infinite inning the same way you can add a hitless at-bat for those who fall short of 502 plate appearances).
There’s also no methodological difference that would account for most of this change, so I’m not comparing apples and oranges. Using the latest build of ZiPS, Kershaw’s peak projection would have been 267 wins. Comparing apples and oranges isn’t really weird anyway; when I’m at the grocery store, there’s apple juice and orange juice next to each other, so I’m literally comparing them all the time.
If Kershaw can get through a couple of seasons unscathed, that number should shoot back up. But there’s real risk here.
Dan Szymborski is a senior writer for FanGraphs and the developer of the ZiPS projection system. He was a writer for ESPN.com from 2010-2018, a regular guest on a number of radio shows and podcasts, and a voting BBWAA member. He also maintains a terrible Twitter account at @DSzymborski.
lol at Kershaw’s projection. Sorry but for a guy as proud as Kershaw, absolutely no way he would go that long like that.
The projections for established players always seem kinda’ pointless to me. Players project to be slightly lesser versions of who they have been recently, as they get older. Projected drop-offs are slow and gradual. I know the systems are set up to make the best possible guesses, but “player loses .3-.4 WAR per year for the next ten years” is the most boring projection. A system that saw Matt Muncy’s 2018 coming, or even in the possible outcome set, now that would be interesting. Usually wrong, but interesting at least.
I assume Kershaw’s projection is also pitching only – his hitting was a huge plus in 2018 (for a pitcher), adding a significant chunk to his 2018 value – any guesses on whether he continues that?
So you want a projection system that makes wild predictions because a few of them may turn out to be true. That’s not how projections work, that’s called making guesses.
Luckily for aweb, we have a thing called “The Internet” where people make “Usually wrong, but interesting at least” predictions every day!
Just to directly contradict what you’re saying, ZiPS projects him for more WAR this year than he had last year.
ZiPS is actually projecting Kershaw to still be a league average pitcher in 2029 at age 41, which is actually pretty incredible. That’s a better ERA+ projection for Kershaw in 2029 than ZiPS is projecting for Jake Arriera, Nick Pivetta, or Zach Eflin in 2019. If he can actually still be a significantly better than average big league pitcher into his late 30s, like Dan is projecting, I’m not sure why Kershaw would be too “proud” to do that.
Only making 66 starts his last 5 years? Sorry but I don’t think there’s a chance that happens. Show me 1 pitcher who has ever had a career end the way that’s projected? Yeah good when he pitches, but only making 10-15 starts a year?
These projections – like any decent or better projections for baseball players – are logically some sort of weighted average of a range of outcomes.
For multi-year projections, we’d also expect the actual observed performance in a given future year to correlated with other years because year-to-year health and effectiveness are correlated: in other words 2027 season performance will correlate with 2026 and 2028.
The claim that you are attacking is a strawman that misses the point of the projections.
It’s not a “life-choices” projection, it’s a stats projection. It will project stats for any year you ask it to. I’m sure it will project his 2039 stats and his 2119 stats if you ask it to.
So in addition to forecasting on-field performance, ZIPS should also predict when a guy decides to retire?
“The date of the Dodgers’ last World Series victory is closer to the Beatles’ first concert than it is to today”
Dan,
That is the greatest subtitle in FanGraphs, if not American, history.
If they don’t win the World Series next year, the headline could as easily be:
The date of the Dodgers last World Series victory is closer to their last game in Brooklyn than it is to today.
When I want to feel old, I recall that the time of Led Zeppelin to me in high school is less than the time of Nirvana to now.
Players in arbitration in 2020 who were playing on a minimum salary in 2018:
C: Austin Barnes
1B: Max Muncy
2B: Chris Taylor
3B: None
SS: Corey Seager
CF: Cody Bellinger
LF: Andrew Toles
RF: None
Good news: The team, as constructed, is under control for a while.
Bad news: Five of the eight regulars are going to get more expensive right around the same time
I’m not sure what the game plan is for them going forward, but my guess is that the roster is going to get quite a bit more expensive in 2020, and they’re preparing for that. This can either be a good, smart move (for example, if they want to delay their luxury tax payments for a year so they can extend their guys or sign free agents in another offseason instead of blowing money on Bryce Harper now) or a sign that the team is going to cut corners every year. In a normal situation, I would say one of the top four richest teams in major league baseball would just plow forward in 2020, and that they’re keeping their powder dry for later. But this team seems a little more worried about the luxury tax than usual. The decision to give away useful players like Puig and Wood to move salary could be interpreted either way.
I’d say Seager in particular would get a huge jump…. He will be a super 2 this year so that’ll inflate him some.
OF course, the only batter under contract currently for 2020 is Justin Turner….
It’s the whole lineup, sans Justin Turner and probably whoever they get to play right field, who will be in 1st-3rd years of arbitration then. Five of the six guys in arbitration was playing for the minimum (Joc Pederson was the last one; I guess you could count Hernandez as a quasi-starter, that would make it five of seven).
It’s an embarrassment of riches, and you would think that a team with the Dodgers’ resources would be able to pay to keep the band together as the team gets progressively more expensive, but I’m not totally convinced they will.
Where they have the guaranteed money right now is mostly in the rotation, but although Hill and Ryu’s salaries are coming off the books. But also means they have two more slots they need to fill. They’re banking on some combination of Urias (back in the rotation soon), Santana, White, and May to complement Kershaw, Buehler, and Maeda. I suspect this is where some of the savings are going to come from, but that means those guys actually have to pan out.
Paying to keep the band together is a great recipe to turn into the disaster that is the SFG.
Seager is not a super 2. He debuted in Sept 2015. He is arb1 this year, but lost out on a platform year due to his injury. His TJS will probably save the Dodgers 8 figures by his free agency.
Platform year is extremely important to arb pay. Mlbtr projects Seager and Chris Taylor to get similar arb1 play this offseason.
Yeah I don’t know why I thought he was a super 2.
This year may get cheaper for the Dodgers, but if Seager bounces back and has a huge 2019 season, I think his 2020 arbitration figure would be pretty close to what it would have been if he hadn’t been hurt.
That isnt how arbitration works. They do look at total compensation, but at the amount of increase
Moving Seager down several million in arb1 will cause that savings to translate upwards in arb2 and arb3.
The mlbtr arb model is exceptionally accurate. This is why teams use “file and trial” approaches. Money saved early adds up substantially over 3 or 4 cycles of arbitration.
If Seager has a huge 2019 season, I think they would use the injury to get him a lot more money than he would normally get. He would be a very unusual situation- something we rarely see from batters.
Guys get injured and miss seasons all the time
They dont get extra credit in arb because everything is based on precedent. And again, that is precedent for the increase, not the total.
If Seager goes out and has two fantastic years and his arb3 top comparable is manny Machado, they will look at the amount of Machados increase (say 6m or whatever over previous), not his total compensation (eg 17m or whatever).
Arbitration doesnt work the way you think it works. Lost injury years routinely cost players millions
What position player has missed a season like this scenario though?
Also, he’s going to be low in year 1. Just looking- Correa projected to make 5.1 million. Seager 2.6 million. Not that big of a difference. Seager might big a bit low- but it’s not like it’s a back breaker. 8 digits is probably a bit high in how much this is going to cost him….
2.6m over 3 cycles is over 8 million, friend.
actually it’s not- it’s only (given it’s 2.5 million per year) 7.5 million, definitely it’s not 8 figures. Also, I definitely question given that it’s a rare scenario that he would lose that other 5 million.
Please provide evidence to support your continual claim that arbitration works the way you describe and not the way that every authority on the topic describes it.
It’s only an issue until Friedman and Co. flip a couple of those guys for even younger, more cost-controlled guys. They seem to do a fine job of it and it seems likely they will again
I don’t remember them doing this other than Dee Gordon trade, which landed Barnes and Kike. I don’t think there’s a reason to think they won’t do a fine job of it, but they really haven’t flipped older players for younger players very often.
Funny how Szymborski forgets the Padres entirely in the NL West. O/T, but why are we not hearing the Padres connected to Machado or Harper? I know they’re supposedly in on Realmuto and Kluber/Bauer/Thor, but their one FA splash is Hosmer? Their payroll is low with only Richards at $7M and Myers at $5.5M making significant money. Do they have too many prospects that they need to consolidate into stars? Can’t they do that and also pursue Machado or Harper? Are they the “mystery team”?
Myers’ contract jumps to $22.5M in 2020. In fact, the Padres owe something like $67M to Myers from 2020-2022.
What Preller should be working on is trying to find a way to exchange Myers for a similarly absurd contract, because the only thing worse than paying Hosmer and Myers a combined $43.5M is having one back up the other.
Thanks, I did not know that. Any thoughts on why they’re not in the Harper/Machado sweepstakes?
Maybe a 90 loss team isnt relevant to the analysis of the 2018 season of the division winner.
Hey Dan, I don’t know where to put this, but I wanted to suggest an idea for an article. Around the time that pitchers and catchers report, would you be willing to project out all the free agents using ZiPs for the life of their contracts? I think that would be a really great article.
I promise to re-read it over and over again, and tell my friends about it too. HappyTrumpet and PerplexedTuba would love it.
Sorry for the irrelevant comments, everyone.
I’d read that
Good idea.
Even if not *all* FAs, perhaps at least the top 50 by dollar amount. (or whatever is reasonably doable)
Would also be a good idea to do it retrospectively going back a few years.
This would be much more informative about what teams are actually paying for an expected win in the FA market than the oft-used (and oft mis-used, imo) methodology that tells us simply the WAR that teams actually get for their FA dollars.
“HappyTrumpet and PerplexedTuba would love it.”
Your silence re: DespondentVuvuzela is deafening.
BoredPiano, on the other hand..
DespondentVuvuzela doesn’t like anything. I don’t even know why I hang out with him anymore. So Dan shouldn’t take it personally.
As a fan of the Los Angeles Dodgers and Toronto Maple Leafs this tagline does not bother me in the least.
“But what would happen when, one day, a very rich team also puts together an extremely progressive, highly competent front office?”
That’s easy. They’ll act like executives of Guggenheim and try to max out $/ WAR instead of like baseball ops people actually trying to win a world series. Get the fans all hyped on efficiency!
The 2018 Dodgers should be celebrated by all the people who believe in projections.
I live in LA and so many people gave up on the season at multiple times. My response was always “FanGraphs projects them to win the NL West”, even when they were 9 games back of the D-backs.
There were multiple points during the season when the Dodgers’ projected probability of winning the NL west was below that of the Diamondbacks let alone 50%.
The idea that projection should be celebrated for being ‘right’ is quite flawed just as much as the Nationals failing to make the playoffs should not significantly reduce your faith in the projections.
The Dodgers were less than 50% for about a week in May and the multiple times they were below the D-backs were 3 days in August and 1 week in May. The projections were high on the Dodgers for the overwhelming majority of the season.
https://www.fangraphs.com/standings/playoff-odds-graphs?lg=NL&div=W&stat=poff&year=2018
There were 2 times in the season where the Dodgers divisional odds were below the Diamondbacks: May 1-May16 (under 50% from May 1 to May 22), Aug 23-24 (under 50% from Aug 21-Aug 26).
Their Divisional win odds then fell below 50% one last time on the very specific date of September 28th, 2018 (when the Rockies were tied with an extra game to play).
As a whole, the playoff odds graph supports HBM’s position better than yours: for something like 90% of the regular season, the Dodgers were the team FG regarded as most likely to win the NL west, even when they were in 4th place.
https://www.fangraphs.com/standings/playoff-odds-graphs?lg=NL&div=W&stat=div&year=2018
2 of the 3 bad small market GM’s listed ran the Pirates, not surprising that they had 20 consecutive losing seasons. Also, I believe that LaMar worked for the Pirates at one point.
“the Rockies are an organization that, well, still thinks that Ian Desmond is a major leaguer.”
That contract is the gift that keeps on giving.
I did not get to watch the Dodgers on a regular basis, but when I did get a chance to watch them in the late season and post-season I was generally not impressed. They barely won their division over a terribly mismanaged Rockies, though they won they didn’t seem to be better than the Brewers, and in the World Series they basically rolled over and died to the point that I found it depressing. I mean the Brewers could have gotten swept in the World Series and that would have been a significantly more pleasant experience. It was kinda like watching a movie where the rich kid manages to triumph in the local qualifying tournament over the scrappy underdogs and then gets his butt kicked in the main tournament off screen.
Of course the playoffs are different than the regular season and the Dodgers are obviously a good team, but in October it was hard to tell.
Dodgers are this generations Atlanta Braves. Great depth helping out during the regular season, but doesn’t help as much in the postseason. At least the 90’s Braves did have 1 title.
Well to be fair I dont even think we are halfway thru this thing yet- LAD is set up wonderfully for a long time
I’m not on Twitter. Has Dan announced when we’ll start seeing ZiPs team releases again?
Want to finish the old business first! Since I’m here full-time, we’ll be doing more than the three days a week. The old business took longer as I was quite ill after the winter meetings and my already dumb brain was working at like 25% capacity.
TY. Hope you’re feeling better.
I am. Couldn’t do radio for two weeks because my voice was such hot garbage.
RE: forensic accountant
I am not one of those, but this is my understanding of the Kemp contract. The Dodgers were on the hook for $19.25 million of Matt Kemp’s contract for the 2019 season, with the Padres paying $2.5 million, and the Braves paying nothing. I believe the CBT figure for his 2019 salary would be $17.5 million – the average annual value for the entire contract ($20 million) minus the amount being paid by the Padres.
Cincinnati took on $12.25 million of that (what he was owed in real money from the Dodgers minus the $7 million sent to the Reds by the Dodgers), plus the estimated $11.3 million for Yasiel Puig, and the estimated $9 million for Alex Wood. So $32.55 million total in actual, payable salary.
The Dodgers, in exchange, took on Homer Bailey’s final contract year (which was backloaded) at $23 million, and paid his $5 million buyout as well. Those two items, plus the $7 million retained Kemp salary, leave the Dodgers at almost the same actual total as went on the Reds’ books – $35 million – but only $24.5 million will count for CBT purposes because the annual average value of Bailey’s contract was $17.5 million.
Looking at all those numbers, I believe the Dodgers are gaining $13.3 million worth of space under the CBT line relative to where they were originally (with Kemp, Puig, and Wood being on the roster), even though the Dodgers are paying $2.45 million more in actual dollars.
What gets lost too much in the huge payroll/underachieving fox regime, dysfunctional McCourt stint, and hyped Friedman administration is just how great the scouting dept/player development has been- Rock steady and brilliant. They have literally done all the heavy lifting the last decade and don’t necessarily get their proper due in my opinion mostly due to high payrolls buried with sunken costs
Friedman has been a mixed bag of nuts and I praise him more for what he hasn’t done so far rather than what he has and that’s not necessarily a knock. Hes sort of ….you guessed it ….. rode those scouting departments coat-tails . The man knows how to keep a sweet ledger though and that’s scary for the National league if the Scouting/player dev stays on par-
As a fan Im really hoping we dont hand out another multi year contract and stay under 206 this year- Im 100% ok with a 1 yr cheap C and bargain shopping for the scraps (allow some financial flexibility for the trade deadline / hover 185-190 to start year)- The balance sheet to start off the 2020’s paired with an extremely deep talented fa crop would be a thing of beauty and a much better way to flex our wallet
Unless the Rockies wake up and trade for Castellanos and sign Grandal I feel the Dodgers can kinda Cleveland Indians the pennant this year and still have room at the trade deadline to add a little for the postseason while setting the next years up wonderfully