Click-Bait Worthy MLB Predictions pt.2

A Visit to the Mound

Baseball fans over-analyzing an over-analyzed game

But Coach, I only sent that pic to one girl.

A Visit to the Mound is regularly updated series of emails touching on a wide range of baseball subjects. 

Uncle Bones

To me, saying that baseball should have LESS playoff teams because you want to see the 2 teams with the best record in the World Series is kinda like arguing that gay marriage should be illegal because being attracted to a person of the same sex might be contagious and that the science is still out on that one because no one has done the research yet. In other words, its absurd. Its also like saying that there are too many billboards at the stadiums as if teams shouldn't be trying to maximize their returns at every opportunity.

Let me remind you and anyone who might read this that the MLB season is 162 games long with each team playing 81 home games. Its not easy work getting butts in those seats and eyes on those games day in day out. Going to a baseball game is not an inexpensive proposition and sitting through 162 3 1/2-4 hour baseball games on TV is no treat either, ESPECIALLY when you are watching a team that is either not competitive or not competitive enough so for a shot at the post season.

This is compounded when you think about how regional of a sport baseball is. Yes, the Yankees, Red Sox, and to an extent the Braves have done a great job at expanding their national appeal, but very few people outside of Houston are Astros fans. Same goes for the Royals, Rays, Rockies, Marlins, etc. The longer into the season fans of these teams are able to stay engaged in their team the better. Not only is it the best thing for business, but its the best things for the fans relationships with those teams.

Our defending American League Champion Kansas City Royals are a prime example of this. Before our time the Royals were often considered the AAAA team for the New York Yankees as so much of their talent wound up in NY before it had a chance to win in Kansas City. Then they held on to players in the '80's (when baseball put in ALCS & NLCS) and won, but then in our lifetime we say the same thing happen again. Carlos Betran, Johnny Damon, Zack Grienke, the list goes on, shipped out of town because the Royals didn't want to spend the money on players when they weren't going to compete. Then what happened in 2014? Bolstered by a trade that brought in Major League talent, the Royals hung in it all the way to end, got hot in the playoffs and the rest his history. If there was not 2 Wild Card spots and maybe only 2 teams from each league made the team then Shields would have been dealt and the Royals would have been rebuilding again.

More playoff spots means more teams in contention, more eyes on the product and more fans maintaining an interest year after year. Seems like a smart strategy for a sport that has an average fan base the sits right around the mid 50's. But here's a question for you. Right now MLB has 5-ish playoff spot per league. Too many to some, but still much less than the NBA or NHL and only 1 less that the NFL. How many playoff teams is too man? Sure long term fan engagement is great, but how excited are most fans when their team locks down the 8-seed in the NBA? I tend to follow a lot of Boston media and some folks are wondering whats up with the Celtics approaching the 8-seed in the East. I know the Celts are rebuilding, but is it that bad that the team might be ahead of its time frame? And does sending half of the conferences' team to the playoffs cheapen the whole experience?

Josh

As a lifelong hockey fan, I can say throwing 16 teams in the playoff mix is nothing short of awesome. It differs from the NBA in the sense that low seeds regularly have a chance. Bottom seeds have made it to the cup, and won it. But hockey is different, they've had multiple teams come back from a 3-0 series deficit in the playoffs.  Remember when the Red Sox did that it was a huge story, but it actually has happened in hockey enough to the point where it's a fun story, not a monumental one.  

That said, the length of baseball games doesn't lend itself to more playoff games.  I love a good 5 hour late october slog as much as any baseball stalwart, but that doesnt play to the casual fan. Plus when your team is in the playoffs, it's a different vibe sport to sport.  Overtime hockey is, in my opinion, the only thing that matches the anxiety, dread, and excitement  of late inning playoff baseball. Baseball's "slowness" just lends itself to heightened wonder and anxious pacing in the playoffs.  The "slow" moments are building up to one moment where everything can change (Cue Don Henley's "in a new york munute...oohh we wooo...) If the Red Sox had to play MORE games in October, do you really think you could stomach that?  Probably, but you might have some explaining to do when you walk into work the next day wearing one shoe and 3 day scruff going.  

In regards to your Shields comment, did the pundits who bashed the Royals for that trade ever double back on their words?  Or did they just slink away like the guy who starts a fight and lets his friends finish it?  The whole argument against it was the years of control of Wil Myers.....who the Rays recently traded. That trade proved to me that snap judgments on organizational moves are good for sound bites and tweet headlines in the 24 news cycle, but they take years to play out and truly evaluate.  

Uncle Bones

The fact that baseball has only had 1 team to come back from a 3-0 deficit in a playoff series says two things. One of which being that there just haven't been nearly the same number of playoff series that hockey and basketball have seen. And two, the difference between good teams and good enough teams is probably pretty wide.

Now imagine if 8 teams from BOTH the National League and the American League made the playoffs in 2014. How excited are you right now thinking about a 5 game series between the Angels and the Yankees and the Nationals and the Mets. That's right, both NY teams would have made the playoffs as 8 cedes and both teams would have gotten snuffed out like a spider in a day care. And if that's not bad enough consider that the 7 & 8 cedes in the NL both would have had a 79-83 record. All that to add another week and a half to a season that already ends in early November. Eck...

I do think its funny that you brought up having a rooting interest in October baseball. I remember in September of 2013 as the Red Sox marched towards the playoffs thinking about how my life was about to change in ways I wasn't prepared for in the next month. Sure enough, there I was arguing with strangers about the proper application of runner interference & texting you to discuss the Sox bullpen situation while at my wife's birthday dinner. October baseball does things to me and not all of them are good.

As far as grading trades go, talking heads gotta make noise (its why they're there), but its impossible to grade a trade when it happens, 24 hours after it happens, a whole year after it happens. Baseball is the ultimate long game. Its one of the reasons why advance stats took hold here first. There are a lot of games and players can spend a lot of time in an organization. So while its tempting, and some times necessary (if its your job) to pass judgement on a single transaction moments after it happens everyone knows you're just talking to be heard.

Now for fun, almost 3 years later tell me who won this trade:

Red Sox acquire Allen Webster, Ruby De La Rosa, Ivan DeJesus Jr., Jerry Sands & James Loney

Dodgers acquire Adrian Gonzales, Carl Crawford, Josh Beckett & Nick Punto

Red Sox also sent $12 million. 

Who won? 

Part 3 

ICYM pt.1

Max Scherzer, James Shields and The Buyer's Market

Oh, uhh... hmm.

Its mid January, two weeks away from the Super Bowl and the MLB Hot Stove has ground to a halt. Normally this wouldn't be much of a problem, except this year 2 of the top 3 starting pitchers available remain without teams or contracts. This sort of "closing time" shenanigans are normally reserved for the Ervin Santana's of the world and not a former Cy Young winner or a 3.50 ERA, innings machine staff leader. So lets take a look at what has happened so far to Max Scherzer and James Shields, and see if we can figure out what to expect going forward.

How did we get here?

For Max Scherzer we need to start with the reported 6 year $150 mil or so contract offer that he turned down back in Spring Training of last year. As usual, the Detroit Tigers made a very competitive offer to one of their own. Had the Red Sox offered anything near that to Jon Lester in March of last year, they'd be no 'Cespedes for the Rest of Us' or 'Hello Mr. Rick Porcello'. All the same, its kind of hard to blame Scherzer for wanting to test free agency. Detroit was his 2nd organization so he was already used to the idea of forwarding his mail to a new city, and since Cy Young winners in their prime don't hit free agency every year Scherzer seemed a solid bet to surpass Detroit's offer. To his part, Scherzer posted a 127 ERA+ with a career high in strike-outs at 252 and innings with 220.1 in 2014. Something any team would want.

That's all well and good, but none of this has provided the seemingly near guarantee that Max's grandchildren will be able to send their kids to college by way of the Scherzer Trust. Part of the problem here is that when a player and his agent let a number like $200 mil start floating around, the market for that player's services becomes very limited. Take for example the current market setter Jon Lester. He wound up with that 6 year $150ish contract that Scherzer originally turned down and he really only had 4 potential and 2 practical suitors.

You would think that the teams in on Lester would also be in on Scherzer considering the numbers and the need, but it really hasn't turned out that way. The peripheral suitors of the Dodgers and the Giants have not been meaningfully linked to Scherzer and it makes a lot of sense. Signing a 30 year old pitcher for 6 years at $25 mil plus per year does not seem like a Andrew Friedman kind of thing to do and certainly doesn't fit into the way the Dodgers have gone about business this offseason. Similarly, that kind of signing doesn't remotely fit into the way the Giants go about building their teams, and its REAL HARD to argue with their results. The Cubs? Forget it. They already got their guy and a lot of factors went into all of that. And if the Red Sox weren't willing to go above 6yr/$140 for their 'own' guy then Scherzer at anything above that just isn't going to happen. John Henry loves his actuaries and since he signs the checks no pitcher over 30 is getting that kind of money.

Traditionally, the elephant in the room when it comes to big free agent signings has always been the New York Yankees. I'm sure that Scott Boras looked at the '14-'15 offseason and saw the Yankees as at least one of Scherzer's potential suitors. Unfortunately, for Boras, Scherzer and Scherzer's great-grandkids it hasn't panned out that way so far. Even with a rotation full of question marks, the Yankees seem to be pretty quiet on Mad Max. 

The Yankees reluctance to dive in head first on Scherzer make a lot of sense when you look at the whole picture of their current situation. Their payroll heading into this season is at nearly $212 mil which is right around twice that of the MLB average and well above the current luxury tax threshold. (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/?team=NYA) And while the Yankees financial commitments fall off pretty quickly in the next few years, most of Brian Cashman's moves this offseason have been geared towards making the Yankees a younger and more flexible team (Credit where credit is due; Cashman is a very good GM). It just doesn't make a ton of sense considering the rest of the Yankees' offseason that they would get involved in another long term, high priced commitment to a player on the wrong side of 30.

While James Shields did not have an opportunity to turn down a contract as lucrative as the one Scherzer spurned, he does face a very similar situation. Early in the offseason, the talk was that once Lester signed, Shields would find a home shortly there afterwards. That never panned out as Shields's team has floated a 5yr/$100mil expectation which wouldn't seem bad for a pitcher of his pedigree if he wasn't entering his age 33 season. Few of the Scherzer suitors have been seriously linked to Shields at those kind of numbers, although a mystery team (Houston Astros???) has reportedly put a 5/$110 offer on the table. For an in depth look at the James Shields market take a look at The Curious Case of James Shields post that I wrote back in December.

As if the obvious and reported on factors of the 2014-2015 offseason weren't enough to cloud the prospects of both Scherzer and Shields, there are other elements at play here that have created a very unfavorable buyer's market for these two free agents. One issue that both of these players are facing right now is the increasingly understood reality around baseball that paying a player, especially a pitcher big time money into their mid 30's rarely pans out in the best interest of the team. The Red Sox live and die by this strategy. Piggybacking off of that is general downward trend of offense that has been happening league wide. Sure, everyone wants a shutdown 'ace', but with the league average ERA having dipped below 4.00 for the first time since 1992 you don't have to shell out huge bucks for a pitcher who is just above average. (www.fangraphs.com) If you have the time take a look at baseball-reference.com's pitching top 10s and see how many of those pitchers are either still on their rookie contracts, arbitration eligible or signed to very team friendly contracts. Also, for shits and giggles ask yourself how many of those pitchers are over 30 vs. under 30 and then drop me a comment telling me how badly you want your team to pay Scherzer or Shields $25 mil when they are 36.

But, but, but wait it gets worse! While these 2 high pedigree pitchers north of 30 are searching for the right matches, take a look at the free agent pitcher class coming in the 2015-16 offseason. First up is Johnny Cueto who is coming of a season where he threw 243.2 innings to a 160 ERA+ and 242 Ks. BTW, he will be 30 in the 2016 season. Next is Jordan Zimmerman who owns a career 120+ ERA (slightly better career wise than Scherzer) and will also be 30 in 2016. Similarly Doug Fister hits free agency next year with a career 120+ ERA, but will be 32 in 2016, which is eerily similar to Shields if you pretend for a second that Shields hasn't been good for 200+ innings for 8 straight years. How about David Price? 31 years old in 2016 and the owner of a career 121 ERA+ and a Cy Young, but in 2014 between 2 team he threw nearly 250 innings with 271 K's. Oh, and we can't forget about Jeff Samardzija. While his career numbers aren't all that spectacular he has thrown for over 200 innings and 200 K's the last 2 years and will be 31 in the 2016 season. In addition to these topish level 30ish pitchers the following very solid to up and coming options will also be hitting the market: Rick Porcello (27), Mike Leake (28), Mat Latos (28), Hisashi Iwakuma (35), Yovani Golardo (30), Ian Kennedy (31) and Wei-Yen Chen (30). Not to mention a few former Cy Young winners in Tim Lincecum (32) and R.A. Dickey (41) and quite possibly Zack Greinke(32). Considering the shear glut of option on the horizon, its not hard to see why teams might be reluctant to shell out $200 mil to a guy like Max Scherzer when pitchers of very similar projections are about to flood the market and drive down prices.

What can we expect now?

The reality of this new buyer's market has to be setting in with both the Scherzer and Shields camps. What will be interesting to see is how each of these players respond to this new reality. By now you've probably heard the "Pillow Contract" talk that has surfaced around both these players, but don't buy into that idea. Shields is too old (only in baseball player terms) to be taking on a 1 year deal in hopes of re-establishing his value, while Scherzer won't be doing himself any favors by joining the free agent crowd next offseason.

So, its really going to come down to exactly what each one of these players want to get out of the remaining years of the baseball careers. You will never read a negative word here about a player who chose to take all the money he could when it was available. Baseball players have very short careers relative to the rest of us and when your skills are worth tens of millions of dollars you have every right to cash in on it while you can. But if that was really the case, then you would have to think that James Shields would have already jumped all over that 5yr/$110 that we all heard to much about. 

Lets be real, both these players have been winners for much of their careers and they know the value of that.  Both Scherzer and Shields are in line to make more money than they could ever spend regardless of where they wind up so why wouldn't they want to join a team that gave them the best chance to win. The contenders that we already mentioned (Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Giants, and Cubs) aren't likely to offer the kind of money both of these players are looking for. So we are left with a few other teams that could stretch to spend the money needed, but its unclear exactly how far these teams might go, Included in this group are the Blue Jays, Tigers (Scherzer's got a bit of history there), Angels (stretched pretty far already) and the Cardinals (we've all heard it, but I don't buy it). 

While both of these players might be able to get close to the money they are looking for from teams like the Astros or Diamondbacks, they may be looking for more than just a paycheck. For Shields to go to a team with a consistent shot at winning he may need to look for a contact more in the 3yr/$60mil area. For Scherzer to play for a contender he could certainly land a Cliff Lee like 5yr/$125-6/$150 or slightly more to basically choose where he wants to play for the next 5-6 years. Even though both their agents want to deliver headline grabbing type of numbers, don't underestimate the value of working someplace that you enjoy. When you are already talking about making more money than you can spend in one lifetime, I would think that the value of enjoying your career would mean even more. Then again I make less money in a year than these guys make in a game so its hard to fully understand what shapes their decision making.

For the sake of pure speculation, I'll throw down a few guesses here. I still think that Max Scherzer will sign with the Houston Astros to the tune of about 6yrs/$165mil with options. Boras won't allow him to sign for anything less that Lester and the Astros have money to spend and are closer than people think. Shield I think will take something close to that 3yr/$60mil to play for a contender. If that's his number then the Cubs, Red Sox, Giants, Yankees, Tigers, Blue Jays and even Dodgers are definitely in the picture and will provide him with the opportunity to win every year. Otherwise he can take all the money he can and go to Arizona and hate the game for the last few years of his career.

Neither of these gentlemen have easy decisions in front of them. The money they want is out there, but they certainly have to weigh the value of winning in the equation. Some guys are perfectly fine to punch the clock, collect their check and go home, but most baseball players aren't wire that way. After all, Andrew Miller went on record as saying he felt like it was his duty to get the biggest payday he could. Well, as you may have hear he turned down bigger money from the Astros to go to the Yankees. Miller knew he would make his money one way or another, but he chose the chance to win above all else. If Scherzer and Shields feel the same way then we may have a few more surprises left in the Hot Stove season.

The Curious Case of James Shields

James Shields in 2010 being informed his next World Series appearance would be with the Royals.

Let me start out by saying that I have almost no idea where James Shields will be playing baseball in 2015 or at what sort of price tag. What I do know is that no one else seems to really know either. But I love me some spec-u-latin', so here we go.

Here is what we do know. James Shields is a 32 year old pitcher with a career 111 ERA+ to his name. In his 9 years of Major League service Shields has gone over 200 innings every year in the last 8. He has been remarkably durable and consistent, minus a tough stretch with the Rays during the 09-10 seasons where for the only time in his career his FIP was over 4.00. The last 3 years however, Shields has posted a FIP around 3.50 while pitching for 2 different teams. He has clearly figured something out.

Also, there are those intangibles that we all simply have to take other people's word for. Like the much maligned "Big Game" James nicknamed battered about this postseason. But by most accounts Shields is a strong leader in the clubhouse and of a pitching staff. He is known as a "bulldog" out there on the mound which could mean anything from his general demeanor to that he has a hard time breathing due to a stubby nostril cavity and farts a lot because of it (his nose really isn't all that stubby, at least from pictures I have seen). Anyway, those intangibles are kinda worthless to me in trying to figure out exactly what team will pay how much to put its uniform on him.

What I do know is that there is plenty of reluctance out there to hand an about to be 33 year old pitcher a 5 year contract over a $100 mil which is the number I seem to be reading a lot recently. Most pitchers receiving contracts of that size are under the age of 30 which Shields is rapidly putting in his rear view mirror. Even if some of those under 30 pitchers do not have the same kind of track record that Shields has to his name (Homer Bailey, I'm talking about you).

One interesting comp for age and contract expectations is the deal the Phillies handed Cliff Lee in 2010. At the time we were to understand that Lee took an under market deal to go to Philly because he liked the city and the team (it is a nice city). As if a contract of 5 years at $120mil is somehow under market... but Lee was 32 at the time coming of great run with the Rangers and with a Cy Young under his belt. And for the most part Lee has lived up to his end of the deal with 3 very good years with the Phillies with 2014's injury plagued season fresh in people's minds. Lee hasn't helped the Phillies contend those years, but he sure isn't the reason why they are where they are today.

However, James Shields is not necessary Cliff Lee. Lee's career ERA+ of 118 is largely held down by his first 6 years in the league when he was slightly better than average overall, but since his Cy Young in 2008 he has been a straight beast while on a barnstorming tour of country. Shields just hasn't been THAT good. And it would seem to me if anyone one could qualify as an "ace" it would be Lee. Shields is not at that level. He's just a tick below.

So where does that leave us? It may be worthwhile to examine the potential suitors for Shields. The teams that most commonly come up are the Dodgers (in on everybody), RedSox (people believe they need more pitching), Giants (FA spurned World Series Champs), and the Yankees (so many reasons). RedSox and (new) Dodger management don't seem like the types to be paying $20+mil per year to pitchers who will eventually be 37. If he winds up with either of those teams it will be something closer to 3yrs/$70, which still seems unlikely. I don't buy the Giants paying any more than the RedSox or Dodgers, because even though they could use a guy like Shields, they sure don't need him. The Yankees? I don't know, its possibe, but if they were going to spend big on a pitcher it seems like Scherzer would be their guy. Plus don't underestimate Brian Cashman's position here. He's got a major rebuilding process ahead of him and I'm sure he's actually pretty excited for the opportunity. Paying aging pitchers lots of money won't dig the Yankees out the hole they are in and Cashman knows it.

So for the kind of money Shields is reportedly seeking we may need to look at the fringe candidates. The Texas Rangers could be a possibility, but may be a little gun shy of FA's with recent experiences with Shin Soo Choo and Prince Fielder (traded I know, but the point is there). There's no way Padres are really serious on this one. The Angel are out there, but they have a lot of financial commitments already on the books. I see the Marlins possibly getting involved, but at that price its a question. Now the Tigers might be a stealth team in this if they miss out on Scherzer. They could use some more quality, proven pitching to keep up in the AL Central and ownership is more than willing to spend when needed. 

Another team that keeps coming up for me is the Houston Astros. I know it seems crazy, but how different of a position are the Astros in now from where the Nationals were when they were willing to give Jason Werth that big money deal in 2011. A team rich in prospects that no one saw coming giving an "over market" contract to attract a big name FA. Werth has delivered and the Nats are contenders. Its an eerily similar situation. (I've got more to say about the Astros later)

If Shields wants the money and the years its probably going to come from an up and coming team who has to pay extra to attract players. If we wants to win with an established team, he may need to take fewer years, but the price per year will likely be around the same. However, the prospect of leading a rising team to the promise-land while being paid a truckload of money to do it may be just the kind of thing that gets "Big Game" James going.