Was the Eric Chavez signing a good one? (March 22, 2004)
Matt Namee checks in on similar comps to Chavez.
--posted by TangoTiger at 01:45 PM EDT
Posted 2:37 p.m.,
March 22, 2004
(#1) -
f_k_a Scoriano
Ken Keltner's name has been immortalized in the famous "Keltner List," a series of questions that help to assess a player's Hall of Fame credentials.
I think that is a liberal interpretation of immortality. Stopping Joe D's streak is more likely what immortalized KK.
Irrelevant nits aside, that was a very nice piece by Matt. Keep 'em coming.
Posted 3:23 p.m.,
March 22, 2004
(#2) -
David Smyth
Looking at Slwts, I eyeball about +40 for Chavez in 2004, which is probably about 10th or so in MLB. So you have the 10th best nonpitcher, and who is just entering his expected prime period. Seems like an OK/good deal to me.
---"As Aaron said on Friday, "Of course, you can take consistency like that from a young player in two ways. One is that he is a good player and consistently good production is a great thing to have. The other way is that, despite being 22 years old in 2000 and 25 years old last year, he hasn't really gotten any better offensively."
You could also turn that around and say that the consistency suggests that Chavez' peak season(s) are likely still forthcoming. But really, all that matters is his expected production vs the dollar amount.
Posted 3:38 p.m.,
March 22, 2004
(#3) -
tangotiger
I agree. I'm unimpressed with these "sim score" views. 10 players really means almost nothing to me. While each type of player would have his own aging profile, the small sample that would set this trajectory has a huge error range. I prefer a sample based on either all players, or somewhere on the order of at least 50 very similar players (or 200 - 300 somewhat similar).
Posted 3:47 p.m.,
March 22, 2004
(#4) -
Rally Monkey
I think if you select just about any group of players based on top of the line accomplishments through age 25, and then look at the shape of their career you won't see a normal aging pattern with a peak at 27. The selective sampling will assure an early peak.
Posted 3:53 p.m.,
March 22, 2004
(#5) -
J Cross
Rally Monkey, that's true but it also applies to Chavez. That fact that he's been so good thus far makes him more likely to be among those that peak early.
I'm not sure there's much sense to pointing out Chavez's consistency. If a lot of inconsistency can be explaing by luck/noise then so can a lot of consistency. I wouldn't assume that Chavez's actual ability was the same for the last three years.
Posted 4:17 p.m.,
March 22, 2004
(#6) -
Rally Monkey
Rally Monkey, that's true but it also applies to Chavez. That fact that he's been so good thus far makes him more likely to be among those that peak early.
I agree. My point is the results of the comparison are what should have been expected.
Posted 4:26 p.m.,
March 22, 2004
(#7) -
tangotiger
There's no way you can figure out the "consistency" of a player. A player's true talent level changes slightly day-to-day, year-to-year. This is what Marcel tells us. Just take the last 3 years, weighted, and adjusted slightly for age. The PERFORMANCE of the player is subject to much randomness. You just can't figure out the consistency of a player true talent level from the performance of that player.
Posted 6:32 p.m.,
March 22, 2004
(#8) -
J Cross
okay, so if
1) we can't use the standard aging patterns to predict Chavez's future b/c he's more likely to be among those that peak early.
2) can't use the set of 10 similar players because ther'e too much noise.
3) obviously, can't go by any "trend" or consistency in Chavez's career
then how do we best project chavez's next 6 seasons? Well, we could regress Chavy's data and then use apply the normal aging trends to that data or we could be lazier and look at Pecota which uses a much larger set of comparable players (50-150, I think).
Here's how it stacks up with the Namee's Results
yr...WARP1(BP)..winshares
01...8.6.......26
02...6.7.......25
03...8.9.......25
tot..24.2......76 (25.3 wins)
projected
yr...WARP(BP)..WS(Namee's comparables)
04...5.9.......21
05...5.7.......22
06...4.7.......16
07...4.7.......12
08...4.3.......14
tot..25.3......85 (28.3 wins)
It looks as if Pecota is just as harsh on Chavez as Namee's comparable list.
Posted 6:52 p.m.,
March 22, 2004
(#9) -
David Smyth
I would rather just look at Slwts, to make sure that fielding is being considered as best possible. If my eveball evaluation is essentially correct and Chavez projects to be the 10th best nonpitcher NOW, at age 26 (I think), and you apply a normal age adjustment for the next 6 seasons--the peak seasons normally-- you can probably expect a cumulative performance which is somewhat better than 10th, say 7th over those seasons. That's a good player to have in any season (7th best), but as an avg over 6 seasons it's great.
Am I making a mistake in evaluating Eric so highly?
Posted 7:20 p.m.,
March 22, 2004
(#10) -
tangotiger
Yes. Chavez is not 10th best, but 5th to 20th best. And, over the next 6 years, he'll be 1st to 100th best.
We need the error range.
Posted 7:34 p.m.,
March 22, 2004
(#11) -
SaybeanE
Yes. Chavez is not 10th best, but 5th to 20th best. And, over the next 6 years, he'll be 1st to 100th best.
We need the error range.
So, what's he worth paying after all the analysis?
Posted 8:36 p.m.,
March 22, 2004
(#12) -
Michael
What ever the market will bear:
6 years at $66 million. :)
But seriously, what he is worth is different to different teams. It depends on size of city, likelihood the extra wins from Chavez versus replacement will mean playoff trips, the fan reaction, the popularity of the player, who can negotiate with the player, etc.
Posted 9:45 p.m.,
March 22, 2004
(#13) -
Bill
If you add up the five year WARP projection for every player, Chavez ranks 6th on the list. Pecota is actually VERY high on him.
The WARP projections on BP's Pecota cards look low across the line. Adding a full 3.0 to virtually every player brings them more in line with what they have done lately. Given that it projects Chavez to similar rate stats and playing time to the past 3 years, it's safer to expect that it "means" a WARP more in line with the past three (ie. 7.5-9.5).
Posted 11:43 p.m.,
March 22, 2004
(#14) -
J Cross
okay, it's true, it's inaccurate to say that pecota doesn't like him. It wouldn't like any star player to maintain their level.
Posted 11:59 p.m.,
March 22, 2004
(#15) -
MGL
Rally, Davis and Tango are right on the money. As Rally correctly pointed out, we would expect to see a decline in performance from any excellent player at an early age (or at any age for that matter) because of regression to the mean. That in no way implies that these players' true talent peaked early. More than likley these players' true value peaked at 26 or 27, just like everyone else on the average. In fact, if you look at the results after the selectively sampled year (a good player at age 25), we see a very nice and normal aging patters. So yes, the patterns shown in the article looks exaclty like what we would expect. Namee and/or the rest of the HT staff should have known this!
The bottom line is that Chavez projects to be one of the best players overall in baseball (according to Superlwts projections) for the next several years. If ever there were a player who deserves that kind of contract, surely it is Chavez. His Slwts projection for this year is 36 (per 150). The year after that, it will be around 34 (depending upon what he does this year of course). Those numbers are more than 5 wins above replacement, which is conservatively worth 10 mil per year. Now, it may not be "correct" for a low budget team to sign any player to a lucrative long-term free-agent kind of contract. In fact, it may be correct for a low budget team to spend 40-50 mil per year on payroll and shoot for an 85 win season. I don't really know. From a P.R. persepctive, however, whereby a team has to project to the fans that they are at least trying to win a championship rather than just make as much money as possible, they can't just trade every good player who is going to command big money. That just won't fly. The reason they did that with Tejada (I suspect) is that they knew that he was not worth nearly the money he was asking for (and signed for). They handled it well of course. They didn't say "We really don't think Tejada is worth all that much." They just politely said that they couldn't afford him at this time and wished him luck. With Chavez though they realize that he IS worth the 10 or 11 mil a year and if they have to sign someone for big money efvery once in a while, this was a great opportunity, as he is one of the few superstars who are worth their contracts (Pujols may be another one)...
Posted 12:00 a.m.,
March 23, 2004
(#16) -
MGL
Opps, sorry, that should be David and not Davis of course...
Posted 12:56 a.m.,
March 23, 2004
(#17) -
J Cross
No doubt that if there is a player worth giving this kind of contract it's Chavez (or one of a handful of other players like him) and I think he's well worth it, but maybe the HT analysis does point out just how few players would be worth $10M per for 6 years. I'm guessing that the way things have gone the A's are pretty happy that Giambi didn't take the 6 yr. $90M offer.
Posted 1:43 a.m.,
March 23, 2004
(#18) -
Danny
Chavez's Position Adjusted SLWTS
2001: 59 (4th in AL)
2002: 42 (T-6th)
2003: 43 (T-5th)
These were Chavez's age 23-25 seasons. Other than Pujols and A-Rod, what players project to be better than Chavez over the next 7 years? I can see an argument for Beltran, too.
Posted 2:03 a.m.,
March 23, 2004
(#19) -
MGL
As far as Chavez' so-called consistency, not only are Tango's comments correct about the "silliness of consistency" in a player's sample stats (so-called "consistency" is merely the convergence of luck and [probably] a reasonably constant level of true talent), but GPA, like OPS, is a "rough approximation" of a player's offensive value. It is literally a coincidence that Chavez' GPA was almost exactly the same in 2000 as in 2001-2003.
Here are Chavez' park and opponent adjusted offensive lwts (MGL style), per 150, which include everyhting but the kitchen sink (but does not include GDP and SB/CS numbers). By the kitchen sink, I mean they do not include IBB's or sac bunt attempts, they give credit for ROE's, and they give different credit for GB and FB outs based on handedness.
2000 +9
2001 +24
These are taken right off the Superlwts file (at least my version).
So much for consistency (in 2000 and 2001 - actually he was very "consistent" in 2001-2003).
BTW, if A has a lwts per 150 for the last 3 years of +10, +11, and +9, and player B's is +22, -1, and +9, for the same number of PA's, what does this tell us, assuming that both are around the same age and have been healthy?
One, player A is slightly more likely to have had around the same true talent over the 3 years.
Two, and I'll put this in the form of several questions, are their projections any different (the year by year weightings not withstanding)? Are their error bars (confidence intervals) any different, assuming the same amount of historical PA's? Should we treat one player differently than the other? Should we "care" that one has been more "consistent" in sample performance than the other?
Posted 2:18 a.m.,
March 23, 2004
(#20) -
MGL
As far as why Chavez and not Tejada, yes Crosby, Tejada's replacement, appears to be a terrific hitter, but more importantly, here are their respective Superlwts numbers from the last 3 years, as well as their 2004 Superlwts projections:
Tejada Chavez
2001 9 61
2002 27 40
2003 18 41
2004 (proj) 16 36
It is not even close who is by leaps and bounds the better player (as I said, I think that the A's knew that). That's not even considering the age difference...
Posted 7:18 a.m.,
March 23, 2004
(#21) -
tangotiger
I agree Tejada was way overrated, they have a good kid in Crosby.
Over the next 6 years, Chavez projects at 30 wins above replacement. 2 million$/win x 30 wins = 60 million$. The deal was fair all-around.
Posted 7:29 a.m.,
March 23, 2004
(#22) -
Danny
Remember, the new deal doesn't start until 2005, so Chavez is signed for $71M over the next 7 years. Again, is there anyone that projects to be better than Chavez over that period, other than Pujols, A-Rod, and Beltran?
Posted 9:48 a.m.,
March 23, 2004
(#23) -
SaybeanE
Again, is there anyone that projects to be better than Chavez over that period, other than Pujols, A-Rod, and Beltran?
Try project/regressing Bonds.
Posted 10:54 a.m.,
March 23, 2004
(#24) -
Rally Monkey
Bonds playing at/near this level until he's 46? Hard to believe, even for him.
Posted 1:49 p.m.,
March 23, 2004
(#25) -
MGL
I think that any "age adjustment/progression" algorithm breaks down for someone that old. I would have to think that sharp decline, injury, or just plain ole voluntary retirement will pretty much be the end of Bonds career within a year or 2. I am also gonna guess that his defense and baserunning will take a serious chunk out of his offense (which will also decline quite a bit, if they stop issuing the IBB so darn much) this year...
Posted 1:51 p.m.,
March 23, 2004
(#26) -
Barry Bonds
Harder to believe than 73 jacks?
Stop doubting me, mortals!
Posted 7:27 p.m.,
March 23, 2004
(#27) -
David Smyth
Not to disagree with you, MGL, but you are usually not willing to speculate about things like that. What evidence, or even common sense, supports that. Sure, Bonds might retire at any moment, and he probably has a greater than avg chance of sustaining a serious injury, but if he chooses to "play out" his career until he is no longer any good, then even if you use an accelerated age adjustment (I'm not sure what evidence there is to do so), he is at such a high point now (assuming no sudden change from stopping steroids) that it's not obvious that he can't play till he's 50, and still be a legitimate ML hitter (say what an avg 1bman hits). There is not much, if any, precedent for what Bonds is doing.
Posted 11:08 p.m.,
March 23, 2004
(#28) -
tangotiger
I'd guess Bonds has (at least) another 5 years before he becomes an average hitter (star players usually retire when they become average). Of course, his fielding and baserunning talents are already a drag. He should become a DH, ala Molitor, in a year or two, but I'm guessing he won't bother. Gordie Howe played at an effective pace into his 50s.
Posted 12:06 a.m.,
March 24, 2004
(#29) -
Rally Monkey
I checked the super lwts for Bonds' baserunning. He's at -3 the last 2 years, but +2 for his sb/cs. He's not costing the team much yet.
Where would he DH? Anaheim, maybe? I can't wait.
Posted 1:11 a.m.,
March 24, 2004
(#30) -
MGL
Rally, the SB/CS lwts are meaningless. I'm sorry I made a separate category for them. The y-t-y correlation for SB/CS net runs (lwts) for major league players is a big fat zero. As far as "regular" baserunning lwts, there is only so much you can cost your team (see Edgar Martinez), even in a wheelchair. I'd put the over under on Bonds' 2004 UZR at -15.
Even if Bonds only retired when he couldn't play at the level of a replacement player, I'd say he has about a 5% chance of playing till he is 50 and that is generous. Yes, I'm speculating, but I think that the aging curve probably takes a nosedive after age 40 or so, and the chance of a career ending injury, which is not included in the aging curves, is enormous...
Posted 9:41 a.m.,
March 24, 2004
(#31) -
Rally Monkey
I'll go out on a limb here and predict Bonds' 2004 SB/CS runs: zero
Bonds said last year that after he got SB #500, he was done running, and he was true to his word. I think all of his SB last year came in April or May.