Position: Texas Rangers TrackMan Operators

Location: Round Rock, Texas; Frisco, Texas; Kinston, N.C.; Hickory, N.C.; Spokane, Wash.
Read the rest of this entry »

The Cardinals had a few problems last season, and among them was unreliable relief pitching. As a means toward addressing that, they’ve given free-agent lefty Brett Cecil a four-year contract, worth $30.5 million. It also has a full no-trade clause! Very clearly, Cecil didn’t come cheap. A number of teams expressed a willingness to guarantee Cecil three years, so the Cardinals stepped up and went one extra.

It wouldn’t be hard to spin this in a negative way. Relievers feel like they’re unpredictable, right? So investing in them long-term might be a fool’s errand. And, last year’s average reliever had a 3.93 ERA. Cecil had a 3.93 ERA. He also finished with the eighth-lowest WPA among relievers, meaning he was even less valuable than his regular statistics. On top of that stuff, Cecil missed a month and a half with a lat injury. He didn’t have a banner first half.

Yet, he did have a much better second half. The healthy Cecil was dominant. Here’s his last pitch of the regular season:

That’s just in there for a pretty visual. Cecil finished the year effective, and he was effective in seasons previous. There’s been a certain response to this contract:

Already have heard from multiple executives and agents who think Brett Cecil’s four-year, $30.5M deal with St. Louis is a market changer.

— Jeff Passan (@JeffPassan) November 19, 2016

But I just don’t agree with that. I don’t think this is the least bit strange or surprising. Cecil got four years and $30.5 million with a full no-trade. Last winter, the Orioles gave Darren O’Day four years and $31 million, with a partial no-trade. They’re very similar contracts, given to a pair of non-closers, and in this table, check out their numbers over the three seasons before signing:

O’Day has the edge in hit and run suppression. Cecil has the edge in peripherals, age, and velocity. While O’Day might’ve been the tougher pitcher to square up, Cecil has made it hard to just put the bat on the ball, and he also has the advantage of a few years of youth. I don’t see how Cecil’s contract, then, is a market-changer. Was O’Day’s contract a market-changer? If so, this one just falls right in line. It might come as a little startling to see a non-closer get four years guaranteed, but Cecil didn’t start this, and there was already emphasis being put on finding better non-closers before. This seems like it’s normal. Brett Cecil’s contract feels normal.

Now, it’s worth noting, perhaps, that O’Day wasn’t great in the first year of his four-year deal. Maybe that means all of this is unwise. But in reality, it’s not that relief pitchers are all that unpredictable. It’s that they just have smaller samples of playing time, and the reduced samples make them unpredictable. They still project like anyone else. And Cecil projects to be fine, and the Cardinals bullpen projects to be good. They can check that priority off the list.

The Milwaukee Brewers claimed outfielder Adam Brett Walker off waivers today from Minnesota. Walker, who just turned 25, was originally selected in the third round of the 2012 draft out of Jacksonville University.

Here’s a distillation of roughly all his virtues as a ballplayer:

As a professional, Walker has recorded 124 home runs in 2,449 plate appearances — including 27 homers this past season in 531 plate appearances for Triple-A Rochester. He has considerable power. Indeed, by at least one measurement, he has nearly the most power. Because, consider: his home-run figures are also accompanied by a number of walks and an even greater number of strikeouts. All told, roughly 45% of all Walker’s plate appearances this year produced one of those two outcomes. That’s an unusually high figure. Which means that Walker was left with relatively few opportunities with which to actually hit those home runs.

Read the rest of this entry »

Another domino is about to fall in the free-agent pitching market. The market would make tapioca look exciting, yes, but someone has to throw innings for baseball teams, and the Rangers have decided to have Andrew Cashner throw some of those innings for them.

Cashner has spent most of his time with the Padres and was traded to the Marlins around the trade deadline. Good 2013 and 2014 campaigns were followed up by a 2015 that saw a downward trend and then a 2016 that was a minor disaster. His strikeouts per nine fell while his walk rate in the other direction. His 12 appearances with the Marlins went even worse.

But, because of the state of the open market, Cashner was one of the more interesting options. His big fastball has always made him appealing — and, indeed, he’s experienced success for some time. But injuries have derailed him of late and a fastball that once averaged 96 mph is down to 94, per Brooks Baseball.

Read the rest of this entry »

Mike Berardino of the the St. Paul Pioneer Press had an American League Cy Young Award vote this year. He filled out his ballot as follows:

1. Verlander
2. Britton
3. Miller
4. Kluber
5. Porcello

I respect Berardino’s ballot. As a matter of fact, I applaud it — and not only because he placed the three starters in the same order I would have. That’s a secondary consideration. Far more meaningful is the fact that he included both Zach Britton and Andrew Miller, and not just one of the two.

Read the rest of this entry »

Every year, a discussion of the definition of “value” inevitably comes up in the context of the MVP awards. That discussion is particularly prominent this year with Mike Trout, who was inarguably the best player in the American League, unlikely to win the award because his team sucked. The anti-Trout side of the argument goes: the MVP is for the most valuable player, and you can’t be that valuable if your team didn’t win anything.

But value goes both ways. If the Angels would have had the same season result – no playoffs – with or without Trout, the same can be said for, say, the Cubs and Kris Bryant. Bryant or no Bryant, the Cubs almost certainly would have won their division and probably would have still held the National League’s best record. Bryant, however, is likely to be announced tonight as the NL MVP, whereas Trout will probably get a fourth (!) consolation prize. Bryant wasn’t really all that crucial to his team’s success; his value is diminished by the fact that his teammates didn’t need him!

Now, that argument might sound silly, but I don’t know that it’s that much sillier than the argument against Trout. Taking the word “value” literally, the question becomes: who was most important to their team’s success? If you want to get into the nitty-gritty of value, isn’t that what you’re really asking?

To that end, I created a way of looking at how many wins each MVP candidate contributed to their specific team. I did this by subtracting each player’s offensive runs created (“Off” on our leaderboards) from their team’s runs scored and adding each player’s defensive runs saved (“Def”) to their team’s runs allowed. I then recalculated the team’s Pythagorean record. The result is a sort of wins-above-average-per-162 statistic, specific to the team, which allows us to assess where on the win curve the team would have been left without the player.

The win curve part is important because it allows for a distinction between a player like Bryant, who makes his team’s Pythagorean record budge from 107 wins to 102, and a player like Corey Seager, whose team goes from 90 to 85 – a much more drastic change in playoff chances.

So here are several top performers from both leagues, sorted entirely unscientifically by what looked to me like the most impressive contribution to their team.

For the record, I would vote for both Trout and Bryant. I don’t agree with this line of thinking. This is just another way to look at it, and if you want to make an argument for Mookie Betts, Josh Donaldson, or Corey Seager, it’s a pretty compelling one.

The obvious caveat is that by using Pythagorean record, this method doesn’t measure exactly what happened, it measures what probably should have happened. That’s a whole ‘nother argument to have in regards to the MVP; we see it pop up as well in the Cy Young race with ERA vs. FIP. Additionally, the exact interactions between team and player are more complicated than just adding and subtracting total runs. This method isn’t perfect. But it’s fun to think about nonetheless.

If you’re a regular reader, you know that my primary role here at FanGraphs is to talk to people within the game and share their thoughts. Many of my conversations are with pitchers. From them, I’ve heard a particular phrase countless times:

“My job is to give my team a chance to win.”

The extent to which such a thing can be quantified is subjective. That doesn’t make it meaningless. In my opinion, the supposition — for lack of a better term — should factor into the Cy Young Award debate.

It’s well known that pitchers have little control over wins and losses. The best they can do is limit the opposition’s run total. They don’t have complete control over that, either, but they do strongly influence it. As a rule, the best pitchers have the lowest ERAs. Again, not a perfect stat, but it tells a big part of the story.

Read the rest of this entry »

This morning, the Astros announced that they have signed Charlie Morton to a two year, $14 million contract, bringing the right-hander to Houston to bolster their pitching depth. And as Mike Petriello notes, there’s some obvious synergy here.

Charlie Morton was top 5 (min. 50 thrown) in curve spin last year (2990 RPM). The Astros threw more curves as last year went on. Easy fit. pic.twitter.com/TuS7zjWtm7

— Mike Petriello (@mike_petriello) November 16, 2016

Charlie Morton is a high-spin curveball pitcher. The Astros like high-spin curveballs, using it as the primary reason to bring Collin McHugh into the organization a few years ago, and getting some good value out of that bet. Two years ago, when Eno Sarris wrote about trying to find “The Next Collin McHugh”, he showed a spin-rate table with Morton near the very top.

So, yeah, Morton and the Astros are a natural fit, and it’s easy to think about what Houston might be able to do with a guy with a good sinking fastball and a curve that should be a put-away pitch. But in reality, unless the Astros can figure out how to make Morton’s curveballs get lefties out, they might have just signed Bud Norris with health issues instead.

Since Morton debuted in the big leagues in 2008, no pitcher (minimum 350 innings pitched) has been worse against left-handed hitters. His sinking fastball dives right into a lefties wheelhouse, and despite the spin, his curveball hasn’t been effective at getting them off balance so they don’t just crush his fastball. Against right-handers, his repertoire is quite effective, but against lefties, he’s basically throwing batting practice.

That doesn’t make this a terrible gamble for the Astros. If they think they can fix Morton, and get him to stop running a .350 BABIP against LHBs — yes, that’s his career average — then maybe there’s some upside as a back-end starter. And if they can’t, maybe they’ll be able to convince him that he could be a quality reliever, using him mostly as a right-handed specialist. The ability to perhaps convert him into a quality bullpen arm if the starting experiment continues to fail gives his signing a chance to work even if they can’t make him Collin McHugh 2.0.

But the Astros already have a deep bullpen full of right-handed arms. What they really could use is another quality starting pitcher. Unless the new CBA bans left-handed hitters, I’m not sure I’d count on Morton being that guy.

Here’s a fun fact for you. There’s so much talk about the Mets and Yoenis Cespedes. About how Cespedes is so important to the Mets, about how the lineup can’t function without him. I’m not going to argue that Cespedes isn’t important. Great player! But if you look at last year’s Mets position players, the leader in WAR was Neil Walker. Only Noah Syndergaard had a higher WAR on the team, and Walker barely played two-thirds of the season.

So the Mets are probably pretty happy with the news that Walker has accepted their $17.2-million qualifying offer. Walker becomes the second of two players to accept the QO this offseason, joining Jeremy Hellickson. Hellickson might be thinking ahead to a midsummer trade. Walker wants to win the World Series where he is.

The only reason we’re here is because Walker had back surgery. He’s a 31-year-old middle infielder with a brand new scar, and he didn’t play a game after August 27. If Walker had stayed healthy and kept up his performance, he would’ve had zero trouble finding three or even four guaranteed years. But things being what they were, Walker sensed the market would be more cautious. There’s not even great demand for second basemen in the first place, at least not among contenders, and Walker has a new red flag. It makes plenty of sense for him to take the money, and then look ahead to a healthy season, after which the QO system is likely to have been modified.

The surgery is the unknown here. I don’t know what we can reasonably be expected to make of it. I don’t know how Walker feels about his back. I don’t know how the Mets feel about his back. I assume the Mets wouldn’t have made the offer if they thought Walker might never play second base again. I have to think that Walker will resemble himself on the field. If he does, well, the last three years, he’s run a wRC+ of 120. That puts him around Nolan Arenado, Chris Davis, and Ben Zobrist. He’s not a baserunning plus, but he’s also not a baserunning minus, and he might be only a modest liability in the field. The numbers think last year he was actually quite good. The numbers kind of struggle to make sense of infields these days, with players constantly moving around, but Walker has played second almost exclusively. He can handle the position if he can move well enough.

If his back holds up, Walker will be okay. He’ll get his contract next season, after making more money than he’s ever seen in 2017. If his back doesn’t hold up, well, $17.2 million is a hell of a guarantee. By making the offer, the Mets acknowledged they think Walker will probably be fine. By taking the offer, Walker acknowledged the surgery would depress his market. There’s only one way for such a red flag to be lowered.

The Mets will presumably now turn their full attention to Cespedes and a reliever or three. They might never escape all the injury-related question marks, but perhaps next year those questions might have fewer negative answers.

It’s probably no secret that I like to run polling projects, as a means of crowdsourcing various questions. From time to time, I’ll run posts that include polls for all 30 teams, and as soon as those posts get published I can’t wait to get a chance to analyze the data. It’s fun to see what the data says about the questions being directly asked, but that’s not the only use. We can also examine demographics!

In some polling posts, you’re free to participate however much you want. In others, though, I ask you to self-identify as a fan of a specific team, or of specific teams. For example, in a polling post about which teams might beat the projections, I’m fine with everyone voting for everyone. But when it comes to, say, fan excitement ratings, then I’m just looking for you to vote about your own favorite team. Very obviously, I can’t actually control how you vote, but the numbers show that you all do a pretty good job of playing along.

So with that being said — here’s a small meta-analysis. I looked at the numbers from all of my polling projects in which you were expected to vote for just one or two teams. This only goes back a couple years, but by looking at participation, we can see where the audience loyalties are. Which fan bases are over- or under-represented around these parts? Wonder no more!

It’s important to note, again, this covers just a couple of years. Within those years, the Blue Jays have been successful, and the Cubs have been wildly successful, so, yeah, that sort of makes sense. But the Cubs have had the highest turnout, followed by the Jays, followed by a massive gap until you get to the Red Sox. They might as well be even with the Mariners. At the left are the fans who’ve been around and most eager to participate in polling projects.

On the right, the opposite of that. One of every 54 participants has identified as a fan of the Rockies. One of every 53 participants has identified as a fan of the Padres. The teams over there mostly aren’t very good, and a lack of success is going to depress online reading and engaging, but I bet the lowest teams aren’t surprising. I’ve mentioned before that certain teams just don’t seem to have strong Internet communities, at least as far as overlapping with FanGraphs goes. I know there are Rockies fans, but they can be difficult to reach.

I don’t have anything else. I just got the idea to create a little bar chart. As you were!