How to Justify the Cardinals’ Mike Leake Contract
Word for a while has been that Mike Leake was looking for a five-year contract worth something in the neighborhood of $80 million. The most recent thing we wrote about him was called The Upcoming Mike Leake Mistake. The Cardinals have now signed Leake to a five-year contract worth exactly $80 million, with a mutual option that won’t be mutually exercised. The Cardinals are without Lance Lynn and John Lackey, and they missed out on David Price and Jason Heyward, so it’s easy to see this as an overpay from a team in an increasingly desperate state. Mike Leake isn’t who you turn to for big, huge upside. He’s Mike Leake. As pitchers go, he’s pretty boring.
Think about it for just one minute, though. It’s fine to have an immediate response. We all have immediate responses. Immediately, nothing seems particularly special about Leake. But the Cardinals have earned some benefit of the doubt, right? They’re not an organization you’d characterize as desperate, or impulsive, or reactionary. They thought their way through this. According to reports, they preferred Leake over Jeff Samardzija. They obviously like Leake enough to give him this sort of long-term guarantee. Let us now attempt to justify this contract. Really, it isn’t that hard.
Where do we start? I guess we start with the market itself. You might’ve heard the market has been going insane for starting pitchers. You’ve seen the contracts; you’ve read the trade rumors. This is the kind of market that gives, say, five years and $80 million to, say, Mike Leake. Samardzija got a bigger guarantee despite a miserable second half. Johnny Cueto got a way bigger guarantee despite a slightly less miserable second half. The market has been good for pitchers of all stripes, and there just aren’t real bargains to be found. Not like you’d think might be usual. This winter, if you’re looking for an arm for the rotation, you can expect to pay for it.
And the Cardinals were forced into browsing because of the Lynn injury. There are legitimate questions about everyone in their projected rotation, and with Lynn gone, it exposed a certain lack of depth. As much as anything can be needed, the Cardinals needed to find a starting pitcher, which meant they had to go to the market. There wasn’t any way around it.
The market presents two options: you can sign a free agent, or you can trade. The appeal of a free agent is that it only costs you money. When you’re swinging a trade, you might be getting a guy with a smaller contract, but in exchange you have to give up prospects. Prospects can be looked at as money, on paper, but they’re not the same. If you’re giving up prospects for a quality starter, those are potential long-term values. Money, you can deal with losing, to a point.
And there are two sub-options with free agents. There are true free agents, and there are free agents with compensation attached. As far as Leake is concerned, he was traded last July, so that made him ineligible for a qualifying offer. So by signing Leake, the Cardinals get to keep their highest draft pick. The Cardinals didn’t lose any prospects, and they didn’t lose a pick that would’ve turned into a prospect. This was important to them, and the value of one of those picks might be $5 or 10 million. Maybe even more! You don’t want to lose one of those if you don’t have to.
So the Cardinals needed a starter, and they found one who cost only money. That’s a good start. Leake was also one of the very youngest free-agent starters. That made it easier to make a long-term commitment — pitcher aging curves don’t go as smoothly as hitter aging curves, but you still prefer youth over age. Younger pitchers are better at resisting injury. Younger pitchers are closer to having their peak stuff.
One even younger free-agent starter is Mat Latos, but pretty clearly, Latos isn’t as reliable as Leake has been. This gets into one of the important parts of the Leake picture: historically, he’s been dependable. He’s started at least 30 games four straight seasons. He’s been on the disabled list twice: once with shoulder fatigue as a rookie, and once with a hamstring strain last August. Leake has been durable, and while durable pitchers have suddenly developed arm injuries before, the best record is a clean record, and Leake has a clean record. He’s young and healthy, which is good for a rotation littered with question marks.
As further evidence of Leake’s health, he’s coming off a year in which he threw his best stuff. By our numbers, Leake just threw his hardest-career average fastball. Also, hardest cutter, hardest curveball, and hardest changeup. Leake is up about two miles per hour from when he was younger, and that’s not the usual progression. The Cardinals can be happy that Leake has yet to show any signs of wearing down.
As performance goes, Leake isn’t that much of a mystery. He’s about as average as average gets, having been worth 6 WAR the last three years and about 10 in his career. He throws strikes, he gets grounders, and he doesn’t strike that many hitters out. On his bad days, he’ll give up a couple of homers; on his good days, everything stays in the yard. You can count on him for an FIP- just a little over 100. His K-BB% stays around 10%. Leake is the very picture of a No. 4 starter. Maybe a No. 3, if you want to be nice. The Cardinals know he doesn’t have a high ceiling. They’re not looking for Leake to whiff a batter every inning.
You’ve seen the contract tool we’ve embedded a handful of times. It projects contracts based on player projections and certain future assumptions. Based on all the usual assumptions — $8 million per WAR, 5% inflation, and so on — a five-year contract for Leake would be expected to be worth about $74 million. It’s south of the Cardinals’ guarantee, but it’s in the neighborhood, so already, we’re close. And there’s just a bit more. Leake has done well to make himself well-rounded, and it makes him a more valuable player, especially in the National League.
Consider:
People love to describe Leake as “athletic.” This manifests in a few ways. He stays on the field, which is one. Another is that Leake is a decent hitter. He’s not, really — he’s just a good hitter for a pitcher. But that makes a difference in his league. Since he debuted in 2010, he’s sixth in pitcher wRC+, third in pitcher batting WAR, and fourth in pitcher home runs. His offensive value has averaged right around a half-win a year, and that’s something. There are hints that maybe Leake is getting worse at the plate, but he still has home-run power. Leake doesn’t need to be pinch-hit for automatically. He can even pinch-hit himself in an emergency. The bat makes Leake a bit more useful.
And about that athleticism — a third manifestation is Leake’s own defense. We don’t have pitcher UZR, but we do have pitcher DRS, and since Leake debuted, he’s sixth in baseball in that statistic, at +27 runs. He’s been a little above-average in controlling the running game, but most of his value has come from plays made, and errors avoided. If you give Leake full credit for defense, that’s just about another half-win a year, to this point.
So you start with Leake as about a 2-win pitcher. Then you have up to a half-win for hitting, and up to a half-win for defense. At absolute full credit, with Leake as a 3-win pitcher, you’d expect a five-year contract to be worth about $118 million. Cut it in half and make Leake a 2.5-win pitcher, and you’d look for a five-year contract worth about $96 million. That’s 20% higher than the Cardinals’ guarantee, and I don’t think it’s the least bit unreasonable. Part of the Leake appeal is his athleticism, and that athleticism allows him to do things most pitchers don’t do as well. It doesn’t make Leake an ace, but it makes him a decent, reliable starter with hidden value elsewhere.
I think that’s all you need to do. How do you justify Mike Leake’s contract? He’s young, he’s durable, he’s decent, and for his position, he can both hit and field. It doesn’t mean the Cardinals got a Mike Leake bargain. It just means it isn’t an obvious overpay. Given that it’s the Cardinals, that shouldn’t be surprising.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.
I feel like durability isn’t that huge of an asset for a league average player. Still nice, though.
For the cardinals it might be. Depending on Jaime/Waino to stay healthy. Depending on the young Wacha/Martinez arms to keep growing. Hoping Reyes/Gonzalez perform. That’s a lot of question marks this season. Not to mention the long term stability questions. Lynn is near FA, Waino at the end of his prime. Garcia’s arm falls apart pretty much constantly.
How much worse does the Heyward trade look for the cardinals now?
The trade doesn’t look that bad because Matheny didn’t trust Miller’s arm, for whatever reason. Had he stayed in St. Louis, I’m not sure he would’ve had the same year he had in Atlanta. (Still though, I understand your point.)
Whether Matheny didn’t trust Millers arm or not, the Braves got an absolute haul for Miller and the Cards got 1 year of Heyward vs 1 year of Miller.
And don’t forget that the Cardinals also have two more years of a very good setup man in Jordan Walden, acquired with Heyward, as well as the compensation pick for Heyward.
And they also had the one season of a 6-WAR Heyward leading them to a 100-win season and a Central title, which isn’t nothing.
the Heyward trade looks the same. Can’t judge the decision making now any differently than before.
Agreed that it shouldn’t be judged differently, but it sure looks different.
Durability is a huge asset for a league average player. Reduction of uncertainty has great value. “knowing” you are getting a league average player at a position for 30 starts has massive value. You can now work around that position, and you are much less likely to have to insert a well below average player…..
I’m not defending the deal, but it is probably not a bad deal. But saying durability doesn’t have value?
personally, when the first defense of a deal is that the market is ridiculous, it’s kind of a red flag. Leake is ok, but that’s kind of the problem. the fall from average to below average is a short one, and guys are only healthy until they aren’t anymore. unless that’s balanced by at least a little bit of upside, that’s not a player i’d like to chain myself to for the long term.
Then you are probably never signing any FA other than the most expensive ones. The market isn’t ridiculous…..the owners are still making massive profits. If anything, it is still under valued compared to what it would be if players were more free.
Cards are probably losing a #1 draft pick (if not more) with the Houston “Hacking Scandel”.
It’s not clear the commissioner has authority to do that unilaterally even if he wants to, and far from clear that he “probably” will. The quiet death of that whole story — one exec identified and fired, then crickets — certainly doesn’t suggest that the matter is the huge scandal that it initially appeared to be.
The “death” of the story suggests that the FBI is involved, and they take their sweet time investigating and putting together evidence. MLB will release their findings after the FBI makes theirs public. Much to the time delay will be in gathering and reviewing evidence, and deciding who, if anyone, to charge. The story is far from dead.
They are pretty much just waiting for the FBI to conclude their investigation, which is ongoing. Once the criminal charges are known, the league punishment will come. Corporate espionage and defamation is not something that people just forget.
I think it cuts both ways though and I’d be just as worried if I were the Astros as I would be as the cardinals. Correa’s leaving statement was the Astros pilfered the cardinals system. Doesn’t justify his actions but explains them
There’s still no evidence that anyone other than a few rogue employees were involved. You can’t punish an entire organization just because of a few bad apples.
And I think it under sells Leake to call him a league average player. He is an average “starting” player, and the “starting” players are a relatively small subset of the league’s players. Leake has more WAR than Pujols over the last three years, as an example of where he falls.
If you include his total value (pitching, hitting, defense, baserunning) he is a slightly above “starting” player at the pitching position. The added bonus is that the Cardinals don’t lose a draft pick for signing him (which is probably valued at $10m). Combine both and the Cardinals got decent value for Leake compared to the other free agent starting pitchers that have signed thus far.
I don’t know how valuable Leake will be vs the Cubs.
Bryant, Coghlan, Montero, Rizzo, Schwarber & Zobrist all hit 423/446/930 =1.376 OPS with 5HRs & only 5Ks in 71 career ABs vs Leake.
Not a huge sample. but the Cubs have some good lefties and Leakes not above average vs lefties.
That’s what? 2-3 starts/year?
I wonder what the league average is for righties vs lefties? If park adjusted, since Leake pitched half of his games in the GAB bandbox, my guess is he is league average or better.
Not really. League average WAR is about 2. Leake hovers around 2 WAR in his BEST years. There’s no quibble over average starting player/ average player.
Your argument is actually blowing up in your face, because Leake WILL BE a starting player…yet he’s only average amongst ALL players – even relievers and platoon and utility guys.
Since when is 2 WAR league average for all players?
There are 750 MLB players, there are 1000 WAR available. 2 WAR is well above the average for all.
OTOH there are 13 (NL) or 14 (AL) starters per team (8 position players, 5 starting pitchers, AL has a DH). That gives 405 starters. So if no reliever or bench player were worth ANY WAR (including even closers), then starters would be worth 2.47 WAR on average, since in fact relievers and bench players do accumulate some WAR it is perfectly accurate to say that 2 WAR is a league average starter.
Then it’s a good thing the Cardinals are only counting on him to be their fifth starter.
Cardinals Shop, Lift Leake From Market! Will Leake Contract be a Steal for Cards? Mike Leake Receives Five Years!
OK, so when the Cardinals sign someone to a seemingly-excessive contract, we get a justification post. But if, say, the Dbacks or the Mariners had signed Leake to this contract, they would have been lambasted. Just sayin’.
Mike Leake wouldn’t hit for the Mariners. Also you’re wrong.
Yeah, Fangraphs would never write an article like this for the Dbacks…
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/attempting-to-rationalize-the-shelby-miller-trade/
Yep, Jeff. He’s that rarest of 3 WAR pitchers: the type that never actually gets to 3 WAR.
If his hitting and defensive WAR were actually included in his WAR totals, he just might have done so at some point.
There’s also the question of whether or not Leake is a true talent FIP-beater. For his career, his ERA is 3.88 vs. an FIP of 4.21. Leake’s ERA has been lower than FIP in 5 of the 6 seasons that he’s pitched in the majors. Also, Leake’s career xFIP is 3.81, suggesting that he may benefit from moving from a hitter’s park (GABP) to a pitcher’s park (Busch).
Building on this point, using RA9-WAR (rather than the FIP-based fWAR), Leake’s last 3 season WAR totals are 3.1, 2.9, and 3.3, so an average of just over 3 WAR. Those figures presumably pick up Leake’s fielding value – because they are based on runs allowed – but his hitting value is still not captured in those WAR totals.
So there’s a case to be made – adding 0.5 WAR per year for hitting – that Leake has been worth an average of 3.5 WAR in recent years, and consistently worth at least 3 WAR in recent years.
This strikes me as the sort of rationalizing we did back when the As signed Billy Butler: Surely an intelligent organization wouldn’t make a mistake like this, so there must be something else going on.
But sometimes a mistake is just a mistake.
Leake is a lot better than Butler was.
Is he though? Both of their best seasons were 2.0 and 2.3 WAR, and that is with Butler getting hammered with the DH penalty.
Leake is also getting paid almost 2.5 times as much as Butler.
Butler had been worth 0.4 WAR the previous two seasons combined. Leake’s at the same figure, but with the two numbers switched.
In retrospect this was an unclear way to say 4.0
This is fangraphs, where every reader can be assumed to be aware of how silly it is to cite a contract’s total value rather than the AAV. Leake is getting $15M/ year, 50% more than Butler(and I won’t even get into the adjustment for inflation that closes the gap further).
“The Upcoming Mike Leake Mistake” article was based on an interesting but subjective analysis of recent trends in batted ball data. Based on simple-minded systems like Steamer Projections and WAR — ie, the standard stats that FG uses to analyze deals — the deal looks okay. Not particularly good, but okay. It doesn’t seem to require any special justification.
Sorry, missed this line: “Based on all the usual assumptions — $8 million per WAR, 5% inflation, and so on — a five-year contract for Leake would be expected to be worth about $74 million. It’s south of the Cardinals’ guarantee, but it’s in the neighborhood, so already, we’re close.”
Exactly.
Maybe Fangraph’s method of appraising FA pitcher contracts is what needs to be justified if actual FA contracts are consistently exceeding Fangraph’s estimates.
In most cases guys take the most money they are offered, so you can add the front offices of every other team that may have had interest in Leake to the list of people who would need an adjustment. Or you can assume, which has been proven again and again over the years, that in baseball free agency their is a winner’s curse.
Is there a “Fangraphs” method of appraising pitcher contracts?
Well spending $16MM/yr on a player with his #1 Zips comp of the very forgettable Lary Sorensen, or at BA his highest similarity scores are with Shawn Marcum and Scott Baker. So yeah it really isn’t a good deal, unless durablility is valued at like $40MM. Calling him a “2 win pitcher” is pretty generous also since over his six years he is averaging 1.6 wins/season and only exceeds 2 wins one time.
A durable Shawn Marcum would have been superb given the quality of guys two injury free year. Baker maybe also, though his results never seemed to match his FIP even in his two injury free years. If those are Leake’s comps and he is considered a stable version of them then this is a great signing.
He’s not being considered a stable version of Marcum.
(injured) Marcum = (healthy) Leake
This is what the comp is saying.
This is an overpay from a team in an increasingly desperate state. Mr. Blengino made a compelling argument showing that Leake’s limited skills are already on the decline. He’s more likely to be below 2 WAR in 2016 than above it, and at age 28 will continue to get worse from there. I understand that the Cardinals felt that even such an obvious overpay was necessary to keep them competitive, but it’s still a mistake. This new thing where FanGraphs tries to justify pitcher overpays by pointing to hitting and fielding is rather bizarre.
How is it bizarre if it matters? It would be bizarre to leave it out of the equation when you’re talking about someone with big positive or negative extra value.
It’s bizarre because you just started doing it and you’ve only done it when attempting to justify the Leake & Greinke overpays. Moreover, I question its validity because I don’t think it’s an accurate representation of value. Leake hit .116/.116/.246 last season and somehow we’re supposed to believe that is 0.0 WAR instead of significantly negative? Meanwhile .176/.188/.338 in 2014 was supposedly worth 0.5 WAR? Neither of those numbers make any sense because you’re calculating from a false replacement level well below what the actual replacement level should be.
Most pitchers don’t provide the extra value like that like Leake and Greinke do. We’ve definitely written about pitcher hitting and fielding before. It can’t possibly not matter.
Fangraphs for years has talked about how pitcher hitting and fielding can impact how much value a pitcher can add to a team.
I also really don’t understand the certitude when talking about Leake & Greinke’s talent levels as hitters. We would never pretend to be so certain about actual hitters.
Mike Leake has 400 career PA. 400. In six years. The stabilization level for batting average alone, as declared by this site itself, is 910 AB.
Beyond this, most of his PA have been very bad. His career wRC+ is 45, but over the last three seasons it’s more like 20.
Mike Leake has posted a wRC+ of -13, 39, and 22 over the last three seasons. He was better before that, but it’s ludicrous to pretend that he provides positive value as a hitter. He is slightly less negative than other pitchers. Leake in 2010 and 2012 was an asset at the plate. Madison Bumgarner in 2015 and 2014 was an asset at the plate. Zack Greinke in 2013 and to a small extent in 2014 was an asset at the plate. Mike Leake over the last three seasons has not been an asset at the plate.
JD, you’re comparing Leake’s hitting to the entire universe of major league hitters, which seems disingenuous. *Of course* he or any pitcher will look awful compared to players who are getting paid (exclusively) to hit. Compared to *other pitchers* Leake does gain some value with his bat. It’s fair to debate the value of his extra offense but it’s pretty clear that Leake is a quality hitter – for a pitcher.
That is exactly how you calculate the replacement value for hitting performance. When a position player comes in to pitch, he doesn’t get extra credit in his pitching WAR for being a position player. He gets measured against the entire universe of major league pitchers.
Actual replacement level for the pitcher’s spot in the order is much different than any other spot.
Doesn’t fWAR take into account a hitter’s pitching? Also, if he’s a great fielder, that would already be reflected in his pitching numbers because he directly benefits from every great fielding play he makes.
One thing this article doesn’t take into account is how much better Leake is going to get by leaving Great American ballpark. He has a huge home/road split in his career and that makes sense because he’s a pitch to contact guy (which also throws off his WAR and FIP numbers)
sorry, I meant “pitcher’s hitting” not “hitter’s pitchng”
Hitter’s pitching should be included. Especially when it helps you get back up to replacement level.
Pitcher WAR does not include hitting WAR. And the impact of his defense might show up in RA9-WAR, but not the regular WAR we use.
Wow. 2.9 WAR just from his hitting in his 6 year career. That dramatically changes his value.
Only if you believe that .176/.188/.338 is actually worth 0.5 WAR, which it isn’t.
The average NL pitcher hit .125/.156/.156.
Batting average stabilizes as 910 AB. OBP at 460 PA.
http://www.fangraphs.com/library/principles/sample-size/
That’s not how you calculate replacement value, otherwise putting a DH-type on the mound would yield enough offensive value to be worth their negative pitching value. Buster Posey isn’t measured against a replacement of value of just catchers, he’s measured against all hitters and then given a positional adjustment.
A DH on the mound would cost their team FAR more in negative pitching value than they could provide in offensive value.
In reality, you’re absolutely correct, but that isn’t true the way that FanGraphs calculates WAR. In 2015, Kyle Kendrick had the worst WAR among pitchers at -1.0 with a 6.32 ERA over 142.1 innings. Position players collectively since 1970 have an ERA in the high 7s, so let’s say that one is better than normal and could manage something not too much worse than 6.32. According to FanGraphs, a ~100 wRC+ from a pitcher over ~80 plate appearances has more positive value than 142.1 innings of a 6.32 ERA.
Mike Leake has hit better than average pitchers have hit. Mike Leake has not hit *well*. But pitchers have to bat in his league, and so when Leake is pitching, there’s the relative benefit of having him at the plate instead of someone inferior. Call it what you want but Leake is more valuable when he hits than some run-of-the-mill other guy, and that isn’t worth nothing. Of course Leake actually sucks as a hitter. Most other pitchers suck worse.
Are you actually, seriously suggesting a DH type be a starting pitcher for 30 games a season? His WAR as a hitter would probably be 15 or something like that but his WAR as a pitcher would be around -30, so yeah, that’s a bad idea. Maybe you can run some simulations on OOTP and see how it comes out.
Oh wait, we already know how that goes: http://www.fangraphs.com/not/dangerous-experiment-a-roster-of-25-adam-dunns/
Jeff, you’re not getting it. I agree that Leake should have a less negative WAR as a hitter than other pitchers, yet it is blindingly obvious that he should not have a positive WAR with a 22 wRC+. The way you calculate WAR for pitchers while hitting is wrong.
witesoxfan:
I am not suggesting that, I am stating the exact opposite. The notion of a DH-type player having a positive WAR while serving as a starting pitcher is obviously ludicrous, and yet the way FanGraphs calculates pitcher-hitting WAR produces precisely that result. The way that FanGraphs calculates pitcher-hitting WAR is wrong, and therefore using that positive number when Mike Leake has been an absolutely dreadful hitter over the last three seasons is not in any way justified.
jdbolick,
you are the one that is wrong. I don’t know if you even know hoe FG claculates pitcher hitting WAR.
As said before position players pitching have an ERA of 7+. If a team was crazy enough to let this player start 30 games he would certainly not work deep into games… so 150 IP seems on the high end.
this means probably around 70-80 PA as a hitter.
while a 7+ FIP would result in something like a FIP- of 180. and this results in around -2.0 WAR over 150 IP.
now even with a wRC+ of 152 over 64 PA (Micah Owings in 2007) he only managed to accumulate 1.3 WAR.
Don Newcombe had a wRC+ of 168 (close to what Mike Trout does) over 125 PA (which our lousy SP would NEVER reach) as a pitcher in 1955 and his hitting WAR? 2.3.
so even if you had Mike Trout with a 7+ FIP pitching 30 games he wouldn’t be able to arrive at a positive WAR on his ~170 wRC+
what exactly sounds so unreasonable to you, jdbolick???
AC_Butcha_AC:
No, I am not wrong at all. First, I already stated that for this hypothetical we’re saying that the DH-type “is better than normal (for position players on the mound) and could manage something not too much worse than 6.32.” It is factually true that if a DH-type could manage a FIP of something around there along with a ~100 wRC+ over ~80 plate appearances that FanGraphs would have their positive value at the plate outweigh their negative value on the mound. I understand why you and others are struggling so badly to grasp this because it is indeed ridiculous. We all recognize that the positive value from those ~80 plate appearances should not outweigh that many innings of terrible pitching. Furthermore, even in your scenario where you used the aggregate pitching performance of position players, that is only slightly negative. How can you not see that is ridiculous as well?
AC_Butcha_AC, do you know how replacement value is calculated? I’m guessing that Jeff doesn’t because he keeps bringing up the average pitcher, which isn’t relevant both because you don’t use the average and you don’t limit it to just pitchers. Most catchers are below replacement level offensively, which you can see here: http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=c&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=100&type=8&season=2015&month=0&season1=2015&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=19,d&page=1_50 That’s because replacement value is not calculated position by position, it’s calculated from the entire pool of players. FanGraphs is applying this correctly to catchers and shortstops and every offensive position then for some reason they are creating an entirely separate replacement value for pitchers at the plate. That is wrong. Almost every pitcher should be below replacement value as a hitter, including Mike Leake after 2012. FanGraphs arguing that Mike Leake was worth 0.5 WAR with a line of .176/.186/.338 is incorrect.
To show this yet another way, when a position player does come in to pitch we do not measure him against a replacement level of only other position players pitching. We measure him against the one replacement level used for pitching performance.
To show this yet another another way, in the eighth inning down a run with someone in scoring position and Leake’s turn at-bat, he actually does get replaced by a pinch-hitter who probably isn’t much if any better than the replacement level as a batter.
Pitchers rarely hit against relief pitchers or mop-up guys. The difference isn’t that great, but it does depress their numbers. Also to consider, they hit with runners on base less often due to their place in the order, and are more likely to be pinch hit for if there are runners on base than empty.
Plus failed sacrifice tries, deflates their numbers, and success doesn’t improve it. Partially failed sacrifice attempts, which puts pitchers in the hole also makes hitting more difficult. All in all I bet poor MLB hitters forced into the number 9 hole, would all have their BA numbers decreased by at least 25 points if not more.
jdbolick, you’re the one who is missing the point. A position player is not required to pitch, so his pitching WAR would indeed be compared to the replacement value of all pitchers. However, the pitchers are required to bat in the National League (well, outside of late game pinch-hitters and double-switches). Therefore, the replacement value for hitting in that one spot in the batting order has to be adjusted for only the pitchers and pinch-hitters who can actually bat there.
Guys like Leake do add positive hitting WAR when the definition of replacement level is properly adjusted. Otherwise, every NL pitcher in baseball would wind up a much lower net WAR when you combine their pitching and hitting WARs suggesting that they are almost never worth any kind of free agent contract.
I’m starting to get the notion that this will look reasonable in 12 months.
ZIPS projects Leake to be worth close to 12 WAR over the course of the deal. Less than $7M per WAR. Doesn’t seem like an overpay in this market at all.
That projection is not credible. Leake is more likely to end up with ~7.5 WAR over the next five seasons given his history and already declining skills.
I think I’ll take Zips as more credible than your baseless assertion.
Over his first six seasons, Mike Leake has been worth 9.7 fWAR. In 2015 his swinging strike, contact, and Z-contact rates all were career worsts. The notion that he will somehow defy all that to be worth 12 WAR over the next five seasons is not remotely believable.
ZIPS is a joke. The least credible of the major projection systems by a significant margin.
It amuses me that this is getting downvoted given that Leake has been worth significantly less over his six full major league seasons than the supposed ZiPS projection has him over the next five.
So? Add in his fielding and hitting value, and in the current market (along with further expected inflation) that 7.5 pitching WAR still just about justifies the contract.
i love ZiPS. I do. but for that 12 WAR to mean anything, we’d need to see a variance figure at min. and i’d happily wager variance is >12.
Why??
Solid 4,Cards keep draft choices.Good sign.
Pirates traded for Jonathan Niese, who costs ~$9m in 2015, and two team options at $10 and $11m in 2017/2018, respectively. Cardinals just guaranteed $80m to Leake over the next 5 years, w/ the potential to add $13-15m more in performance bonuses.
If the Cardinals have a good history w/ pitchers, the Pirates at least have that same good history.
Niese, over the last 5 years, has been as good or better than Leake, particularly by advanced metrics.
As Sullivan said, Niese “isn’t nothing”. I agree. He’s a lot more than nothing and this contract makes the Pirates move even that more astute.
I feel like the above should’ve been mentioned, rather than attempting to explain how the Cardinals get their value from Leake. The Pirates deal for Niese makes this, by comparison, appear to be an overpay or, at the least, made out of desperation. Saying so shouldn’t be controversial.
Not to belittle the Pirates’ record with pitching, because it is excellent, but you can’t be serious in comparing the two guys. The Mets gave up Niese for nothing and multiple teams were lining up to sign Leake to a contract like this. The hitting alone makes a huge difference. Leake earned .5 WAR per year with his bat. Then you have to consider the relative difficulty of the parks the two guys called home.
Leake had 0 War hitting last year with a .113 batting average, a 49%k rate, and a negative 13 wRC+. And he is not hitting in Great American park anymore. Let’s not get carried away.
I’m completely serious. The Mets didn’t give up Niese for nothing; they got Walker in return. I don’t care if ‘other teams were lining up to sign Leake’; that just means they weren’t smart, either.
Advanced metrics, or at least the ones I’m using, take into account ‘park factors’.
The offensive potential of Leake is a factor, I concede. It’s not enough of a factor that makes paying, essentially the same pitcher over the last 5 years, $80 guaranteed vs. paying a guy $9m and having *team* options to pay him another $20m in the two out-years.
I mean, math.
The Mets were trying to dump Niese and the Pirates were trying to dump Walker. Both were in danger of being released outright. Leake has earned .5 WAR per year just with his bat. That’s $4M a year and probably more when you consider that an average pitcher’s replacement value hitting is so low.
Yeah, the Niese acquisition looks pretty good, but you can’t just ignore that Leake has been healthy and Niese has had arm problems. The injury risk is a real deterrent.
And Hunt being incredibly good at his job does not = lesser signings are terrible.
They are both good signings and PITs probably better.
Desperate times in the river city. Theo on the brain no doubt. From David Price to Mike freaking Leake. Good grief.
This has disaster written all over it. Cardinal fans lost their whipping boy Lynn to injury, so I guess they need a fill in. And I heard Wainwright was on the radio this morning saying Heyward didn’t have the “personality traits” to be a cornerstone type of player for the great Cardinal tradition. Classy.
They would have been far better off giving Lackey a 2 year deal for 38 million, but they ticked him off by wacking him with the qualifying offer even after he relented and played for peanuts last year, so that was a non-starter.
And please no Kyle Lohse comparisons, it is an insult to a quality major league pitcher like Lohse.
You have your facts wrong on Lackey. The Cardinals gave him a couple million in incentives just to make him happy. There’s no bad blood there.
Leake is an equally good pitcher to Lohse. Not sure why you’re denying that.
You know what isn’t classy is proudly and repeatedly advertising your insufferable bias against one particular baseball team. You’re like a half-step above Big Daddy Cool, maybe. Get a hobby.
They should rename this place the anal retentive society.
Linked in my name is Miklasz’s transcript of what Waino said to compare to Cubsfan’s spin above.
Lackey got performance incentives so that he would “relent;” he got paid more than peanuts. Nice try. You have a link in which Lackey is shown to be pissed off, or are you just desperately lying again?
How about in his press conference signing with the Cubs when he said he wasn’t too happy about getting the qualifying offer after what he had done for the Cardinals, but it was ok because it really made going to the Cubs the best option. That qualify in red koolaid land?
What did Lackey “do” for the Cardinals? He simply honored the contract he signed. Every team would have given him the qualifying offer.
When all FA contracts are large during an off-season it seems to make it easy to justify any contract. Not sure where team payrolls will be in 2-3 years but can’t see the value in a 16 mil per year Mike Leake. I know you guys are wizards with statistics and can create something to show how this deal makes sense but I find it hard to believe. Seems to be a contract bubble from the recent TV deals. Don’t see how these contracts($perWAR) are sustainable.
I’m not too hung up on the dollars. The Cardinals obviously had money to spend and revenue will skyrocket soon when their new TV deal kicks in. I’m mainly hung up on the years committed to a guy who didn’t have a strong market and as shown in the Mike Leake mistake article, is hardly even average at best.
The Cardinals still have decent depth with Cooney, Lyons and Gonzales ready to compete for the 5 spot and Alex Reyes possibly being ready in the second half. Next year Leake’s role becomes even harder to justify when Lynn will return and Reyes should be ready for a spot.
The fact is this was a failed off season. Spending $80 million and committing 5 years to Mike f’ing Leake to possibly boost the team from 85 to 86 wins is just a waste. This was a panic move to try and save face with the fan base after losing Lynn, Lackey and Heyward; no need to justify it.
It makes no sense. A much better strategy would have been signing Kazmir or Lackey to two year deals. I am wondering if the news on Martinez and his shoulder is not great. Perhaps even a worry about Wacha, who was not good the last two months of the season.
Or even a flyer on Cliff Lee. Only thing that could make this somewhat understandable is if a big trade is in the making involving a SP to solve center field (Carlos Gomez, anyone?)
I don’t really understand the free agent market for pitching this year. Signings like this are weird, because I feel like it doesn’t take much to get to 2 WAR. Take a flyer on a couple reclamation projects and some of your own prospects. I guess I’ve never seen any analysis on it one way or another, but a thing that FEELS true is rookie pitchers getting called up and having initial, unsustainable success due to the league’s unfamiliarity with the pitcher’s stuff. It seems crazy to pay that much guaranteed money for what’s at best a very marginal upgrade, and it seems like it’s much easier to find a 1.5-2 WAR pitcher on the cheap, or at least on a year-to-year basis, than it is to find, say, a consistent 2 WAR CF.
E.g. you can get to 2 WAR or close from your Kyle Lobsteins and Josh Tomlins. Come to think of it, does this mean if Josh Tomlin has a couple decent years, he’s going to get 5/80 when he’s a free agent? He’s projected by Steamer to be BETTER than Leake this year. I can’t imagine the Indians would have asked for amazing prospects for their #6 starter, you’re not going to trade $80 million worth of prospects for a Tomlin, or even $20 million.
Boy, cubs fans are quick to bash the Cardinals on anything these days. Leake’s not a #1 starter and didnt get #1 starter money. He didn’t cost a compensation pick. Its not a steal but its not an overpay either. Cardinals needed a reliable arm to go out there every 5th day and thats what they got. Maybe go compare Leake’s career to Samardzjia’s. Pretty similar for a guy the Cubs looked at as a #1-#2
Who have who a 5 year contract?
Yes Cards gave Leake the 5 year deal. The same cubs fans that dislike this deal are the same ones touting Shark. Year after year. Even had cubs fans tell me today they’d take Shark on potential. He’s 31. His potential is pretty established. Leake’s 28 and signed as a 4-5 starter. Why is this even significant?
One million percent would not have been written if he wasn’t signed by the Cardinals.
BAD SIGNING.
As average as a pitcher gets.
Paid the contract of someone you have to want some upside from.
Groundball pitcher with a terrible infield in a ballpark where you want a flyball pitcher. Gives up a ton of line drives too. Underlying numbers aren’t promising for his next 5 years.
Downward trending.
Buying a pitcher at the WRONG TIME.
Cardinals have plenty of high quality arms in their farm just about ready.
If you do sign a free agent and you’re the Cards, a team that gets the most out of their pitchers, you’re best off paying for a guy with a higher ceiling.
I understand you want to put on your kid gloves because it’s the Cards, and things usually work out for them, but come on. This is just bad.
Leake Average Last 3yrs (Age 25-27):
3.1ra9war
2.5bwar
2.0fipwar
And all 3 are as close to perfectly consistent over those 3yrs as it gets.
FIP is his worst stat, and even by fip he’s worth $16m per year in free agent value. But he also clearly looks like a fip-beater, as literally every other stat likes him better than that.
This contract isn’t even questionable, let alone bad.
Porcello signed for $20m per year after these 3yr averages:
2.1ra9war
2.6bar
2.8fwar
and fangraphs embraced the signing as a smart one. and he wasn’t even a free agent.
Isn’t it time fangraphs moved away from not only using simple fip as the king of pitching stats, but then doubling down on it by quoting both fip and fipwar as if they double the statistical evidence for the argument?
I think this is a wonderful signing for the Cards. Leake, too. Consult Leake’s splits. Check out his career home/away splits and those for 2015. He wasn’t average. He’s been bad at home and excellent on the road for his entire career. His 2015 splits confirm this. Starting 15 or so at Busch instead of Great American is the next best thing to getting a five year contract. Every conceivable says Leake will perform like a top of the rotation pitcher in any park that’s not a hitters’ haven.
Posted this on the original article.
5/$80M seems perfectly reasonable to me for Leake in today’s market. By 50/50 RA/9 FIP WAR he has been worth 2.55 WAR on average over the last three seasons. Round it down to 2.5 if you want, and I’m sure the formatting on this will get all screwy, but here goes:
Year Age WAR$/WAR Est. Value
2016 28 2.5 $8.0 M $20 M
2017 29 2.5 $8.4 M $21 M
2018 30 2.5 $8.8 M $22 M
2019 31 2.0 $9.3 M $18.6 M
2020 32 1.5 $9.7 M $14.6 M
Totals 11.0 $96.2 M
Assumptions
Value: $8M/WAR with 5.0% inflation
Aging Curve: +0.25 WAR/yr (18-27), 0 WAR/yr (28-30),-0.5 WAR/yr (31-37),-0.75 WAR/yr (> 37)