The Twins should sign Yu Darvish, regardless of price

[Mike Sixel]

What happens if Darvish is awesome for three years? why do people only assume the worst when throwing this stuff out?

 

If not now, when? Next year every team will have re-set their penalties, and the Twins will be bidding against all of them......

 

that list next year looks no better than Darvish, and some of them will get hurt....so, who?

 

 

Almost all pitchers get worse from 31 to 37. He had really good years in 13 and 14 but the rest have been pretty much a 3.8. What's the basis for throwing out the 3 awesome year stuff? Maybe because you can come up with a few pitchers that have had excellent careers after 31? For every one that you name, I can come up with 10 that didn't.

 

They should pick someone up when it makes sense. From what I've heard and seen Darvish wants 6 years and he has a 5 year offer in hand. I heard that he's had an offer of $26 mil, though I can't believe it's 5@26. So, I'm thinking maybe 5@23? That's insane.

 

I don't know who, but they shouldn't spend that kind of money for that long for Darvish. Their best chance will likely be around trade time with a team that's out of contention and make a new contract with the new pitcher at trade time. The Twins have people to trade for an ace. And they'll also have that $26 million if they don't buy Darvish.

 

Santana, Berrios and Gibson together had a sub 3.8 after the all star game. It's not even a sure thing that Darvish would be our 3.

That 26 million does no good to the fans if they don't spend it. None.

 

If they don't get a starting pitcher, it seems unlikely they will be in a position to add at the deadline.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I'm looking pretty much at everything, but mostly ERA. What are you looking at?

Check out WAR. It is not as context-dependent as ERA.

 

By B-Ref, Darvish peaked at 6 WAR, and has been a ~4 WAR pitcher (full season pace) each year of his MLB career, even the last 2 seasons after his surgery.

 

4 WAR is basically the same as Ervin each of the last two years. Roughly the 20th most valuable pitching performance in any given season. On the open market, at $7 mil per win, that's worth about $28 mil.

 

Steamer has Darvish pegged around the same 4 WAR next year too, meaning it hasn't seen any strong signs of decline yet in his peripherals.

 

By comparison, Lynn and Cobb peaked close to 4 WAR pre-surgery and were both at 3 or below last year. Steamer has Lynn and Cobb projected at about 2 WAR each next year. 2 WAR is roughly the 90th most valuable pitching performance in any given season. The Twins have received similar performances recently from the likes of Tommy Milone in 2015, and Kevin Correia in 2013.

 

(For those advocating for Cobb plus Lynn over Darvish, note that 4 WAR is more valuable coming from one roster spot than from two.)

[bcs4]

 

Sure. But we don't need him to improve from 31 to 37 to get value out of the contract. If he can stay a 4 WAR pitcher for just a few more years, and tack on some 1-2 WAR seasons at the end, that will work just fine.

 

He's been a 2.4 WAR (Baseball Reference WAR) average over the last 4 years and he's only had one year over a 4 in his career.  If trends continue, he'll start out a 2.0 WAR and within 2 or 3 years he'll more than likely be a negative.

 

 

 

The universe of baseball players who are that good is quite small. There may only be one player who meets your "best chance later" criteria, and you may be competing with more teams for his services. Heck, there may be zero such players.

 

I guess it depends on what the definition of an ace is.  I'd say ERA 3 or under with a history, and yes they are rare, but I'm not saying that it has to be an ace, just that we would likely do better than Darvish at that money.  It's not too hard to find kids with 2 or 3 years under their belts at around a 3.2 or so.  Those are the guys that I'd be interested in.  There are teams that either aren't expecting to be in contention, or fall out of contention that are looking to rebuild.  Depending on the quality, I'm pretty much willing to give up anything other than Berrios or Buxton, plus cash, and maybe even multiples that include other high prospects.  . 

 

Everyone wants a big signing before the season.  Last year everyone was convinced that we needed to trade Dozier, this year we have to have Darvish.  Just remember what happened when we signed Mauer to the contract that he got, and Darvish isn't anywhere near what Mauer was.  Mistakes that big hurt for a really long time.

[BrianTrottier]

 

He's been a 2.4 WAR (Baseball Reference WAR) average over the last 4 years and he's only had one year over a 4 in his career.  If trends continue, he'll start out a 2.0 WAR and within 2 or 3 years he'll more than likely be a negative.

 

 

You appear to be counting his year lost to Tommy John surgery in your average. That's not a 0 WAR season. If you look at the past four years where he actually played and produced results that go into the WAR metric, then his average bWAR is 3.8.

[Otto von Ballpark]

He's been a 2.4 WAR (Baseball Reference WAR) average over the last 4 years and he's only had one year over a 4 in his career. If trends continue, he'll start out a 2.0 WAR and within 2 or 3 years he'll more than likely be a negative.

Tommy John surgery is not a "trend." And simply because of the timing, NOT the severity, it affected 3 seasons for Darvish. TJ surgery is a consideration on its own, of course, but it is worth noting that Darvish has returned from it without missing a beat so far: 6.5 WAR in 48 starts over a season and a half, which is right in line with his Steamer projection for 2018. I am sure he will miss some time in the future too, but simply projecting his 2 seasons out of the last 4 missed from TJ is a crude and likely incorrect way to account for that.

 

If you want to account for health and aging, a rule of thumb WAR aging curve is to subtract 0.5 WAR each year. Starting at 3.8 WAR in 2018 (Steamer projection over 31 starts) and subtracting 0.5 each year, he would be at 14 WAR after 5 years. On a $125 mil contract, that would represent about $8 mil per win, or roughly market rate. And that's not really an optimistic projection, just a baseline.

[Otto von Ballpark]

You appear to be counting his year lost to Tommy John surgery in your average. That's not a 0 WAR season. If you look at the past four years where he actually played and produced results that go into the WAR metric, then his average bWAR is 3.8.

Yup, that is basically his MLB season average WAR so far. And even that contains almost another full season lost to rehabbing the same TJ injury/surgery over 2014 and 2016. Per 31 starts, he is at 4.6 WAR for his career so far.

[IaFan1]

Certainly there is injury risk here. But Darvish would only be 35 at the end of this contract. I agree with this articles point. It is time to go for it. Mauer's 23 Million coming off the books after this year makes this deal tolerable. I hope the Twins get it done.

[laloesch]

 

What happens if Darvish is awesome for three years? why do people only assume the worst when throwing this stuff out?

 

If not now, when? Next year every team will have re-set their penalties, and the Twins will be bidding against all of them......

 

that list next year looks no better than Darvish, and some of them will get hurt....so, who? 

 

Very good point.  This is there chance to grab a front line starter without all the big ball clubs driving up the price to astronomical levels.  If you you have to go six years to Yu Darvish is it worth it.....

[Otto von Ballpark]

I guess it depends on what the definition of an ace is. I'd say ERA 3 or under with a history, and yes they are rare, but I'm not saying that it has to be an ace, just that we would likely do better than Darvish at that money. It's not too hard to find kids with 2 or 3 years under their belts at around a 3.2 or so. Those are the guys that I'd be interested in. There are teams that either aren't expecting to be in contention, or fall out of contention that are looking to rebuild. Depending on the quality, I'm pretty much willing to give up anything other than Berrios or Buxton, plus cash, and maybe even multiples that include other high prospects.

I will give you some credit if you are willing to deal Lewis-plus, but you still have to name specific potential targets if you want to convince anyone that it's clearly a better path than Darvish.

 

The common name is Chris Archer, but is he really any better than Darvish? Peaked at 4.3 WAR, and has posted only 1.8 and 1.2 the last 2 seasons at age 27-28.

 

Michael Fulmer, 3.9 WAR last season. Would Detroit trade him within the division? Fulmer has 5 years of control left so Detroit is in no hurry to deal him. (His 2017 season also ended early due to elbow trouble.)

 

James Paxton, 3.9 WAR last year. Already 29 years old, only 3 years control left, has yet to top 136 IP. Missed time with a "forearm strain" last year.

 

Marcus Stroman, hit 5.8 WAR last year, although that could be his peak, he was a lot lower than that previously, and his peripherals only suggested 3.4 fWAR (Fangraphs WAR, based on FIP rather than ERA). 3 years of control left. The Jays are trying to contend, not sure how eager they will be sell assets.

 

Am I missing anyone?

 

When you factor in the risk of waiting (some of these teams might become contenders and not want to sell, the pitchers in question might sign extensions with their current clubs, the Twins might fall short of contention themselves due to a lack of SP early in the season, Lewis might get hurt or regress a bit and lose value as our premier trade chip), it is not clear to me at all that this is a better or safer plan than simply ponying up the dough for Darvish today.

[Jham]

Darvish is also known for a dizzying array of pitches. I can't imagine getting a feel back for all of them is easy after Tommy John. I'm not sure if he's kept them all or if pitch fx can distinguish them all. But his use of command and deception should help him remain effective as top end velocity and spin start to decline. With the bigger point once again being we have a chance at 2 or 3 years of a top starter for a reasonable price financed out over 5 years. I'm guessing if he's healthy, he'll be tradeable even in decline if we eat some celery.. er salary.

 

A better opportunity at this type of talent won't come around often. Its also less clear, to me, that the end of a 5 year deal will be a total overpay. Not usually the case for stars getting their last big deal.

[Mr. Brooks]

I'm looking pretty much at everything, but mostly ERA. What are you looking at?

Everything except ERA, because ERA is dependent on too many things that are out of the pitcher's control.

If the argument is that he's the best of the class, but the money and years scare you, you might be right.

If the argument is that he's not even the best of the class, then I just don't think you'll find anyone in the industry, or even many outside, who will even acknowledge your argument.

[bcs4]

WAR is skewed by younger players.

 

The average player age in MLB is 26-28.  Thus, half of all MLB players have completed their careers by the age of 27 and have played their best years by the time they are 28.  WAR ratings for this group of players on average will likely rise on until they approach 26 and then begin a pretty rapid decline or an immediate drop to zero in the case of a career ending injury.  

 

If you were to graph the ages of players beyond the age of 28, you will see a logarithmic decline from the age of 27, to pretty much zero at 42 or so because the number of players at the age of 42 is very few in relation to the number at 27. Think of the second half of a bell curve. That's what the graph would look like.

 

Additionally, if you are looking to determine the actual projected WAR of an average player at the age of 31, the WAR is further inflated by the complete lack of any WAR for the players that are no longer playing after 27.  If you want to calculate the annual decline of players at the age of 32 you need to factor in the players that are no longer in MLB at a WAR of 0. 

 

So an average decrease in WAR would be nowhere near .5.  In fact the average WAR of players at the age of 34 or 35 is likely less than zero, because of career ending injury between the age of 27 and 31, or because a player is kept on a roster too long after they already have a negative WAR and the team can't force itself to take the hit of paying off a contract when they should, or because they are hoping that a player will somehow return to productivity but doesn't.

 

So, because an adjustment of .5 is based on the age of 27, it's way more than that at 31.

 

In fact if you use a REAL WAR decline, and you consider a WAR of 4 at the age of 30, Darvish's projected WAR will be zero or less by the age of 34, and it will continue to decline to the end of the contract.

 

In that case the Twins will have paid, say $125 million for a net negative WAR over the next 5 years.

 

You can say Darvish is an exception to the rule because his injuries have been permanently fixed, but he will have more injuries each year than he has in the past because that's the way it works in MLB. 

 

If the Twins really want pitchers, they need to be younger, and they certainly don't need to be in contention to trade for a good pitcher at deadline if the long term plan is to improve.

[bcs4]

 

I will give you some credit if you are willing to deal Lewis-plus, but you still have to name specific potential targets if you want to convince anyone that it's clearly a better path than Darvish.

The common name is Chris Archer, but is he really any better than Darvish? Peaked at 4.3 WAR, and has posted only 1.8 and 1.2 the last 2 seasons at age 27-28.

Michael Fulmer, 3.9 WAR last season. Would Detroit trade him within the division? Fulmer has 5 years of control left so Detroit is in no hurry to deal him. (His 2017 season also ended early due to elbow trouble.)

James Paxton, 3.9 WAR last year. Already 29 years old, only 3 years control left, has yet to top 136 IP. Missed time with a "forearm strain" last year.

Marcus Stroman, hit 5.8 WAR last year, although that could be his peak, he was a lot lower than that previously, and his peripherals only suggested 3.4 fWAR (Fangraphs WAR, based on FIP rather than ERA). 3 years of control left. The Jays are trying to contend, not sure how eager they will be sell assets.

Am I missing anyone?

When you factor in the risk of waiting (some of these teams might become contenders and not want to sell, the pitchers in question might sign extensions with their current clubs, the Twins might fall short of contention themselves due to a lack of SP early in the season, Lewis might get hurt or regress a bit and lose value as our premier trade chip), it is not clear to me at all that this is a better or safer plan than simply ponying up the dough for Darvish today.

It's impossible to say who for the reasons that you've given.  We don't know who will be in contention, and we don't know what position that team will be trying to improve.

 

 

 

[bcs4]

 

Everything except ERA, because ERA is dependent on too many things that are out of the pitcher's control.
If the argument is that he's the best of the class, but the money and years scare you, you might be right.
If the argument is that he's not even the best of the class, then I just don't think you'll find anyone in the industry, or even many outside, who will even acknowledge your argument.

If you're looking at trends, ERA is good at projecting ERA and WAR projects WAR.  Either is fine if you are trying to predict future performance. 

 

As far as no one considering the fact that the top 4 are pretty close, I guaranty that everyone interested in Darvish has considered it.

[Twins33]

It's impossible to say who for the reasons that you've given.  We don't know who will be in contention, and we don't know what position that team will be trying to improve.

And if the perfect scenario trade/FA never comes along in the future they just never sign or trade? Keep hoping they develop three stud SP? Ever single scenario, one way or another is going to have warts.

 

Waiting to do something is what they've been doing for 15 years now. Always waiting for the future while the young core ages. Then run into another rebuild and repeat.

 

Going after Darvish right now certainly has a few downsides to it, but the upsides far outweigh those. For the most part, they are not having to compete with the high money teams. If those teams were able to sign him without luxury tax concerns Darvish wouldn't even be mentioned as coming here because the Twins would have zero chance. Their chance right now is already low enough, but better than the zero it would be otherwise.

 

The Twins need SP and they need it now. Right now. This season. The guys they have right now probably won't get them to even the WC game this year because other teams have improved. Anything can happen in baseball, but I think most would agree that they are on the outside looking in as of today. 85 wins is very likely not going to be enough this year.

 

So they need to do something and Darvish is technically the cheapest option as he only costs money. If they trade it'll be prospects and money, which to me is a much higher price to pay. It'd be worth it for the right guy but it doesn't seem like many are out there. Archer and Duffy might be the only guys actually available in a trade and like I said, they need the pitching now. Right now.

[bcs4]

 

And if the perfect scenario trade/FA never comes along in the future they just never sign or trade? Keep hoping they develop three stud SP? Ever single scenario, one way or another is going to have warts.

Waiting to do something is what they've been doing for 15 years now. Always waiting for the future while the young core ages. Then run into another rebuild and repeat.

Going after Darvish right now certainly has a few downsides to it, but the upsides far outweigh those. For the most part, they are not having to compete with the high money teams. If those teams were able to sign him without luxury tax concerns Darvish wouldn't even be mentioned as coming here because the Twins would have zero chance. Their chance right now is already low enough, but better than the zero it would be otherwise.

The Twins need SP and they need it now. Right now. This season. The guys they have right now probably won't get them to even the WC game this year because other teams have improved. Anything can happen in baseball, but I think most would agree that they are on the outside looking in as of today. 85 wins is very likely not going to be enough this year.

So they need to do something and Darvish is technically the cheapest option as he only costs money. If they trade it'll be prospects and money, which to me is a much higher price to pay. It'd be worth it for the right guy but it doesn't seem like many are out there. Archer and Duffy might be the only guys actually available in a trade and like I said, they need the pitching now. Right now.

 

No, the Twins have done stuff.  It's just been crappy stuff like Colon, Santiago, Hughes, Nolasco, Milone, Correia, Pelfrey and Worley.  Some of them actually had an average year or 2, but mostly they were "innings eaters".  God I HATE that phrase.

 

One of the reasons that they haven't developed pitching is that these bums plugged the pipeline and the young guys were forced to sit in AA and A until they had put in the requisite number of years that weren't often based on merit.  I'd like to see more kids brought up younger and I wish they had given each of them a reasonable amount of time to develop in MLB.  Why have some washed up starter taking the time that should be used to get the kids started.  A lot of the kids are brought up, then sent down, brought up again etc.  I don't think it's better to have a veteran throwing a 5.4 ERA than it is to have a kid throwing a 6.  The advantage to the kid is that many of them are terrified by the experience and pressure and hopefully that will eventually erode,  There has to be a reason that a kid in AAA is throwing a 2.5 with strikeouts that's brought up to subsequently throw a 6+.  He can do better.  Granted if the kid stays terrified after a third of a season, send him back down.

 

Additionally, the Twins have actually had developing pitchers in the majors almost all of the time.  I think it would be beneficial to have 2 up at the same time, again for a third of a season or so.  If they've already got a kid up, his ERA doesn't matter because he'd be up already.  The second youngster would be taking the place of one of the dud veterans.  I think 2 youngsters at a time will help them make the transition, and it will a quicker way to identify the ones that might actually stick.

 

If signing someone for 5 or 6 years, and even if they net 2 games over that time, (see previous post concerning projected WAR decline), the Twins will end up paying somewhere in the neighborhood of $80 million per game won for someone of that age.  They'd be much better leaving their ERA at 4.6 and picking up a position player than a pitcher even though they might need SP more.

 

There is no way I would spend that kind of money and years on Darvish for the number of WAR that he's likely to bring.  It would make more sense (albeit also foolish) to give Lynn $30 mill for 3 years.  They'd likely be getting more net WAR because his he'd probably net somewhere around 5 WAR for $90 mill instead of eating Darvish's net 1 or 2 after we suffer his last years which are very likely to be unproductive.

 

I'd be much more willing to give up prospects for a kid throwing a 3.8 ERA in MLB for a couple of years.  Most of our prospects don't have huge upsides, and many of them aren't likely to be really productive for another 3 years, especially in the Twins' minor league.

 

The goal isn't to spend money.  The goal isn't to get a big name.  The goal is for management to get smart.  Spend the $26-$30 mil on what helps the most.

[cmoss84]

I'm guessing that pitching at Target Field is easier than pitching in Arlington. I'm also guessing that our divisional foes have lineups that are easier to pitch against than nearly any other division. I could see him putting up solid numbers for three years and "OK" numbers for the last two years of a five year contract. 

 

I'm also agreeing with those of you who want to sign Darvish AND make a trade for Archer. I would give up Lewis as long as the rest of the package wasn't too painful.  Getting one of them versus getting both of them might very well be the difference between making the playoffs and making noise in the playoffs.

I am ok with this rotation:

 

Darvish

Archer

Santana

Berrios

Gibson/Mejia/Gonsalves

 

To me, the juice would absolutely be worth the squeeze. Probably not going to happen. But squeeze away Twins FO! 

[Mike Sixel]

 

I'm guessing that pitching at Target Field is easier than pitching in Arlington. I'm also guessing that our divisional foes have lineups that are easier to pitch against than nearly any other division. I could see him putting up solid numbers for three years and "OK" numbers for the last two years of a five year contract. 

 

I'm also agreeing with those of you who want to sign Darvish AND make a trade for Archer. I would give up Lewis as long as the rest of the package wasn't too painful.  Getting one of them versus getting both of them might very well be the difference between making the playoffs and making noise in the playoffs.

I am ok with this rotation:

 

Darvish

Archer

Santana

Berrios

Gibson/Mejia/Gonsalves

 

To me, the juice would absolutely be worth the squeeze. Probably not going to happen. But squeeze away Twins FO! 

 

ok? That would be a great rotation, imo.

 

I give it the tiniest of chances, but I'd do it.

[Mike Sixel]

an interesting comment....

 

Jared
2:13 Going back to your Brewers answer, do you think getting a top of rotation pitcher is realistic for Milwaukee?
Keith Law
2:13 Who? Darvish isn't that. Arrieta isn't that. Not sure who they could get.

[Twins33]

Bcs4: not quoting your post because ours combined would be gigantic, but here's my response:

 

In this market, Darvish is what helps the most so that's where we differ. Unless we're trading for Strasburg (not available, Archer (possibly available), Duffy (possibly available), DeGrom (not available), Stoman (probably not available), Syndergaard (not available), Ray (not available) etc...there is no better option than Darvish. Archer and Duffy are it. So Darvish, Archer and Duffy or wait until this unknown time where the exact right player is available sometime in the future which could be next year or could be ten years from now. Again, sounds like what they've been doing already...waiting for that "perfect" moment. I think their moment is right now. They may never get another shot at a FA like or better than Darvish ever again. That's reality. It's time to strike.

 

The factor that you are missing is that the Twins were terrible when they signed the majority of the guys you listed (Nolasco, Milone, Correia, Pelfrey and Worley). Who was begging for the Twins to sign those guys? Besides Milone, they had a history of being fifth starters in terms of talent (fourth starters at best). I didn't want to sign the majority of them but what studs were they blocking? Berrios in 2015 or earlier in 2016 is something I wanted, but he was the only stud. If you go with non-studs, then yeah I also would have preferred Wimmers, Duffy, Meyer, May, Gilmartin, Wheeler etc to that group. Who is arguing otherwise? And why are we comparing Darvish to fifth starters as if he is one?

 

If you think that Darvish = Nolasco et al then that explains why you are thinking the way you are. That's the only explanation I can come up with. Because Darvish > all of those combined as far as talent level. Lynn and Cobb and below are more of the Santana, Nolasco, etc level. Darvish is above that tier. Darvish isn't immune to becoming a Nolasco, but he'd have to fall far for that to happen while Cobb/Lynn wouldn't have to fall nearly as far. And to add, I don't mind Cobb as a fallback option if no Darvish, but I don't think Cobb gives this team anywhere near the same boost that Darvish does which is why I'm all about Darvish while he's still available. Darvish would be the clear number one on this staff where Cobb would be the two or three depending on how Santana ages.

 

And Darvish occupies one spot in the rotation. He doesn't block prospects coming up. As it stands now it could be Darvish, Berrios, Santana, Gibson (or a prospect), Mejia (or a prospect). Potentially two open spots for someone to take. There is a spot for Gonsalves or someone else to grab. And Santana and Gibson may not be on the team in 2019 so that makes it Darvish, Berrios and three open spots. I fail to see the problem here and I don't see the point in not trying to better the rotation (waiting). Better rotation equals more wins, unless you're really unlucky. And more wins is a good thing, isn't it?

[Otto von Ballpark]

WAR is skewed by younger players.

 

The average player age in MLB is 26-28. Thus, half of all MLB players have completed their careers by the age of 27 and have played their best years by the time they are 28. WAR ratings for this group of players on average will likely rise on until they approach 26 and then begin a pretty rapid decline or an immediate drop to zero in the case of a career ending injury.

 

If you were to graph the ages of players beyond the age of 28, you will see a logarithmic decline from the age of 27, to pretty much zero at 42 or so because the number of players at the age of 42 is very few in relation to the number at 27. Think of the second half of a bell curve. That's what the graph would look like.

 

Additionally, if you are looking to determine the actual projected WAR of an average player at the age of 31, the WAR is further inflated by the complete lack of any WAR for the players that are no longer playing after 27. If you want to calculate the annual decline of players at the age of 32 you need to factor in the players that are no longer in MLB at a WAR of 0.

 

So an average decrease in WAR would be nowhere near .5. In fact the average WAR of players at the age of 34 or 35 is likely less than zero, because of career ending injury between the age of 27 and 31, or because a player is kept on a roster too long after they already have a negative WAR and the team can't force itself to take the hit of paying off a contract when they should, or because they are hoping that a player will somehow return to productivity but doesn't.

 

So, because an adjustment of .5 is based on the age of 27, it's way more than that at 31.

 

In fact if you use a REAL WAR decline, and you consider a WAR of 4 at the age of 30, Darvish's projected WAR will be zero or less by the age of 34, and it will continue to decline to the end of the contract.

 

In that case the Twins will have paid, say $125 million for a net negative WAR over the next 5 years.

Do you have a cite for any of that? It doesn't seem to conform to any published baseball analysis or observable baseball market behavior.

 

It is certainly possible that Darvish posts a cumulative negative WAR over the next 5 years. But no projection system will say that is the most probable outcome, or even a particularly likely one (given that his first year, the one where our projection carries the greatest confidence, is already 3.6 WAR -- heck, he would probably be permanently DL'ed before he could accumulate enough negative WAR in subsequent years to offset that. Even Barry Zito wound up with +3 WAR for his San Francisco years).

 

The -0.5 WAR per year aging curve is not "based on age 27", it is chained from year to year (age 31-32, age 32-33, etc.). It accelerates with age in a multiyear projection because 0.5 WAR represents an increasingly larger share of the yearly diminishing WAR totals.

 

I'm also not sure about your take on survivorship. When we project how a 30 year old player in MLB will perform at age 31, we want to compare him to other 30 year old players in MLB who likewise survived to play at age 31. Guys who washed out at 28 or 25 (or 14, like me ) are no longer relevant. Guys who washed out between age 30 and 31 presumably did so because of their poor age 30 performance or health, which is something that our returning age 30 player has already overcome. It's not some random event between November and March that we have to account for. And in a multiyear projection, those dropouts are already accounted for in their final season performance. For example, the aging curve applying to Darvish's 2020, age 33 season right now will already include Mike Pelfrey's craptastic final season age 33 performance. And because the projections are done on a year by year basis, with one year's projection carrying over as the basis for the next, it affects his future years too. There is no need to apply any additional penalty/correction to Darvish just because Pelfrey washed out at that point.

 

Also the effect of survivorship bias as players leave the league may actually make for a slightly too-steep aging curve, as described here:

https://www.fangraphs.com/tht/how-do-baseball-players-age-part-2/

[Otto von Ballpark]

It's impossible to say who for the reasons that you've given. We don't know who will be in contention, and we don't know what position that team will be trying to improve.

You seem very concerned about the uncertainty in Darvish's performance projection, but at the same time you seem to completely disregard the future uncertainty of your proposed alternative.

 

Darvish isn't perfect, but part of the benefit of signing him now is that "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." Even after they sign Darvish, if circumstances change (whether about Darvish's performance, the rest of the roster, external factors around the division or league), the team could always approve a payroll increase, become more aggressive about promoting or dealing prospects, etc. (Even with Darvish, they will be gaining significant payroll flexibility the next couple offseasons.) But if they pass now, they won't be able to jump back and sign Darvish -- they will be fully at the mercy of external forces presenting an opportunity to address this need.

[ashbury]

It is certainly possible that Darvish posts a cumulative negative WAR over the next 5 years. But no projection system will say that is the most probable outcome, or even a particularly likely one (given that his first year, the one where our projection carries the greatest confidence, is already 3.6 WAR -- heck, he would probably be permanently DL'ed before he could accumulate enough negative WAR in subsequent years to offset that. Even Barry Zito wound up with +3 WAR for his San Francisco years).

That may be a weakness in how WAR is defined, and in particular how to use it for deciding to offer a contract, or to look back at a contract. When a player starts with a positive WAR, and then he successively declines in ability for whatever reason, his WAR becomes a smaller positive number, then eventually zero, then a small negative number - but when his ability declines even further than that, it stops being negative and goes back up to zero, because he's not given opportunities anymore.

 

In theory, most players get replaced once they are below zero, if "above replacement" means anything. A guaranteed contract can put the player out there to rack up worse results than, say, Andrew Albers, for a little bit longer time. But I'm not sure that's how to do the accounting when looking at a high-end free agent's body of work - though I'm not sure how else to do it, either. The opportunity cost of anything close to a zero WAR is pretty important, but whether that zero comes from shoddy work or from lack of use at all probably makes a difference.

 

I guess I'm thinking about Zito more than Darvish on this; Zito's disappointing time in SF looks even worse in WAR-total terms because his final season was on a team that wasn't going to contend even if he had been stellar, and they ran him out there despite him having nothing, since it didn't matter anymore. With a better roster, they might simply have sat him.

[Mr. Brooks]

If you're looking at trends, ERA is good at projecting ERA and WAR projects WAR. Either is fine if you are trying to predict future performance.

 

As far as no one considering the fact that the top 4 are pretty close, I guaranty that everyone interested in Darvish has considered it.

Ok, well in that case, the contacts they all sign should be very close. I doubt it, but we'll see.

[bcs4]

 

Do you have a cite for any of that? It doesn't seem to conform to any published baseball analysis or observable baseball market behavior.

It is certainly possible that Darvish posts a cumulative negative WAR over the next 5 years. But no projection system will say that is the most probable outcome, or even a particularly likely one (given that his first year, the one where our projection carries the greatest confidence, is already 3.6 WAR -- heck, he would probably be permanently DL'ed before he could accumulate enough negative WAR in subsequent years to offset that. Even Barry Zito wound up with +3 WAR for his San Francisco years).

The -0.5 WAR per year aging curve is not "based on age 27", it is chained from year to year (age 31-32, age 32-33, etc.). It accelerates with age in a multiyear projection because 0.5 WAR represents an increasingly larger share of the yearly diminishing WAR totals.

I'm also not sure about your take on survivorship. When we project how a 30 year old player in MLB will perform at age 31, we want to compare him to other 30 year old players in MLB who likewise survived to play at age 31. Guys who washed out at 28 or 25 (or 14, like me ) are no longer relevant. Guys who washed out between age 30 and 31 presumably did so because of their poor age 30 performance or health, which is something that our returning age 30 player has already overcome. It's not some random event between November and March that we have to account for. And in a multiyear projection, those dropouts are already accounted for in their final season performance. For example, the aging curve applying to Darvish's 2020, age 33 season right now will already include Mike Pelfrey's craptastic final season age 33 performance. And because the projections are done on a year by year basis, with one year's projection carrying over as the basis for the next, it affects his future years too. There is no need to apply any additional penalty/correction to Darvish just because Pelfrey washed out at that point.

Also the effect of survivorship bias as players leave the league may actually make for a slightly too-steep aging curve, as described here:
https://www.fangraphs.com/tht/how-do-baseball-players-age-part-2/

 

No citation.  It's just math.  Barry Zito accumulated a 3.6 WAR because players that were no longer playing weren't factored in.  I know it sounds illogical, but it's a factor in determining player value.

 

If .5 deduction in WAR is applied to projections for all players, then it is for all practical purposes based on the average age (roughly 27), because WAR assumes an average risk of .5.  The trouble with that assumption is what I've tried to explain above. The average risk for a 27 year old is substantially less than it is for a 31 year old because a larger percentage of players at the age of 31 will leave MLB than will 27 year olds.  Just to pick percentages out of thin air, lets say 20% of 27 year olds leave baseball, while if the oldest player retires, the percentage of players at his age is 100%.  That means that there is increasing risk from the age of 27 to the oldest retiring player.  It's also not a straight line.  From 27 to 28 the percentage may go from 20% to 24% but the percentage from the last year might be 60%.  Again, I'm estimating the risk, I don't know the real percentages.

 

That's why a .5% reduced WAR isn't correct because it's based on an average for all players.  It may be .5% for young players, but it should be much more for older players.  WAR is not a good measure of risk if it assumes .5 for every player regardless of age.  If in fact WAR adjusts the factor from year to year so that a young player's risk is .2 and a 31 year olds' risk is .5, it's still incorrect.  So again, WAR is not a good assessment of year to year risk, let alone a period of 5 or 6 years.

 

Say you have 2 players with 5 WARs signed to 6 year contracts for $25 million a year, and player 1 gets injured 1 day into his contract and produces no stats but chooses to remain a player and be paid for the entirety of his contract.  The way WAR handles this (assuming a yearly .5% reduction) is that player one stats will no longer be included in the calculation of WAR in the future, thus his stats have no affect (effect?) on future WAR stats.  If it were, player 2's WAR would be halved each of the following years, but what WAR does, according to what you're saying is that player 2s stats are reduced .5 every only from the previous year to account adequately for player 1's lack of stats.  So, according to WAR, player 2's stats would be 4.5 for each of the following years to account for possible career ending injury (and remember there are other factors that aren't considered in WAR to properly assess value risk over a 6 year contract.  I've discussed them above).  WAR heavily undervalues risk with increasing age.

 

I suggest that there is a greater than 50% chance that Darvish won't be playing in 6 years. 

 

I don't think Darvish will give up his contract if he gets hurt, so the Twins will still be on the hook if he's permanently DL'd, so even if he ends up a +12 accumulated WAR before that, the cost per year is way too high, just as Zito's was.

 

I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say, but it's a little hard to show since I don't have longevity stats.  I think I've been pretty fair with estimates though.

[bcs4]

 

Ok, well in that case, the contacts they all sign should be very close. I doubt it, but we'll see.

No, I'm not saying that at all.  Darvish is the biggest name followed by Arrieta.  I think names bring bigger money.  I would rather have Lynn for 4 years and $6 mil less a year.  Add that to the budget for another reliever, or keep it and add it to Mauer's drop off and spend $30 mil on a really good player or pitcher next year.  $30 mill will attract more than $23 mill will.

 

The whole thing that I want to avoid is picking up cheap pitchers because Mauer took up so much.  I want to avoid the last seven years and get good value.  I think Darvish is bad value for 5 or 6 years at $25/$26 million..

[Mr. Brooks]

No, I'm not saying that at all. Darvish is the biggest name followed by Arrieta. I think names bring bigger money. I would rather have Lynn for 4 years and $6 mil less a year. Add that to the budget for another reliever, or keep it and add it to Mauer's drop off and spend $30 mil on a really good player or pitcher next year. $30 mill will attract more than $23 mill will.

 

The whole thing that I want to avoid is picking up cheap pitchers because Mauer took up so much. I want to avoid the last seven years and get good value. I think Darvish is bad value for 5 or 6 years at $25/$26 million..

I understand that you, personally, would rather sign Lynn. What I'm saying is that I don't think the industry agrees that they are roughly equal.

I don't believe for a second that teams pay more for a name. These guys jobs are on the line every year, and there are only 30 of them. They will pay more for who they think will perform better.

 

Who are they going to spend 30 million on next year? Machado and Harper are not options here. Anyone else is going to be just as old as Darvish is.

[Twins33]

Who are they going to spend 30 million on next year? Machado and Harper are not options here. Anyone else is going to be just as old as Darvish is.

To add to that...pitching-wise, Kershaw and Keuchel aren't coming here either. Those are the big two next year, if Kershaw opts out.

[scottz]

Did we win yet?

That's the right question.

[Riverbrian]

 

 

The whole thing that I want to avoid is picking up cheap pitchers because Mauer took up so much.  I want to avoid the last seven years and get good value.  I think Darvish is bad value for 5 or 6 years at $25/$26 million..

 

I don't believe that Mauer's contract caused the Twins to pick up cheap pitchers.

 

I only believe that Mauer's contract guaranteed Joe a decent salary for the duration.