The Twins should sign Yu Darvish, regardless of price

[bcs4]

 

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.

 

Yes, names matter.  Intuition will play a huge part.  So do past interactions with the player and recommendations from other teams. Computers can crunch the numbers, but humans assign importance 

 

Are you saying that the Twins couldn't find a use for the extra money if they want to improve?  

[Mr. Brooks]

Yes, names matter. Intuition will play a huge part. So do past interactions with the player and recommendations from other teams. Computers can crunch the numbers, but humans assign importance

 

Are you saying that the Twins couldn't find a use for the extra money if they want to improve?

Part 1, we'll just never agree, so might as well both move on. Any GM using intuition to make signings won't have a job for long, IMO.

 

Part 2, I'm responding to a specific thing you said, not a general, "could they improve with more money. "

 

You said, save 6 million from Darvish to Cobb, add it to Mauer's money coming off the books, and sign a 30 million dollar guy next year. Who?

[bcs4]

 

Part 1, we'll just never agree, so might as well both move on. Any GM using intuition to make signings won't have a job for long, IMO.

Part 2, I'm responding to a specific thing you said, not a general, "could they improve with more money. "

You said, save 6 million from Darvish to Cobb, add it to Mauer's money coming off the books, and sign a 30 million dollar guy next year. Who?

 You're right.  It doesn't look like agreement is in the cards.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

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.

 

You are losing me here.

 

- WAR doesn't have anything to do with "risk", it isn't a projection system.

 

- The rough aging curve I mentioned is not 5%, it is 0.5.

 

- It's only generally applied to multiyear projections of free agents around age 30, so it doesn't have to fit all age groups. I would cite a specific, custom multi-year projection for players outside that age range, like for Bryce Harper. Or just laugh for Bartolo Colon.

 

- And because 0.5 is constant, while the player's projected WAR declines yearly, the 0.5 becomes a progressively larger percentage decline each year. Hence the "curve".

 

- And the aging curves already include players who wash out of MLB, by virtue of including the decline which precipitates their exit. Like I mentioned before, Mike Pelfrey is already in the aging curve calculation for crashing from age 32 to age 33. And that in turn is baked into Darvish's projection going from age 32 to age 33. There is no reason to discount Darvish further once he reaches age 34+ just because Pelfrey didn't make it to age 34+. With his exit at 33, Pelfrey is no longer a comparable for Darvish at 34+, just like Shooter Hunt was no longer a comparable for him once Darvish reached the majors, and just like I was no longer a comparable for him once Darvish made his junior high team. (And for all we know, if given the chance, Pelfrey wouldn't have performed any worse at age 34 than he did at 33 -- he was kicked out because it was bad enough already, not because it was sure to drop further. Pelfrey posting the same negative 1.2 WAR at age 34 as he did at 33 would actually make a less steep aging curve, but you wouldn't want to use that to project that anyone else should perform roughly the same at age 34 as they did at 33!)

 

These aging curves are calculated based on thousands of careers and player seasons, and sudden career enders are the exception, not the rule. We didn't discount Torii Hunter's projections every year past 35 because hey, Kirby Puckett got glaucoma. The vast majority of careers end like Mike Pelfrey's with a reduction in on-field performance, which is already accounted for in the aging curves.

 

You are certainly free to disagree with a projection when making your own prediction, folks do it all the time, but that doesn't mean the projection doesn't have a valid basis. I'll bow out of this tangent now.

[bcs4]

 

You are losing me here.

 

- WAR doesn't have anything to do with "risk", it isn't a projection system.

 

- The rough aging curve I mentioned is not 5%, it is 0.5.

 

- It's only generally applied to multiyear projections of free agents around age 30, so it doesn't have to fit all age groups. I would cite a specific, custom multi-year projection for players outside that age range, like for Bryce Harper. Or just laugh for Bartolo Colon.

 

- And because 0.5 is constant, while the player's projected WAR declines yearly, the 0.5 becomes a progressively larger percentage decline each year. Hence the "curve".

 

- And the aging curves already include players who wash out of MLB, by virtue of including the decline which precipitates their exit. Like I mentioned before, Mike Pelfrey is already in the aging curve calculation for crashing from age 32 to age 33. And that in turn is baked into Darvish's projection going from age 32 to age 33. There is no reason to discount Darvish further once he reaches age 34+ just because Pelfrey didn't make it to age 34+. With his exit at 33, Pelfrey is no longer a comparable for Darvish at 34+, just like Shooter Hunt was no longer a comparable for him once Darvish reached the majors, and just like I was no longer a comparable for him once Darvish made his junior high team. (And for all we know, if given the chance, Pelfrey wouldn't have performed any worse at age 34 than he did at 33 -- he was kicked out because it was bad enough already, not because it was sure to drop further. Pelfrey posting the same negative 1.2 WAR at age 34 as he did at 33 would actually make a less steep aging curve, but you wouldn't want to use that to project that anyone else should perform roughly the same at age 34 as they did at 33!)

 

These aging curves are calculated based on thousands of careers and player seasons, and sudden career enders are the exception, not the rule. We didn't discount Torii Hunter's projections every year past 35 because hey, Kirby Puckett got glaucoma. The vast majority of careers end like Mike Pelfrey's with a reduction in on-field performance, which is already accounted for in the aging curves.

 

You are certainly free to disagree with a projection when making your own prediction, folks do it all the time, but that doesn't mean the projection doesn't have a valid basis. I'll bow out of this tangent now.

Yes, it's very hard to explain what I'm talking about.

 

If I said that the adjustment amount, was 5%, I misspoke.  I mean to convey that the adjustment referenced is .5, not 5% and I have used .5 in any calculations that I made, not 5%. 

 

I think WAR is used as a projection more than anything else. WAR has been used in this discussion entirely as a way to determine which pitcher will be of more value in the future.  In fact my entire argument here has been an attempt to explain why WAR isn't a good way to project the value of an older player because it doesn't sufficiently account for age risk.  If I haven't been able to explain that, I apologize.

 

My understanding based on what I read in other's posts is that WAR has an adjustment for age (time?) of .5 to account for the possibility of the decline of the player's stats because of injury, retirement, or simply the general deterioration of the player's body over the passage of time.  If I have misunderstood the adjustment, I apologise, and I hope you will clarify it for me by answering the following questions before you bow out.

 

Is the .5 reduction that you reference included in the WAR calculation?  If not, what is the name of the stat that includes the .5?

 

If that stat is not named WAR, please mentally replace my use of WAR below with the actual stat's name because I've misused the name.  The questions will apply to the new stat, not WAR.

 

If a players WAR is 5 before the .5 reduction (I'll refer to it as WARb from now on), the result is a WAR of 4.5, is that correct?

 

If the players WARb when he's 31 is 6, and the player's WARb at 40 is also 6, does that mean the the WAR for each age is 5.5 or is the .5 cumulative (9 years x.5=4.5) for the each year making the 40 year old's WAR 1.5?

 

Is the .5 adjustment also included in a 26 year old player's WAR?

 

Also, thank you for the points you made in your post.  It will help me clarify, hopefully in a more concise manner.

 

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Projection systems have aging curves, not WAR. WAR is just a metric for player performance. Many projection systems can express their results in terms of WAR.

 

Minus-0.5 WAR is just the approximation of a yearly performance reduction for an early 30's player. It is not any part of WAR, but it would be part of a projection system expressing itself in terms of WAR.

 

I will amend my earlier statement, I think 0.5 is the approximation for position players, but 0.8 might be more appropriate for pitchers (I just read an analyst using those two figures).

 

So let's take a projection system, like ZiPS. Given 31 starts, it has Darvish pegged at 4.4 WAR for 2018. So the multiyear projection with the aging curve is as follows:

 

2018: 4.4

2019: 3.6

2020: 2.8

2021: 2.0

2022: 1.2

 

That's a total of 14 WAR over the next 5 years. That's not great, but keep in mind it's just a median projection. Darvish may do better, he may do worse, but this represents our best guess right now.

 

And it's very basic/crude. An actual multi-year projection by a system like ZiPS would apply a more precise aging factor to each of Darvish's peripherals (K rate, batted ball profile, etc.), and then come up with a total WAR value based on those peripherals. I think that would actually help Darvish, as ZiPS apparently projects him as worth a 6 year, $156 million contract this offseason.

[PseudoSABR]

You can't expect to allocate every dollar on the payroll for "good value." Free agents, esp. the best in their class, are paid at outsized rates because of market demand.   The best value comes in the form of pre-arb players, arb. eligible players, and long term contracts signed early on (not always, see: Mauer)--those are either home-grown players or players acquired very early in their careers via trade/waivers/etc.  We can't expect to use all of our payroll resources exclusively on in-house talent or we won't be spending close to what we should be allocating in payroll.  So payroll expenditures beyond those for in-house players, will necessarily come from the free agent class where the market and not necessarily value dictates price.   (Of course you could acquire players via trade, but that cost is quite high too, both paying an established player and paying value in terms of the teams own assets).

 

Given that we have Mauer, etc. coming off the books after this year, and Hughes etc. after next, signing Darvish now is likely to interfere less with any potential free agents in a couple years or in-house costs later.   If we don't spend the payroll resources on Darvish, it will simply go unspent, and in another free agent class, we may have even less a chance to recruit such a free agent, we would face the same dilemma of paying them at a rate which is outsized compared to their supposed value, and we'd have a shortened window with which to pay a player such an outsized amount (i.e. before Buxton, Sano etc. need to get paid).

[Don Walcott]

It's been a while since there was any actual news. I keep checking different sites to see if there's any news, and all there is are commentators speculating about where Darvish might end up. Then, I check Twins Daily to see if there's even a rumor going around, and I read up on the same debates that have been going on for years. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy reading the debates among passionate and intelligent Twins fans. I'm just worn out. I'm just so tired. . . . Tired of waitin. . . .

[Jham]

Are you saying that the Twins couldn't find a use for the extra money if they want to improve?

I've never ever seen the Twins dump savings, or even profits for that matter, from one season into the next. They follow their revenue formula each year separately.

 

Regarding WAR, it's a widely debated cumulative stat that probably shouldn't be taken literally. It's still a decent measuring stick for comparing players across varying circumstances without crunching zillions of numbers yourself.

 

I also understand what you're saying about using average war decline as a predictor, or using any average as a predictor in a single circumstance for that matter. What you're calling risk, is actually variation. You hypothesize, perhaps correctly, that older players will have greater variation from the average than younger players, especially at the low end of the curve. And that the prediction for older players should be weighted for age. But WAR is a counting stat relying on health. The risk of going to zero may be elevated for older players, but it would also be higher for players with lower WAR to begin with since many of those players would have low WAR because of injuries. Essentially you have competing theories of what holds more predictive power: age or prior effectiveness. You can run normalcy curves for both and have a ton of data. Then compare standard deviations. And that's what the projections have already presumably done. If age rendered the decline average meaningless, that would almost certainly not factor into projections.

 

I agree it would be interesting to look at the variance and median numbers. But to the extent that you said you have a hard time explaining, at least consider that you may also have a hard time understanding.

 

That's not a knock. You have a good theory that makes sense. It's just that there are other theories that also make sense pointing in the other direction. And those have actually been tested.

[gocgo]

Yikes!  I saw the words "all in" and couldn't help but think back to how well that worked out for the pale hose south siders.  I don't know that they have recovered from that move.

[bcs4]

 

Projection systems have aging curves, not WAR. WAR is just a metric for player performance. Many projection systems can express their results in terms of WAR.

Minus-0.5 WAR is just the approximation of a yearly performance reduction for an early 30's player. It is not any part of WAR, but it would be part of a projection system expressing itself in terms of WAR.

I will amend my earlier statement, I think 0.5 is the approximation for position players, but 0.8 might be more appropriate for pitchers (I just read an analyst using those two figures).

So let's take a projection system, like ZiPS. Given 31 starts, it has Darvish pegged at 4.4 WAR for 2018. So the multiyear projection with the aging curve is as follows:

2018: 4.4
2019: 3.6
2020: 2.8
2021: 2.0
2022: 1.2

That's a total of 14 WAR over the next 5 years. That's not great, but keep in mind it's just a median projection. Darvish may do better, he may do worse, but this represents our best guess right now.

And it's very basic/crude. An actual multi-year projection by a system like ZiPS would apply a more precise aging factor to each of Darvish's peripherals (K rate, batted ball profile, etc.), and then come up with a total WAR value based on those peripherals. I think that would actually help Darvish, as ZiPS apparently projects him as worth a 6 year, $156 million contract this offseason.

 

I understand now.  It's not about projecting WAR, it's the way I would adjust for age risk.  Thanks

[bcs4]

 

 

PseudoSABR,

 

You can't expect to allocate every dollar on the payroll for "good value."

Me:  The only basis for a team to sign a free agent is value.  If a signing looks like bad value, either they have bad management, or the team has a bigger budget, thus the proportion of the players pay is less than other teams.

 

So payroll expenditures beyond those for in-house players, will necessarily come from the free agent class where the market and not necessarily value dictates price. 

Me:  The value of a player differs from team to team.  For instance, one team may need a SP more than another.  The value of money also varies team by team.  See Yankees and Dodgers

 

Given that we have Mauer, etc. coming off the books after this year, and Hughes etc. after next, signing Darvish now is likely to interfere less with any potential free agents in a couple years or in-house costs later.

Me:  Unless the Twins are factoring in the future reduction in their offer to Darvish.

 

If we don't spend the payroll resources on Darvish, it will simply go unspent

Me:  Very much disagree.  Mauer and Hughes will affect (effect?) future moves if they don't sign Darvish, though I can certainly understand why you feel that way.

[bcs4]

Jham,

 

I agree it would be interesting to look at the variance and median numbers. But to the extent that you said you have a hard time explaining, at least consider that you may also have a hard time understanding.

Me:  Agree completely.  There's no way to understand all projection methods.  I'm just not aware of one that comes close to assessing age risk and future production.  All I'm trying to do is show why an adjustment of .5 for both a 30 year old and a 40 year old is just as flawed as assigning the same life expectancy for a 20 year old and a 70 year old (an extreme example, but equally flawed as it would imply no change). 

 

Sorry about the edit, here's what I added:

 

Me:  I'm not referring to variation, I'm referring to the financial term, risk.

 

You: The risk of going to zero may be elevated for older players, but it would also be higher for players with lower WAR to begin with since many of those players would have low WAR because of injuries. 

 

Me:  Actually, the averaged WARs of the totality of MLB players will rise increasingly until 27-28 and then decline increasingly from there.

 

You: Essentially you have competing theories of what holds more predictive power: age or prior effectiveness.

 

Me:  Actually I'm in no way saying that age and prior war are competing theories. Both age and prior effectiveness are predictive and both should be considered appropriately in determining value.  If a player's WAR is trending downward, and the player is also over 28, that player is a bigger risk than a player that is trending downward but approaching 27-28.  Players are more likely to improve at the age of 25 than players at the age of 31, and they are also more likely to recover or be allowed to recover from TJ surgery and other injuries than a 31 year old would.

[Mr. Brooks]

Yikes! I saw the words "all in" and couldn't help but think back to how well that worked out for the pale hose south siders. I don't know that they have recovered from that move.

Didn't the White Sox cash in a WS title? I'd love to have to recover from that.

[gocgo]

 

Didn't the White Sox cash in a WS title? I'd love to have to recover from that.

No.  Their title was long before their "All In" year.  All in was 2011.  WS was 2005.

[Otto von Ballpark]

All I'm trying to do is show why an adjustment of .5 for both a 30 year old and a 40 year old is just as flawed as assigning the same life expectancy for a 20 year old and a 70 year old (an extreme example, but equally flawed as it would imply no change).

Nobody is doing that. The 0.5 (or 0.8 for pitchers) is an approximation of the aging curve for players around 30. No projection system is applying that same aging figure to 40 year olds, or 20 year olds. Nobody here is even discussing 40 year olds or 20 year olds, this was just about Darvish and the other ~30 year old FA pitchers.

[Jham]

I agree it would be interesting to look at the variance and median numbers. But to the extent that you said you have a hard time explaining, at least consider that you may also have a hard time understanding.

Me: Agree completely. There's no way to understand all projection methods. I'm just not aware of one that comes close to assessing age risk and future production. All I'm trying to do is show why an adjustment of .5 for both a 30 year old and a 40 year old is just as flawed as assigning the same life expectancy for a 20 year old and a 70 year old (an extreme example, but equally flawed as it would imply no change).

That's the problem. You don't know it's flawed. You assume it. You have laid out rationale as to why you would expect older players to decline more rapidly. There is rationale that would suggest that that the decline might be less dramatic than average. For instance, players that last that long were probably better players to begin with. Weed out the players barely surviving and flashing in the pan, and you'd expect less variation. Those are both merely hypothesis. Both could be right canceling out. Both could also be wrong! Something else entirely might be driving the rate of decline. But age and prior productivity are only 2 variables. Projections look at far more. You can run regression analysis to see what percentage of variation can be explained by any one variable. Any variable with no predictive value will not be used. You may not like the .5 WAR per season average, but like it or not, the math still backs it up at age 33 or it wouldn't be used.

[bcs4]

 

Nobody is doing that. The 0.5 (or 0.8 for pitchers) is an approximation of the aging curve for players around 30. No projection system is applying that same aging figure to 40 year olds, or 20 year olds. Nobody here is even discussing 40 year olds or 20 year olds, this was just about Darvish and the other ~30 year old FA pitchers

You really think no one's been discussing age risk and how it should be valued?

[Otto von Ballpark]

You really think no one's been discussing age risk and how it should be valued?

As it relates to Darvish? Sure. As it relates to 40 year olds, or 20 year olds? No, not here anyway.

[bcs4]

Ok,  I'll bow out.  I've enjoyed talking to everyone though.

[Jham]

Ok, I'll bow out. I've enjoyed talking to everyone though.

You don't need to bow out. You raise good questions. In general, I think finding the gaps and holes in the analytics is one of the most interesting parts of analytics. It's why stats keep getting added and improved upon. It's why analytics staff are numbering along with scouting staffs now.

 

But another interesting part of analytics, testing, and the scientific method in general, is finding out our perceptions or assumptions are wrong. Then trying to figure out why!

[Otto von Ballpark]

Back to the title of this post: how high would folks go for Darvish?

 

The OP mentioned 5 years, $150 mil. How about that?

 

MLBTR predicted, and ZiPS projected, at the start of the offseason that Darvish would get 6 years for about $160 mil. Would you do that?

 

Nick linked a Heyman piece that referenced the Strasburg deal, 7 years, $175 mil. Would anyone do that?

 

Would it change things if you knew it wasn't merely a bid that the Cubs could match, but rather he was ready to sign immediately with the Twins at these terms? Say, 6/160 or even 7/175 for a done deal, today?

 

I am curious. At the start of the offseason, I was hoping we'd make a competitive pursuit of Darvish, but the more I have read, the more I really like him. And I wonder, if the Twins are really serious about him, maybe he is worth a premium just to get it done.

 

And while the price could be lower if we wait this out, a lower price would also probably attract more suitors and give Darvish more options to choose over us. (I could see the Angels being a factor at some point.) If the "best deal" isn't in the cards for us, could it be worth it to settle for a lesser deal but actually land the best player?

[Twins33]

Back to the title of this post: how high would folks go for Darvish?

6/150 is as far as I'd want them to go. I prefer four to five years.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Back to the title of this post: how high would folks go for Darvish?

The OP mentioned 5 years, $150 mil. How about that?

MLBTR predicted, and ZiPS projected, at the start of the offseason that Darvish would get 6 years for about $160 mil. Would you do that?

Nick linked a Heyman piece that referenced the Strasburg deal, 7 years, $175 mil. Would anyone do that?

Would it change things if you knew it wasn't merely a bid that the Cubs could match, but rather he was ready to sign immediately with the Twins at these terms? Say, 6/160 or even 7/175 for a done deal, today?

I am curious. At the start of the offseason, I was hoping we'd make a competitive pursuit of Darvish, but the more I have read, the more I really like him. And I wonder, if the Twins are really serious about him, maybe he is worth a premium just to get it done.

And while the price could be lower if we wait this out, a lower price would also probably attract more suitors and give Darvish more options to choose over us. (I could see the Angels being a factor at some point.) If the "best deal" isn't in the cards for us, could it be worth it to settle for a lesser deal but actually land the best player?

I'd rather go $160m/6 than $150m/5, as it keeps the yearly investment down a bit during what *should* be competitive seasons for the team.

 

If I went five years, I'd probably bow out somewhere around $140m, at which point I'd consider taking the "easy win" and adding a sixth year.

[Respy]

 

So let's take a projection system, like ZiPS. Given 31 starts, it has Darvish pegged at 4.4 WAR for 2018. So the multiyear projection with the aging curve is as follows:

2018: 4.4
2019: 3.6
2020: 2.8
2021: 2.0
2022: 1.2

That's a total of 14 WAR over the next 5 years. That's not great, but keep in mind it's just a median projection. Darvish may do better, he may do worse, but this represents our best guess right now.

 

Looking at his previous years' stats, I would have projected him at an average of 2.5-3 WAR/year the next 5 years, which is right on board with your ZiPS projection of 2.8.  Let's be generous and say he gets 3 WAR/year.  At current league value of ~$10M/WAR, 15 WAR over 5 years = $150M.  There's always some risk there, especially for a small-mid market team like the Twins.  I presume they'll have insurance for bad injuries, but they need to be cautious of faster regression, when putting more than 1/4 of the payroll into one player.  I'd say a realistic contract for the Twins is 5 years/$130M.  If he wants 6 years, no problem, but then only bump it to $140M, an extra $10M for the 1 WAR he might get you when he is 36.  I might be willing to go 6 years/$150, if there's options with buyouts on the last 1-2 years.

 

Or, as I've always been a fan of, go a bit lower on the contract, and build in some hefty bonuses for 180 or 200 IP, all-star appearances, cy youngs, playoff games won, world series championships, etc.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I didn't want to start another Darvish thread with no news, so I'll just put his here.

 

In his age-30 season, Darvish posted 3.5 fWAR and 4.0 RA9-WAR (basically the Fangraphs version of bWAR, using actual runs allowed instead of FIP) over 31 starts.  From age 25-30, those figures averaged 4.5 and 4.7, respectively, per 31 starts.

 

So I grabbed a list over every MLB starting pitcher in the expansion era (1961-2017) who fell in that range for age 30 (minimum 100 IP), and also for age 25-30 (minimum 600 IP, an average of 100 per year).  The range I used was plus or minus 1 WAR, and I used it across both fWAR and RA9-WAR.  So the age 30 seasons had to fall between 2.5 and 5.0 (per 31 starts) for both fWAR and RA9-WAR, and the age 25-30 seasons had to fall between 3.5 and 5.7 (per 31 starts) for both metrics too.

 

Basically, I wanted to get a gauge of quality. (I'll address quantity later.)

 

The result was a list of 32, after I excluded David Price (who only just completed his first post-30 season) and kept Verlander and Greinke where appropriate (who already have 7 post-30 seasons between them).

 

A.J. Burnett
Andy Messersmith
Bob Veale
Brad Radke
Camilo Pascual
Charles Nagy
Chris Bosio
Dave Goltz
Dennis Leonard
Don Drysdale
Erik Hanson
Fergie Jenkins
Jered Weaver
Jim Bunning
Jimmy Key
John Lackey
Justin Verlander
Kelvim Escobar
Kevin Tapani
Larry Jackson
Mark Buehrle
Pat Dobson
Rick Reuschel
Rick Wise
Roy Oswalt
Sonny Siebert
Steve Carlton
Steve Rogers
Teddy Higuera
Tommy John
Vida Blue
Zack Greinke

 

Now, I wondered, how did this group fare in their careers over the next 6 years? Here are some stats about them for that period (ages 31-36):

 

Median total fWAR: 12.25 (Lackey/Oswalt)
Median total RA9-WAR: 11.4 (Radke and Tapani!)
Median fWAR per 31 starts: 2.7 (Burnett/Buehrle)
Median RA9-WAR per 31 starts: 2.75 (Buehrle/Lackey)

 

For those wondering, only one player on this list accumulated negative WAR from 31-36 (Dave Goltz, with -0.7 RA9-WAR, although +3.3 fWAR).

 

In terms of quality, these figures look in line with my rough aging projection for Darvish, starting with 4.4 WAR per 31 GS based on his 2018 ZiPS projection, and deducting 0.8 WAR each season going forward:

 

2018: 4.4
2019: 3.6
2020: 2.8
2021: 2.0
2022: 1.2
2023: 0.4

 

That's a total of 14.4 WAR, and an average of 2.4 per year. (Would look better if you stopped at 5 years, of course: an average of 2.8 per year.)

 

There are obviously busts in this group (Jered Weaver), and success stories, but looking at the median performance results, it does appear that my rough projection passes a kind of sanity test.

 

Now, to deal with quantity -- Darvish missed roughly 2 seasons worth of starts from age 25-30. Burnett missed a comparable quantity of time, and 3 others missed roughly a season, but the other 28 on this list were pretty healthy from 25-30 (although a few were in the minors or swingmen for part of that time too).

 

However, another 7 went on to miss basically a full season by age 33 (including Tommy John himself!). So it's not clear at this point whether Darvish is really less durable than this group, or if he and AJ Burnett just had unfortunate timing to have their mid-career injuries just before 30 rather than just after. Obviously to really project health and durability, you'd probably need access to a lot of data that I don't have (and know how to analyze it!).

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I'd rather go $160m/6 than $150m/5, as it keeps the yearly investment down a bit during what *should* be competitive seasons for the team.

 

If I went five years, I'd probably bow out somewhere around $140m, at which point I'd consider taking the "easy win" and adding a sixth year.

Would you consider 7/175?  If you consider 6/160 kind of "market rate" (per MLBTR and ZiPS, anyway), it doesn't seem unreasonable to maybe tack on a little extra to actually bring him to Minnesota, does it?

 

Although if he wouldn't sign today for 6/160, after this crazy offseason, I'd really question whether he wanted to come to Minnesota at all. But he seems like a cool dude, and if he performs well out of the gate, that would probably help everybody get acclimated nicely (as opposed to the Ricky Nolasco opening gambit ).

[mazeville]

 

I'd rather go $160m/6 than $150m/5, as it keeps the yearly investment down a bit during what *should* be competitive seasons for the team.

 

If I went five years, I'd probably bow out somewhere around $140m, at which point I'd consider taking the "easy win" and adding a sixth year.

 

I agree. I'd rather go 6/$160 than 5/$150. 

 

7/$175 is actually too much. Seven years for Darvish or any pitcher is too much. Six years is questionable.

 

But I'd definitely do six years and $160 if that would get him and the other choice is 5/$150. 

 

As I said in the post that started this thread, I think the Twins should sign him even if it the cost is too high because we as fans deserve it, and they sort of owe us after all of these years. Plus it would quiet down concerns that they won't go for top starters. 

 

I doubt they do it. I'm less confident every day. But they should. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Would you consider 7/175?  If you consider 6/160 kind of "market rate" (per MLBTR and ZiPS, anyway), it doesn't seem unreasonable to maybe tack on a little extra to actually bring him to Minnesota, does it?

 

Although if he wouldn't sign today for 6/160, after this crazy offseason, I'd really question whether he wanted to come to Minnesota at all. But he seems like a cool dude, and if he performs well out of the gate, that would probably help everybody get acclimated nicely (as opposed to the Ricky Nolasco opening gambit ).

Nah, I'd probably draw the line at six years because it appears he's not going to get a comparable offer form anyone else.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I agree. I'd rather go 6/$160 than 5/$150. 

 

7/$175 is actually too much. Seven years for Darvish or any pitcher is too much. Six years is questionable.

 

But I'd definitely do six years and $160 if that would get him and the other choice is 5/$150. 

 

As I said in the post that started this thread, I think the Twins should sign him even if it the cost is too high because we as fans deserve it, and they sort of owe us after all of these years. Plus it would quiet down concerns that they won't go for top starters. 

 

I doubt they do it. I'm less confident every day. But they should. 

The sixth year is more than questionable. It's a bad idea.

 

But it's a bad idea I'd float out there if it meant Darvish was a Twin for the first 3-4 years of that contract.

 

Sometimes, you bite the bullet and offer more than you want but my personal pain threshold stops at six years.