Mariners Pay Kyle Seager Like The Player He Is
Heading into the 2009 draft, Baseball America wrote the following about Kyle Seager’s future while rating him as the 97th best prospect in the draft.
A three-year starter for North Carolina, Seager is an area scout favorite, not to mention a player opposing coaches respect immensely. National evaluators have a harder time pegging him because he doesn’t fit a neat profile. His best tool is his bat. He has a smooth, balanced swing and makes consistent contact with gap power. He ranked third in the nation in 2008 with 30 doubles and was on a similar pace in 2009. He has a patient approach but doesn’t project to hit for much home run power because of his modest bat speed and flat swing plane. While he’s a fringy runner, he’s a fine baserunner.
Seager played second base for his first two seasons and moved to third this year, where he has played good defense. Featuring an average arm and impressive agility, he’s an average defender at third, if not a tick above. Scouts who like him see a Bill Mueller type who doesn’t fit the profile but grinds out at-bats and outs in the field. His detractors see him as a safe pick with low upside and a future reserve or utility player.
Major League teams agreed with the assessment, and Seager went 82nd overall, sandwiched between Trevor Holder and Jerry Sullivan. He was a classic low upside guy, taken because he looked like he could provide some value with minimal risk, but no one expected Seager to turn into a star.
After three seasons (and some change) in the big leagues, though, it’s probably time to throw that profile out the window. In 2,200 big league plate appearances, Seager has now launched 70 home runs, or an average of 19 longballs per 600 plate appearances. For comparison, Pablo Sandoval has averaged 20 home runs per 600 plate appearances through his career, and has been the focus of a pretty significant bidding war for his services. The market recognizes Sandoval as a significant offensive force, and is paying him as such; given that, we probably have to recognize Seager as a legitimate asset at the plate as well.
For reference, here are their numbers over the last three years:
| Name | PA | BB% | K% | ISO | BABIP | AVG | OBP | SLG | wOBA | wRC+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kyle Seager | 2,000 | 8% | 18% | 0.172 | 0.291 | 0.262 | 0.329 | 0.434 | 0.335 | 116 |
| Pablo Sandoval | 1,664 | 8% | 13% | 0.144 | 0.301 | 0.280 | 0.335 | 0.424 | 0.330 | 115 |
And what that has translated into.
| Name | PA | Off | Def | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kyle Seager | 2,000 | 34.8 | 18.6 | 12.8 |
| Pablo Sandoval | 1,664 | 18.7 | 4.9 | 7.9 |
It’s almost impossible to form an argument that Sandoval is currently a better player than Seager. He makes more contact, but has actually hit for less power, and his size makes him a vastly inferior baserunner. Even if you think the defensive metrics are overstating the difference, at the least, it’s pretty close to a push, with maybe a slight edge to Seager for being a year younger and having the superior recent performance.
Overall, Steamer sees a +0.4 WAR difference per 600 plate appearances in Seager’s favor, though Sandoval’s injury history and size probably makes him less likely to reach that mark. We’re not talking huge differences here, but if the market thinks Sandoval is an impact player, it basically has to think that of Seager too.
Which is why the Mariners weren’t interested in letting Seager hit the free agent market, and have reportedly signed him to a $100 million extension that covers the next seven years. Because he was headed for his first crack at arbitration, this essentially covers four free agent years, in addition to guaranteeing the three arbitration years the team already controlled. Matt Swartz had projected Seager to make about $5 million in arbitration this winter, so if we project reasonable raises of $4 million each trip through, he was looking at about $27 million in arbitration money, so a 7/$100M guarantee buys out four free agent years at around $73 million, or about $18 million per season.
Relative to his current market value, that’s a discount. Sandoval just got ~$20 million per year, and in three more years, the market value for this kind of player is probably going to be closer to $22-$24 million per year. On the other hand, the Mariners are taking on some pretty significant risk, given that they’re guaranteeing money well ahead of when they needed to, so getting a discount on the free agent years is necessary to make the deal work for the team. Especially because Seager is something of an overachiever, and a down year or two could make him look more like a Chase Headley type than a Pablo Sandoval type.
But realistically, even in that scenario, this deal probably doesn’t become a significant albatross. The crowd projects Headley to sign for 4/$60M this winter, and given that Sandoval just got 5/$100M, I wouldn’t rule out $75 million for Headley. In other words, Headley is probably going to sign for something not too different from what Seager just signed away his free agent years for. And Headley is not a bad example of Seager’s downside if the power regresses back towards what scouts originally expected. And with three more years of inflation, $73 million wouldn’t look like the same amount that it does today.
Seager’s been underrated for essentially his entire career. He was underestimated as a draft prospect, and as a minor leaguer, and now as a very productive big leaguer. He’s headed into the prime of his career as a guy who has already averaged +3.7 WAR per 600 plate appearances. He might not look like a top tier player, but Kyle Seager has developed into an excellent baseball player.
I didn’t expect Kyle Seager to get $100 million this winter. Then again, I didn’t expect Kyle Seager to ever be this good. This contract pays him for what he’s actually done, not what everyone else expected him to do. And it’s probably about time that he got recognition for making our expectations look silly.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
So happy!!!!!! Seaboss in an M’s uniform for seven more years at a discount rate!
YAY
I do not think it is a discount rate, but he is locked up at a reasonable amount.
Kyle is definitely an overachiever which is why the scouting report on him as an amateur wasn’t exactly wrong. He doesn’t have great bat speed, and was an up-the-middle doubles hitter when he came up. But he’s turned himself into a dead pull hitter to add power while still having the hand-eye to protect the plate and have good ABs. Not particularly one to walk in the minors, Kyle has adjusted to the fact that pitchers are working him more carefully and more away as he’s shown more power, and actually increased his walk rate. Kyle’s been known to lay down a push bunt against the left shift too.
Seager is a very heady guy, as we see. Unlike many prospects, he adjusted very quickly to major league pitching to implement significant changes in his batting profile and swing plane. Seager is very aware of action on the field. He has worked very hard on his positioning and footwork to improve at 3b. I don’t get the knock on his arm, he puts plenty of zip on the ball; not the strongest arm in the majors but definitely not below average. Seager doesn’t have fantastic lateral range, which is why the move to 3b was smart, but has good hands and makes few errors.
Seager is an example, rare, of a guy who has absolutely maximized his potentials as a player. For that alone, I’ve always respected him. I think the Mariners need to rest him a bit more rather than wear him into the ground, but that’s a discussion for another day. They did indeed get an All-Star out of his draft class, just it was Kyle in the 3rd round not the pick in the 1st. This is where kudos is really owed to Tom McNamara and his best scouts, for their mid-round pricks.
Mid-round *picks*. I rather liked it the other way, but spell auto-correct is a demon a-lurking.
He’s referring to Ackley, folks.
Alternate absurdist headline: Mariners don’t pay that tree over there like the tree it is
Check your facts! That tree got paid pretty darn well.
Is Jeff too biased to write this article?
I would say no, and also, that he didn’t write it.
very excited as an M’s fan!
“Even if you think the defensive metrics are overstating the difference, at the least, it’s pretty close to a push…”
I just want to ask an honest question. Why in so many recent articles are we asking about the magnitude of defensive numbers being legitimate or not? It seems lately that there’s a lot of doubt being cast on their validity. While I don’t swear by them, I don’t really assume that the margin of error makes that dramatic a difference. Like I wouldn’t say that a 35 DRS season could possibly be an actual 10 DRS season. 29, sure, but not something so much lower that it makes much of a difference in the big picture.
It feels to me like we’re trying to make concessions to people who disregard fancy stats because they challenge their (mostly offensively oriented) idea of how valuable certain players are. It’s like we’re saying “Well, the general concept is correct, but if you want to say that it’s only a handful of runs a year and not much of a difference, that’s fine.” It’s not fine. Catching the ball matters and people should acknowledge it.
Sorry Dave, not trying to tear the article apart or anything. I love that Seager is being appreciated since he’s a guy I love to watch. I just have to bring up this point since it seems to be becoming a trend.
Because there’s a lot of variance between the different ways to measure defense and a lot of debate about how strongly various elements are weighted. It’s not about disregarding “fancy stats,” it’s about acknowledging that valuing defense is nowhere near as accurate at this point as valuing pitching and hitting.
Yeah, but it would seem that we’re about 2/3 to 3/4 or the way there. The way people sometimes put it, they seem to believe that it’s a crap shoot with only mild direction. I’d agree that it’s not as accurate as measuring offense, but I don’t know about “nowhere near as accurate.” How we quantify those word choices of ours are beyond me.
I guess to me it sounds less like “even acknowledging the margin of error” and more like “even if you think these numbers are so wrong that you disregard them.” I support the former, but can’t really agree with the latter. I was a skeptic of defensive metrics early on, but when I read a detailed account of how they calculate this stuff, I found their methods pretty sound. Honestly, I’d trust them way more often than not and wouldn’t put the margin off error beyond the value of a win or so.
There are plenty of cases where a player is rated positive by DRS and negative by UZR.
Yes, but it’s usually on guys that are hovering around 0 to begin with. You’re absolutely correct, but I’m not going to lose sleep over it when I’m splitting hairs over marginally better or worse than average defenders.
In my observation, once guys start creeping towards the high single digits in either direction by DRS or UZR, they probably aren’t going to be on the other side of zero by the other one.
If I see +2 DRS, I think “average defender.”
If I see -2 UZR, I think “average defender.”
Personally, my mental error bars on defensive stats are about plus or minus 5. I’m sure there are exceptions, but as someone who peruses these numbers frequently, I don’t run into them all that often.
One reason is that 1 year defensive numbers don’t have anywhere near the predictive ability that offensive numbers have. If a player had a +15 run defensive season, that doesn’t mean he is a +15 run defensive player. One’s defensive numbers, therefore, are a lot harder to project than one’s offensive numbers are.
What is the year-to-year correlation on a I vaguely remember reading that it wasn’t far off from batting average, which would make it less reliable than overall offensive output but far from from unprojectable.
also I am too broken to google this.
*on a UZR-DRS blend. fangraphs needs some kinda preview function cuz the world is an unpredictable place.
Over the last few weeks most articles that mention defense have added a qualifier along the lines of ‘even if you don’t fully buy into the defensive metrics’. Does this represent a change in the way Fan Graphs authors view the defensive metrics or is it an acknowledgement that a certain percentage of readers think there is too much variance to cite the metric as conclusive? Or maybe it represents the attempt to include defensive metrics in a concise manner that sets a level while acknowledging large error bars for single-season estimates.
Whatever it is, it has been approached differently in recent articles.
Ok, that makes me feel like I’m the only one seeing this. It sort of reminds me of how people speak about pitch framing metrics, as Dave has openly noted that he thinks the range of values given are a bit larger than he believes they should be.
Pitch framing has the additional factor of how much of it should be chalked up to the pitcher (or even possibly the batter or umpire). Defense may not even be all that different.
e.g. Should Lorenzo Cain and Jarrod Dyson get credited with some of Alex Gordon’s DRS or UZR because they’re proficiency at center field moves Gordon over to left, where he provides massive defensive value over the average left fielder? It’s sort of like how we penalize DHs because it forces teams to put other good bat / bad glove guys in the field. Should we reward good fielding CFs or SSs for moving roughly average CFs or SSs down the defensive spectrum and making them above average fielders at those positions?
Of all I know, maybe there are solid compensations for these things already within the numbers. If there are, someone please enlighten me (and I already understand positonal adjustments). But it would seem to me that we could make some advancements in distinguishing how much a player contributed as a result of his team environment vs. how much a player is capable of contributing when used in an average way, or an optimal way, or something.
good article and nice move by the mariners. they’ve been doing good work lately. hard to imagine there are more than about five better orgs out there right now
Agreed, Jack.
Hard to imagine there’s been 5 worse over the last 10 years, so let’s wait a bit before putting them on the podium! Agreed that this is a great move by the M’s.
I’ll give you a point for subtlety, but still: boo.
come on, i’m one of the good guys. you’re not supposed to boo the good guys
So…. Dave, Todd Frazier should be the happiest person on Earth since his camp would likely value an extension at close to 60M$ over 5 years I’d say.