James Shields and the Value of Relevance
Matt Kemp, Wil Myers, Justin Upton, and now James Shields. No team has had a splashier off-season than the San Diego Padres, as new GM A.J. Preller overhauled the team’s roster to ensure that the 2015 Padres would actually be able to score some runs. This team now has an unmistakable identity — they might as well call themselves the San Diego Right-Handed Sluggers — and nearly as much star power as any team in the league. The organization is now a far cry from one whose best players were Rene Rivera and Seth Smith.
The Padres are now undoubtedly interesting. Are they going to be good, though? I remain a bit skeptical. As Mike noted this morning, their infield is still kind of dreadful, and while their outfield will hit a lot of home runs, they’re primarily one dimensional players who aren’t as valuable as their reputations. The pitching staff is deep — especially if Brandon Morrow and Josh Johnson figure out how to stay healthy — but not as strong up front as the other contenders in the NL.
Mostly, I see a lot of solid contributors, but very few players who are likely to be among the best players in the league. The Padres have imported three big names (and a former big time prospect) but I’m not sure any of them are going to perform like All-Stars in 2015. Given what Petco Park is likely to do to the raw numbers of Upton and Kemp, Joaquin Benoit might actually still be the team’s most likely All-Star representative.
From a strictly on-field perspective, I’m not sure how good the Padres are going to be next year. Our current projections have them as a .500 team, essentially. Baseball Prospectus has them slightly better, at 83 wins before signing Shields, so maybe push that to 85 wins now. On the other end of the spectrum, Clay Davenport has them at 75 wins pre-Shields, and while we don’t have ZIPS’ standings yet, the individual player forecasts weren’t very optimistic.
Regardless of which methodology you prefer, the numbers come to a pretty consistent conclusion; the Padres are probably going to be decent, but they’re likely the third best team in their own division and a long way from catching the Dodgers. They’ve improved a good amount in one winter, but they were starting from a base roster that BaseRuns had as a 72 win team last year, and it’s tough to move the needle from that position to strong contender in one winter.
So, against that backdrop, I think many of the Padres moves this winter could be viewed as mistakes. They’ve traded a lot of future value — both in terms of prospect depth and financial commitments — in exchange for short-term upgrades, only it’s not entirely clear that those upgrades are going to result in a legitimate contender next year. If the Padres end up as a .500ish team, and then have to pay the piper in future years when Upton leaves as a free agent while Shields and Kemp absorb one-third of the team’s payroll, this experiment could easily be viewed as an expensive failure.
But while I believe that those statements are all true, I also made basically that exact same argument the last time James Shields changed teams.
But that might be enough to make them an 80 win team instead of a 70 win team. Without Myers, they’re now stuck with a replacement level right fielder. They don’t really have a second baseman. Eric Hosmer has to take a huge step forward to just not be horrible. And even at positions like center field, shortstop, and third base, the in-house options are more interesting future pieces than impact present options. The Royals offense is basically Billy Butler, Alex Gordon, and a lot of hopes and prayers. This is just not a team that was a couple of pitchers away from the postseason. This was a team that was a couple of pitchers away from not picking in the top 10 in next year’s draft.
If you squint hard enough, you can see the possibility of the Royals winning 90 games next year. If Hosmer takes a huge step forward, and Santana rebounds to 2011 form, and everyone stays healthy, and they win all 19 games they play against the Twins, but you can do that with 20 to 25 of the teams in Major League Baseball in any given year. It’s not impossible for the Royals to challenge the Tigers for the AL Central title in 2013, but it’s not likely either. There’s a difference between not agreeing to lose on purpose and giving up a huge chunk of your farm system in an ill-fated attempt to push up your timeline to win. The Royals have just done the latter.
The Royals, of course, just went to the World Series, and the Rays just decided that Wil Myers maybe isn’t as good as they thought he would be. And the response to Kansas City’s playoff run forced me to re-evaluate some things.
But while I think I can defend my analysis of the Royals talent level, that doesn’t make the overall argument correct. Over the last couple of years, we’ve seen essentially unparalleled parity in MLB, and this year, we have a World Series match-up between two teams who made the playoffs via the Wild Card. In 2012, the Tigers got to the World Series with 88 regular season wins; in 2011, the Cardinals won it all after winning just 90 games. While better teams are still more likely to win out in the postseason, the structure of the playoffs gives a real chance to every team who simply qualifies, even if they sneak in via the Wild Card. So maybe I underestimated the potentially positive returns from being on the good side of mediocre.
…
I think it’s possible or even likely that I’ve been underestimating the potential rewards for being decent enough to have things break your way, especially for teams who haven’t been good for a long time. This playoff run is going to pay dividends for the Royals for years to come. It likely created fans for life out of kids in Kansas City who didn’t care at all about the Royals before a few months ago. The long-term benefits of this kind of run are substantial, and the Royals are likely going to generate more in future revenue from this playoff run than they would have saved by underpaying Wil Myers and Jake Odorizzi for the next half decade.
In other sports, where the value of a top draft pick is so much higher than it is in MLB, the correct decision is often to either be great or terrible, with mediocrity as the awful middle ground. Perhaps too much of that sentiment crept into my own thinking about the upside of building an 85 win team, because in today’s baseball world, 85 wins and a little bit of luck can turn a franchise around. I’ve argued against losing on purpose, but perhaps I’ve argued too strongly for wins in the 88-95 range and not strongly enough for wins in the 80-88 range. The win curve is a real thing, and some wins are more valuable than others, but that doesn’t mean that I’ve correctly evaluated the marginal benefit of pushing yourself from 82 to 86 wins.
Like with the Royals acquisition of Shields, I think there was probably a better path forward for the Padres than taking Kemp’s contract, trading for a rent-an-Upton, and hoping that outfield defense doesn’t matter before signing an aging pitcher whose strikeout rate is quickly going the wrong way. But the 2014 Padres were completely irrelevant in a way that the 2015 Padres have little chance to be, and we can’t ignore that side of the equation either. I think this experiment is likely to fail, but we have to capture the magnitude of the value of success to fully evaluate the decision to go for it.
Even if it’s 80-85 percent likely that the Padres don’t make the playoffs this year, the rewards from simply being relevant are perhaps high enough to justify the risks. This is baseball’s equivalent of throwing a 50 yard bomb in football; you don’t expect it to work that often, but you still run high risk/high reward plays, since the value of one or two catches outweighs the cost of seven or eight incompletions.
The Padres have put themselves in a position to potentially be the 2014 Royals or 2013 Pirates. They’ll need some things to break their way, but if a few things click, they could be playing meaningful baseball in September and maybe even October. That matters, especially to an organization that just gave their fans an offense that averaged 3.3 runs per game. The Padres don’t have to win the World Series for these moves to justify the long-term cost; they mostly just have to win their fans back. And they certainly have a better shot at doing that sooner with this roster than they would have by staying the course of hoping their prospects develop.
There’s an obvious downside, and I spent the first half of this post laying out the reasons why I think failure is probably still more likely than success. But the Padres have put themselves in a position where the upside of everything going right is now exponentially higher than it was a few months ago, and that’s not a thing to be simply tossed aside because it’s not the most likely outcome. On the roughly one-in-six chance this works, the reward of going for it will make the cost of surrendering some prospects and accepting a chunk of dead-money in future contracts pale in comparison.
Even with Shields, I still think the Padres are something like the seventh best team in the National League. But the seventh best team in the American League just went to the World Series. Baseball isn’t about building behemoths anymore. The Padres aren’t going to be great, but they might be good enough.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
Baseball is the only sport where a mediocre team has just as good a chance to win a championship as the best team in the sport. The crap shoot nature of the playoffs has been proven to have no real correlation to regular seasons wins. Nobody actually believes the 2014 Giants were the best team in baseball. Or the 2006 Cardinals. And so on…
Well, this a one hell of a ridiculous overstatement. A mediocre team certainly does not have as good of a chance as the Dodgers, Nationals, or Cardinals to win the series this year.
The Giants have won 3 series while not having great teams, yes. But if you really have to cherry pick 2006 to make your argument, that should give you a clue as to how flawed your argument is.
Good teams make and win playoff series all the time. Hell, 2013 featurde the two teams with the best records in baseball in the series. 2011 had one of the best teams one strike away twice from winning.
While like plays a part, so does being good.
And 2013 was quite rare in WC era. You’re cherry-picking just as much as the guy you’re accusing of cherry-picking.
Since 1995, the team with the best record in the AL went to the WS 8 times, and missed 12. The NL went 5 and 15.
A WS match up between the “best” teams has happened three times in the last 20 years: 1995, 1999, 2013.
Accumulating the best record in your own league gets you, on average in the Wild Card era, about a 1 in 3 chance of even going to the World Series.
Even before the 5th team was added, having a 1-in-3 chance is better than the 1-in-4 that you’d expect if the playing field were completely level once October started, but not by much. Johnny’s statement may have been slightly hyperbolic, but only slightly.
The play-in game may turn out to swing the odds back in favor of the better teams in the long run, but it’s too soon to say for sure.
Best record can be misleading. If the best team won 100 games and the second best won 99, that’s essentially no difference in quality. If they are in different divisions or the 100 win team has a major injury, the 99 win team may be objectively better. Sometimes the Wild Card team is essentially just as good or better than a division winner.
Not only all that, but there is also the trade deadline. If team A has 55 wins at the deadline and team B has 62. Then at the end of the year, team A has 95 and team B has 98, team A likely (small sample aside) got better.
Plus the hot/cold nature of baseball. Even if you have a 90 win team vs a 100 win team, their respective win % aren’t much different and thus, how many games out of 5 or 7 they should win isn’t much either.
I dont think its as exclusive to baseball as you think. The Giants were 10-6 when they won the super bowl in 2007 and were even worse in 2011 (9-7). The Ravens were 10-6 in 2013 when they won as well. I’m sure there are others.
And almost every year in the NHL a lower seeded team makes a run in the playoffs. The kings were the 8th seed in the West when they won the first time in 2012. The Flyers made the finals as a 7 seed as well in 2010 (after beating the 8th seed in the Conferance finals). It happens alot in hockey.
10-6 is the equivalent of winning 101 games over the course of 162. I know it’s slightly different, but let’s not pretend like 10-6 isn’t still really good.
Even though the math may agree, a 10-6 team in the NFL is typically nowhere near as good as a 101 win team in MLB would be. A 101 win team would typically be good enough for best record in baseball, 10-6 never could be in the NFL, it’s usually not enough to win your division.
Even though baseball has huge parity, I still believe the NFL to give the best chance to a mediocre team to win the championship. Look at Carolina and the fact that they even made the playoffs. How many sub-.500 teams have ever made the playoffs in MLB? Its still one and done. WHat baseball has done is kinda even up those chances after years of knowing a half dozen teams had a realistic shot.
No, its not really good when the best football teams consistently go 12-4, 13-3, and sometimes even better.
The best team in baseball is usually around 100 wins and often in the high 90’s.
Your analogy only works if the best baseball was always in the 130 win range.
So a 10-6 football is not even close to comparable to a 101 win baseball team.
my reply was to semperty’s comment by the way.
The Eagles were 10-6 this year and didnt make the playoffs. The Cardinals were 10-6 last year and didnt make the playoffs. A team that makes the playoffs with 10 wins will almost always have the fewest wins of any playoff team. So no, it isnt “really good”.
10 wins in the NFL is about the equivalent of 86-88 wins in MLB.
Yeah, saying a 10 win NLF team is equivalent to a 100 win baseball team makes you lose all credibility when you try to talk sports.
MLB Playoffs are a bit of a crapshoot, but let’s not forget that MLB allows the fewest number (and %) of teams into the playoffs compared to the other major sports.
MLB-10 (was 8)
NFL-12
NHL-16
NBA-16
I am OK with this.
This happens all the time in other sports too. Didn’t the LA Kings win a few years ago as an 8th seed? Baseball isn’t the only sport where a WC or bottom seed team has a good chance of winning.
If you stop and think, like a race, it only makes a difference who’s good at the tape. The jockeying back and forth in a marathon suggests that leading at any moment of the race before the tape is sort of irrelevant.
Not…really? It’s like a marathon immediately followed by a 5k, where the results of the marathon influence seeding, but are otherwise ignored.
Yes, but the division winners are allowed to cool down and have a Gatorade before getting to the 5k. The wildcards are forced to go on a sprint to the starting line of the 5k.
No. Just no. And how many marathons have “jockeying back and forth” at the end anyway? What about when it’s just one guy running alone in front for the last few miles? Is it just a bad example of a guy who won a race by outpacing the other runners over the course of the race? Did he forget that he’s supposed to jockey? What about the 99.8% of competitors who miss the jockeying even when it does happen? Did they just forget that the whole race doesn’t matter, or are they maybe just not as fast as the runners in front?
I am just completely nonplussed by this argument.
I, on the other hand, am plussed.
Certainly more true in baseball than pre-wild card. But the NHL and NFL are still worse. Basketball allows lots of teams into the playoffs, but my sense is that the cream rises to the top in that sport more often than a Cinderella situation.
The best team tends to win in basketball more because the best players play almost the entire game in the postseason, and have an impact on just about every play. Lebron James impacts every play of an NBA Finals game, whereas Mike Trout only impacts his at bats and balls hit to center field, and Calvin Johnson only impacts plays when his team has the ball…
No argument there, that confirms my impression if true. I wonder if this is borne out by the stats as well.
Orsulakfan, yes, yes it is.
Looking at 2013-14 in the NBA (the most recent complete season) the worst team had a winn % of 0.183. That win % would be the same as a baseball team winning 30 games.
At the same time, the top team won the equivalent of 122 games. That has, at least, happened once.
The fewer games in a season, the larger a spread in winning % you expect to see, even if the same spread in team quality. Even if basketball had the same level of league parity as baseball, you’d expect the best and worst teams to have more extreme winning percentages.
Of all major US sports, Baseball teams have the least likely chance to make the playoffs.
Baseball: 10 playoffs spots for 30 teams (33%)
Football: 12 playoff spots for 32 teams (37.5%)
Hockey: 16 playoff spots for 30 teams (53%)
Basketball: 16 playoff spots for 30 teams (53%)
A “mediocre team” has a worse chance of winning a championship in baseball than other sports because it is less likely they will make the playoffs in the first place.
And, since the season is longer, they also have a smaller chance of lucking into a good record and making the playoffs by winning more games than they should.
Yes, this is definitely the case. In football if you get 1 lucky win… that’s 6% of your season. That’s the equivalent of 10 lucky wins in baseball.
Says someone who follows few (no?) other sports. The only major sport you can plausibly say doesn’t have mediocre teams win is Basketball.
I don’t know about the NBA, but college basketball has had some mediocre teams win the championship. North Carolina State and Marquette come to mind.
Kiss the rings J
Did the Padres really give up anything of real value though? I don’t think people realize just how atrocious their player development system has been – in the last 25 years they’ve drafted four players that reached 10 bWAR for the team: Joey Hamilton, Jake Peavy, Chase Headley, and Wil Venable. So the chances of any of those young players turning out (especially for them) is probably around zero. The fact that they were drafted by the Padres probably means they aren’t any good.
“The fact that they were drafted by the Padres probably means they aren’t any good.”
I could not disagree with this more strongly.
Take a look at this horror show: http://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?query_type=franch_round&team_ID=SDP&draft_round=1&draft_type=junreg&
Horrible mistake after horrible mistake. They missed on #1 picks, #2 picks, #3 picks, #4 picks, etc. Now of course some of those mistakes were because they went cheap (Matt Bush, Tim Stauffer, Allan Dykstra, Nick Schmidt) but other times they took highly regarded players that didn’t turn out.
Or are you claiming that it’s not their draft identification that has failed but their player development system? Either way the end result is the same.
So because Matt Antonelli wasn’t any good, Hunter Renfroe can’t be either? Come on, now.
I understand what you are saying – that the failure of a previous highly regarded prospect really doesn’t have anything to do with the current crop. However what if there is a ongoing (and longstanding) pattern of failure? Is it still just bad luck?
The Padres have never been able to properly evaluate young talent. In 2009 they have the 3rd pick and decide they want to take an massively athletic HS OF. They take Donovan Tate, the next HS OF (with nearly the same profile) taken is Mike Trout. And didn’t they have Stephen Drew at the top of their board in 2004? Even if they didn’t go cheap with Matt Bush they still didn’t target the right player.
Tom,
Nineteen teams after the Padres also passed on Mike Trout, including franchises that have been lauded for success in drafting and developing players: Cardinals, Astros, Rangers, Braves, Pirates, Rockies, Diamondbacks (twice), Nationals, Royals, Marlins, Twins. Mike Trout didn’t fall to #25 because teams were convinced he was going to demand too much money or play college ball. He was a great prospect, but no one who scouted him in high school projected him to be the kind of player that he is today – certainly they did not expect him to hit with so much power. Scouts dreamed that Mike Trout could be the next Aaron Rowland, not Mickey Mantle. Even the Angels had no idea what they were getting with Trout.
In contrast, Donovan Tate had overwhelming support as being the best prep position player in the country, and this was in spite of concerns that Scott Boras would make unreasonable contract demands and Tate’s prior commitment to play baseball and football at North Carolina.
You can’t blame the Padres for following the overwhleming consensus and drafting Tate.
“You can’t blame the Padres for following the overwhleming consensus and drafting Tate.”
You can with hindsight. Hindsight is 20/20!
Tom, the most recently drafted of the players you listed was picked by the guy before the guy before the guy who just precede the current scouting director. And they’re one more player development director down the list than they are scouting directors.
Even if you could take something away from the history of Padre drafting and development, it would have nothing to say about the team’s current ability to draft and develop players. I’m pretty sure Dave Radjzic is the only uniformed member of the minor league staff still around from five years ago, and none of their cross checkers or head scouts have been with the org longer than four years.
Mike Petriello,
Are you actually saying that we shouldn’t hold the Padres prior inability to develop young players influence our thinking on their current crop of prospects?
We should not treat the data as being more meaningful than it actually is. That is all.
Less cynically, I think it keen to observe that seeking relevance isn’t itself a questionable move — because, duh — but rather what it cost vis-a-vis the odds of achieving it.
Financially they seem generally well-set; in addition to the Moncada reports signaling that they’re willing to play ball financially, Shields isn’t on the books for too long, Upton leaves after this year, they got help with Kemp. Despite these acquisitions, they’re still not a team with many high-paid veterans (sportrac has them at 83M, good for 23rd in the league).
So yeah, the prospect cost is the big issue. They certainly gutted their system in terms of quantity, but with the exception of Trea Turner (who was turned into a recently-untouchable Wil Myers, who himself could be one healed wrist away from huge surplus value (or one season of healthy underperformance away from apparent bust)) didn’t have to deal their best players. And while neither Upton or Kemp offer great values for different reasons, if Preller didn’t love these prospects it’s hard to hate the notion that he’d turn some players he’s lukewarm on into ~something~ while keeping most of the best he has. We’ll see how it pans out, of course, but turning a quantity of okay prospects into solid veterans and flipping one strong low-A prospect for a recently-heralded 24-yo isn’t completely boneheaded.
If nothing else, SD is now a team interesting to this east coaster ambivalent toward SD sports (and so I’d imagine rather interesting to those who care more than I/pay money to attend games), and they don’t appear to have completely sold their future to attain that. If by September they’re out of the race and a one-armed Matt Kemp isn’t keeping fans in the seats while Trea Turner skyrockets to the top of prospect lists and Hedges can’t figure out the bat, this won’t look so great. But ex ante it looks like a handful of decent risks with relatively reasonable cost. And, it kept my twitter feed interesting through the dark months.
This is what was said about the White Sox for the longest time too. Then they gave up Gio Gonzalez for what amounted to one year of Nick Swisher.
Prospects on the whole don’t pan out often. Many flame out and wash away into average starters and bench players and AAAA players.
gotta love generalizations such as this…..
Regardless of the snarky sentiment here (which I actually agree with but understand why people don’t), the prospects given up were not special.
I have little fear of the prospects coming back to bite the Padres. The money they’ve tied up in Kemp and Shields — maybe. Myers not panning out? Maybe. The complete and utter lack of a SS? Certainly.
But I’m not losing any sleep over Trea Turner.
Past Padres regimes have been horrible at player development, but even if you ignore that, the reality is that we traded players who *might* be the players we acquired, if we’re lucky.
We didn’t even trade Hunter Renfroe, but his upside seems to be…a worse Justin Upton?
i think the only transaction this off season that was really bad is Kemp. everything else seems okay or decent.
But he moves to 1B in a year and can be quite productive… not to mention could always be flipped to an AL team.
I should add, I didn’t love the deal either but I think Yasmani Grandal has at least until now been very overrated or hasn’t lived up to the hype I should say… so they didn’t give up a lot.
Reality is that trading Grandal means that Hedges will come up sooner – and long-term that is probably better for the Padres.
i’m still mixed on that one. the health/arthritis discovery and defense are troublesome, but i keep telling myself there’s no way he can be worse on defense than quentin (i used a similar coping mechanism when the padres signed quentin)
>The Padres have imported three big names (and a former big time prospect) but I’m not sure any of them are going to perform like All-Stars in 2015. Given what Petco Park is likely to do to the raw numbers of Upton and Kemp, Joaquin Benoit might actually still be the team’s most likely All-Star representative.
Isn’t this overstating park factor effects? If Petco is rated at 90 for righty power and Upton’s true power is 25 HR (12.5 at home), Upton would be expected to lose 1 to 2 HR (12.5 * 10%) over the course of 81 games at Petco. I wouldn’t really consider 1 HR the deciding factor in whether Upton is an All-Star this July.
Those are obviously rough estimates, but someone please correct my math if I am missing something big.
This is even less pronounced when you consider it’s around 50 home games, not 81, by the time all star selections are made. Even so, Ross and Cashner were all stars last year so I can’t see how Shields wouldn’t get the nod before Benoit..
Also, does public perception of who is an All Star really matter when we have actual stats to measure this stuff? Upton is still very good, even if his reputation is higher than his skill.
It’s not even his reputation so much as his reputed potential. Everyone is still waiting for that insane breakout year, because he’s flashed so often, so he’s viewed as a bit of a disappointment.
He’s only 27 years old, after all.
Yeah the Benoit over Upton and Kemp for All-Star statement is just ridiculous. Kemp and Upton will be in there over Benoit on name recognition alone.
They got Upton and Kemp in part because of their success of hitting in Petco. This article shows the author’s value of relevance, the fact that it’s not very relevant.
Plus, let’s not overlook the additions of hard throwing Shawn Kelly, Brandon Maurer (the next Wade Davis?) in the bullpen, and the million buy-load upside players they acquired (Middlebrooks, Morrow, Johnson, you could even make cases for Kemp & Myers here).
I’d rather have Shields/Cashner/Ross/Kennedy/(Erlin/Johnson/Morrow/Despaigne/Luebke/Casey Kelly) than the Giants hoping for their aging veterans to repeat success (Cain/Lincecum/Vogelsong/Peavy), to be fair Crick and maybe one more prospect should make it up soon, but so should Wisler for the Padres.
Not to mention they should have 2 draft picks if they lose Upton/Kennedy next year with QOs. Or at least high-priced trade chips, especially with Benoit and the lack of closers in the next free agency class.
Actually seems like ZiPS is a lot more bullish on the Padres position players than Steamer.
The Padres are closer to contention, I think. Their hitters were huge Babip underachievers last year which should have pushed their win total up. COL and ARI are still pushovers and SF surely got worse this offseason. And even if they lose this gamble, they still have their top two prospects — They did the right thing this offseason.
Hitters aren’t necessarily BABIP underachievers just because their number is low – sometimes they’re bad hitters making bad contact. That seemed to be the case with most Padres last year.
Who would have thought, when the Myers-for-Shields trade went down, that two years later, both the principals of the deal would be Padres?
Yeah, Myers was supposed to have two MVP’s by now and The Royals were supposed to be the worst team in baseball.
Nobody said either of those things.
Don’t go wrecking my straw man that I have so carefully constructed!
(I always enjoy that “Gee, I don’t really like that trade of X player for Y player” becomes conflated into “X player is going to win 13 MVP’s and break ALL OF THE RECORDS while Y will wash out of the league in the next six months.” No one said these things.)
If the Padres are genuinely counting on solid contributions from Brandon Morrow and Josh Johnson, they are in deep trouble IMHO>
They aren’t counting on them at all. As it stands now they have the following pitchers competing for the 5th starter role: Morrow and Johnson, Odrisamer Despaigne, Cory Luebke, Robbie Erlin, Casey Kelly, and Matt Wisler. Safe to say that the success of their season isn’t going to come down to the health of Johnson or Morrow.
This is going to be an exciting year in baseball. With so many teams looking to be competitive, with only a few exceptions (Sigh….), there are a lot of teams who could sneak into the playoffs and, as Dave said, win the whole thing. It’s boring when the obvious teams make it to the Fall Classic (2013); I like a crapshoot.
Will these outfielders have better numbers on the road than at home?
Um, duh.
Upton & Kemp are 2 of the most successful hitters in Petco Park history (2 in the top 10 with significant sample sizes). So honestly they may have better home splits, it is possible to hit in Petco, and even to hit for power.
To be fair, they were doing it against SD pitchers.
The Padres have been promising this since they opened their new ball park over 12 years ago. It’s about time they went all in and tried to build a winner by spending some money.
Great thing Preller did was make the Pads relevant right away but also put them in good shape going forward. Additions Myers, Norris, Middlebrooks, and Maurer are all cheap and controllable. Only Kemp and Shields are older contracts. And they stand to add 2 draft picks from Upton and Kennedy to offset some prospects dealt away. And have a lot of $ coming off books after 2015.
There are still likely to be OFer(s) moved so I doubt this is even a finished product.
Further to your point, I think what Preller is doing is showing ownership that he can increase revenue relatively cheaply and quickly in terms of either time, prospects or money. What he did this year is the “short term” fix — get people to come to the games, drink beer and buy shirts for now — while working on the “long-term” fix — drafting, player development. In a sense, he is trying to have his cake and eat it too: increase revenue now with short term fixes while having the long term solutions ready for when the short term fixes have left town. It’ll be interesting to see if he pulls it off.
To even further the point, Preller’s background is in scouting development, especially in the international market. He is showing he can put a winning team on the field, while showing he can build a future. See above in comments for countless, “he kept top prospects…sold of quantity not quality.” He kept the top prospects while selling quantity over quality, and he hasn’t even turned his focus to the amateur side of scouting yet (though with reports of Padres being contenders for Moncado and Olivera), and his earlier pursuit for Yasmany Tomas.
He’s trying to have his cake, eat it too, and also bake one for later. Get out of the way Marie Antoinette.
One thing is for sure, I’m excited to watch the Padres this year.
“since the value of one or two catches outweighs the cost of seven or eight incompletions.”
This may be a stupid question, but does this kind of sabermetric analysis exist for football? I know basketball is moving that way, and I know there are studies about the value of going for it on 4th and short, but is there any analysis of the value of an incompletion or interception vs. a touchdown? Or weighted values based on field position and game score?
I’m guessing no, but when is the football version of The Book going to be written? Or did I miss it?
You need to check out Football Outsiders, as well as a variety of other outlets. The work is being done.
There’s http://www.football outsiders.com and I like Bill Barnwell (who cut his teeth at FO) a lot on Grantland. I’m sure there are others but those are the ones I read.
I never understood why more teams didn’t go for it on 4th and 1 or 2, when they were avg over 4yrds a carry for the game….
Well I’ve already bought a 21 game package and my dad splashed out $360 on two opening day tickets for my wife and me as part of the wedding present. Neither of these things would’ve happened without this offseason activity. New ownership is already starting to see the fans return to the park.
Sittin’ behind home plate, eh? Enjoy! Opening day is going to be insane!
Same here. I’ve paid through the nose for both opening game tix in LA on Monday and the home opener at Petco. This after years of going to only a couple games per season due to the dreadful product on the field.
I’ll wave at you guys in your fancy seats from my spot out at Park at the Park! Even out there, though, it will be one hell of an exciting day – I can’t wait!
It seems like need more analysis of the elements of PrellerBall: 1) offensive and pitching WAR, if they are both high enough, can be as good of a way to build a winner as overall WAR, which includes the defensive contribution but leaves the door open for one of the three components to be low (Preller seems to be going for pitching and offense and ignoring defense); 2) coming off a down season is a market inefficiency to exploit because those players often bounce back, particularly when they have demonstrated their skill set in the past or were once highly regarded prospects (he grabbed Myers and Middlebrooks after disappointing years and seems to be sticking with Gyorko and Alonso after down years); 3) upside is something to be maximized and can be a winning formula (how would rosters look if you looked at each player’s highest single-season WAR as opposed to the 2015 projection?).
I think it goes beyond building relevance and a fan base. Preller has a different model. Let the PrellerBall experiment begin.
Since there is a lot of skepticism about defensive metrics I guess he might think they are overrated and an opportunity to get an advantage.
It would take a few years to properly evaluate his methods but he has certainly maximized ceiling.
Maximizing upside I think is a good idea for someone in his position, which is a team that projects to be low-to-mid 80’s in wins. For a really good team, you probably would rather minimize downside than maximize upside.
Love Dave’s analysis, but the idea that the Padres would have been better off waiting on Max Fried and Trea Turner to develop while submitting their fans to more 2014ish years in the meantime is strange. Their offseason haul is being universally lauded, so perhaps being the contrarian is Dave’s goal. While maximizing WAR/$ is certainly a part of the analysis when evaluating team composition, filing holes and putting an entertaining, winning product on the field is the priority.
If Dave truly believes his analysis, he should make a mint this year betting the under on Padre season win totals.
Enjoyed the analysis too; besides the infield issues too, I’m not so sure swapping out Rene Rivera for Derek Norris was for the best, but all the other moves I can definitely see being positive. The Royals showed us last year that you can’t keep spinning your wheels year-to-year waiting hording prospects and waiting for them to pan out, and in a similar way, I hope the Padres demonstrate that obsessively worrying about present-vs.-future value is also an inefficient way to build a winner. You have to have some kind of balance. I hope I don’t sound too Anti-Fangraphs, but just like every business, sometimes the best thing for a team is a shake-up of strategy.
I hate when people derisively comment that teams are not trying to maximize their WAR/$ (or minimize their $/WAR) ratio. As if doing that isn’t the primary conduit to putting a successful team on the field. If you have a finite budget, then making your $/WAR as good as possible is the goal of roster construction.
That actually isn’t the primary “conduit” to putting a successful team on the field. Payroll is actually the best correlation to wins. It has much higher correlation than farm system rankings. If you read Diamond Dollars, it argues that the best way to build a successful team is to increase revenue. “finite budget” is your key word. Every team has some budget, but every team can do things to increase their own budget. It’s not a fixed thing. $/WAR can have something or even a lot to do with success, but it is not the only ingredient. Teams can have a poor $/WAR ratio but have high revenue and still win and still make a lot of profit at the same time.
I think Dave generally just like teams that build “the right way” or at least the right way according to him. That means through the draft and spending a bunch of years losing. That’s why fangraphs like teams like the Cubs, Pirates and Astros and dislike teams like the Padres and Giants.
I think anyone who doesn’t like what the Pirates have done the last few years must hate baseball and/or life. Likewise, if you look at the talent and financial resources of the Cubs and don’t start wondering if they might be on the verge of overcoming a century of awful, you’re missing something.
The point of building “the right way” is that you don’t spend a lot of years losing. You’re forgetting the teams who fangraphs are probably most frequently accused of liking: the A’s and Rays. Those two teams have done an excellent job of staying good while avoiding stretches of being unwatchable.
The Pirates, Astros, and Cubs are examples of teams where a new front office took over a terrible product and implemented a long-term rebuilding strategy instead of a short-term one. As a result, when they become good, they may be able to sustain it better than the Padres will. We’ll see what happens.
Dave – appreciate the article, definitely provides a multitude of perspectives to look at in the pre-season. The one thing that I would callout is that calling the Padres the 7th best team in the NL might be a little misleading. Those teams in that 5-8 range (Giants, Marlins, Padres, Cubs) bring essentially the same amount of risk & upside. I think there’s a clear top 4 in the NL but distinguishing between the next set of teams is tough.
Didn’t love that the Pads lost the 13th pick in the draft for Shields. To me that’s a hefty price in and of itself… not to mention that this may the 2nd biggest contract for a 33 yo arm afair… 4/75M still seems like a lot given that it’s a week from ST and the mileage on Shields arm.
“Mostly, I see a lot of solid contributors, but very few players who are likely to be among the best players in the league.”
So when we say this about the A’s, it’s a compliment, but when we say it about the Padres, it’s a bad thing?
yeah, but there’s no Billy Beane bias here….
I love when people project their Beane obsession onto others.
Just because you filter every story through a how can I make this about Billy Beane filter, does not mean everyone else does.
No, this is just a frequent Fangraphs argument in support of using “good but not great players instead of stars” when constructing a roster. I guess this just only applies to some teams and not others.
It’s as if there isn’t an article published by Fangraphs TODAY that points out their infield is awful. They have a bunch of pretty good players, and then a bunch of awful ones, it’s like stars and scrubs without stars.
hmm, that doesn’t really address the point tho.
That comment was in reference specifically to the additions, some of whom are being heralded as stars.
Can’t help but be reminded of the BoSox and A’s articles: “Don’t worry people, Cherington and Beane aren’t done dealing yet, they’ll fix their current roster imbalances.”
Yeah because I’m sure that the Padres plan to address their weaknesses in the infield as the offseason progresses. Let’s face it, the offseason is just getting started and there are tons of free agents available to fill the Padres’ vacancies. Failing that, they could still trade for several players to fill these holes since teams will be looking to make changes over the next 4 months or so before spring training.
There’s still lots of time to fill those holes and lots of teams who are looking to move starters to fill their holes. Totally similar to those other situations.
Olivera or even Moncada. Padres currently have a surplus of pitching and I wouldn’t be surprised to see a backend of the rotation arm dealt for a SS.
Can someone clarify the San Diego GM’s name for me? Is it “Pr-ell-ur” or is is it “Pray-ur”?
The first
Some bilingual SD tabloid really ought to use this for headlining: “Answer to Our Prellers,” “Not a Preller,” “Livin’ on a Preller”…
To do it the real Spanish way would be more like “pray-YARE”
i understand the importance of framing this in context, but i would’ve liked to see more emphasis on the solidification of what can appear to be an injury-prone rotation, especially after the year(s?) where the organization suffered through unending tommy john surgery in the majors and minors. granted i don’t know how much attrition plays into injury rates, but shields is a workhorse with good recent velocity and peripherals and should have some age-related decline obscured by petco (possibly then to be given back by the outfield).
perhaps also of importance is that (at this moment) kennedy, cashner, and ross are slated for FA in back-to-back-to-back years.
I fail to see the importance of this.
Also, Russia did not detonate a nuke in Ukraine.
It’s an odd year man, the world series is up for grabs!
There is a value in a mid-market team that has been non-descript and blah for a long time creating some fan excitement. And I have no doubt that the Padres have improved themselves enough relative to their division so that there will reasons for fans to go to the park in Aug and Sept when those interdivision games are meaningful.
Not sure I can see them beating the Dodgers for the division title but I can see them finishing 2nd and making a good run for a wild card
GIGANTES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We welcome back DBGiantsfan from his self-imposed (but very welcome) exile!
Both the Padres and Red Sox were considered 72 win teams by Base Runs but Dave seems shocked whenever someone uses this to argue against the Red Sox’s 2015 projection.
This article misses the mark for me because I don’t see why we can’t just give credit where credit is due. I am a Blue Jays fan and this is the first time in years I know more than a couple of players for the Padres and might actually find it interesting to watch them play. I just don’t see the need for the negativity.
San Diego’s future wasn’t particularly bright if they maintained the status quo. Now they are an interesting team at the very least. They are no longer likely to be completely terrible. They still have a relatively low payroll compared to the rest of the league.
It’s OK just to say “good job” San Diego. What more do you want the GM to do?
I’m both a Padres and Nationals fan, and AJ Preller’s early moves remind me quite a bit of the feeling I had when Mike Rizzo took over the Nats. They have shifted into a parallel universe where the team is suddenly on solid ground and it’s going to get better from here.
If you assume for a second that Preller might now move to acquire Moncada and Olivera, he could end an offseason having upgraded 8 out of 9 positions on the diamond, upgraded an already strong bullpen, and added a very good (some would say ace-caliber) starting pitcher to an already strong rotation.
And he could pull it off without having traded any of the Padres top three prospects and without ballooning the payroll in a show of Dodgers-style largesse.
Have you ever seen anything quite like it?
Preller clearly has a new point of view, potentially as much as a whole new model for how to win, and he’s executing it in a highly-aggressive manner that is completely transforming the team. If you ask me, it’s pretty damn impressive.
while the Mets are in year 5 of their makeover, and continue to wait patiently for the Dillon Gee market to heat up….
Ah, the Alderson era. I remember the Padres version of that. Quite a crazy tandem they were, Sandy and KT.
tell me more. please.
After living here many years I’ve watched my son, amongst others, who’ve grown up here be apathetic towards a team that is a cumulative sub .500 team. Relevance, they have none. I’ve said that for years. Why root for a team that continually is out of it by the end of April? A lot of people who live here have moved from out of state (me) but would rather support their native team since it has almost always been better than this local product. Now, these moves will help activate a lethargic organization. Odds are they won’t make the playoffs, see Marlins and Blue Jays for previous offseasons with major overhauls, but at least they will become relevant, give the fans something to watch, something to root for, and maybe they won’t be outnumbered in the stands when the Giants, Dodgers, Cardinals, et al, come to town. For that, finally, the O’Malley family can take credit for. Creating a relevant team that has a chance. Hey, you’re in a division where the top payroll and best pitcher resides as well as the team winning 3 of the last 5 World Series. This makes it interesting again.
Padres IF could surprise. Middlebrooks could bounce back with the distractions behind him. Take away his smart phone and twitter account though. Solarte can play a decent 2B and has a couple of hot streaks in him. Giants and Dodgers are weaker, D’Backs and Rockies still weak, I can see this team grabbing a WC spot if they get lucky with some bounce backs and health.
“This is baseball’s equivalent of throwing a 50 yard bomb in football” is a better metaphor than intended. Such a play in football, just the threat of it, makes it so that a safety is more likely to cover a sideline go route, which opens up the middle for other, safer intermediate passes. I realize there’s no “defense” when you’re talking about roster construction, other than the normal market limitations set on what you can or can’t do, but the threat of “oh yeah, those guys will spend money” can open up a lot of doors, and like you said about the Royals, generate new fans.
What this comes down to for me is this: if you can improve at little cost and by trading from depth, do it. Improving from a 72 to a 80 win team is just as good as going from 80 to 88, if you’re not tearing your future apart to do it.