Committing 10% of your payroll to a non-premium guy who'll throw under 4% of your innings - if he's healthy - is irresponsible.
over 2 years ago
Charlie Marlow
60 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
hoffman signing?
@keithlaw Why is it so tough to make the ‘casual fan’ understand the idiocy of the Trevor Hoffman signing? Sigh.
I wish our GM understood it.
Taking shallowness to new depths -- FtJ's blog
by Fatter than Joey on Oct 26, 2009 8:11 AM CDT reply actions
Well
I wasn’t a big fan of the Hoffman signing either, but by that logic the Brewers would still be overpaying if they paid a closer $2-3 million… (or if you divide the payroll in half between pitching and offense, $1-1.5 million)
Doesn’t work like that.
Ryan Braun: He loves it.
I don't know who Keith Law is
But I don’t know how he doesn’t understand that certain innings are a lot more important than others
yep
like the one where the bases are loaded.
by PagsBrewCrew on Oct 26, 2009 11:40 AM CDT up reply actions
Hilariously enough
Trevor Hoffman performed more poorly in those high leverage situations than did…say…Todd Coffey. There’s a metric for it, its called “Clutch”.
And Keith Law is a well-respected analyst and scout for ESPN. He used to be special assistant to the GM in Toronto.
I think trying to argue against Keith’s above quote is silly.
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Oct 26, 2009 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions
don't shoot me here
what I’m trying to say is Hoffmann will not be utilized to maximize his leverage. I’m not saying he should be either.
I’m just saying that Hoffman’s inning tends NOT to be the most important inning. As Jordan says below, it’s more important than the average inning, but it isn’t (as Don Driver claims) the most important inning on a day-to-day basis.
by PagsBrewCrew on Oct 26, 2009 12:08 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, he had the highest average leverage index on the team in 2009....
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Oct 26, 2009 12:11 PM CDT up reply actions
I understand what you're saying, though.
The real point here is that you’re paying $8M for a guy who performed worse in high leverage situations last season than all but 4 other relievers in the bullpen…yet he carries the highest pLI (average leverage index) on the team. There’s something terribly wrong with that.
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Oct 26, 2009 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions
My only issue with Keith's quote is that there's a going rate for closers.
That going rate is far too high compared to a closer’s actual value. So, if you are a middle of the road team looking to finish .500. You can afford to go with a middle of the road closer for cheap. That money is definitely best spent elsewhere. But if you want to make a push for the World Series, you need to bring in a solid #1 bullpen guy. Even if you have to overpay for it. You don’t win the world series by being frugal.
We have the money to sign 1 free agent SP and trade for another SP. I really don’t think they’ve handcuffed themselves that much by spending $7.5MM on Hoffman.
Cards Announcers On Gamel's First Career HR, "That’s all they need is another home run hitter".
Andrew Bailey sure had a good year...
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Oct 26, 2009 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions
And we had an Andrew Bailey laying around, where?
Cards Announcers On Gamel's First Career HR, "That’s all they need is another home run hitter".
Well, there were only 5 guys on the team who had a lower clutch than Hoffman did
So…take your pick, I guess?
The classic “I <3 Hoffman and I’m going to wear my Brewers Hoffman jersey and scream wildly when he gets his 600th save for the Brewers!!1” answer is "who else was going to do it? The POINT is, small market teams develop pitching internally. The Mustache thinks this is a large market, apparently, and dislikes developing pitching. Paying $8M for a closer is idiotic when you have an $80M payroll.
In addition, take a glimpse at Andrew Baileys minor league numbers. Never recorded a save. In fact he was predominantly a starter. Peripherals were OK. Nothing to write home about…at ALL. Yet this season he blew as many saves as Trevor Hoffman did. So…based on that…take your pick, I guess.
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Oct 26, 2009 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions
Here's a link to Bailey's numbers, so you won't have to dig around
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1368&position=P
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Oct 26, 2009 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions
For every Andrew Bailey there are dozens of train-wrecks. Finding a good, consistent reliever who can perform in a “save situation” (ie – not just against lefties or situational) is difficult and that’s why closers earn so much money.
That doesn’t necessarily mean they’re statistically worth what they’re paid (though let’s not forget, Hoffman was worth $7 million last year) – but unless you’re going to completely throw out the closer model of running things, where you have one guy you go to in the ninth inning – something that won’t happen anytime soon and which doesn’t necessarily have a great alternative – you need to pay for a decent guy to fill that role.
I wasn’t a huge fan of the Hoffman signing because I think there’s a good chance he’ll regress and won’t be a consistent closer next year – but to argue that it was a bad signing simply because he only pitches a certain percentage of the team’s innings completely ignores how teams are structured.
It’s also a rather disingenuous to pick one success story (Bailey, or Aardsma) and argue that its easy to find internal/cheap options to do the same job. As an example, I recall some people prior to 2009 (myself included) mentioning McClung or Villanueva as possible candidates for the closer’s role; clearly both of them had rather dismal years and would have blown a lot of games.
Ryan Braun: He loves it.
by SRB on Oct 26, 2009 5:05 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Heath Bell, Brian Wilson, Huston Street, Jonathan Papelbon, Jonathan Broxton, George Sherrill,
I think that assuming you have to pay for a closer is pretty ridiculous. They were all prospects at one point, and no one knew whether they could perform until they got the shot.
Also, fangraphs lists his value at $6.7, not $7. $7 is reserved for Chan Ho Park and Huston Street.
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Oct 26, 2009 5:27 PM CDT up reply actions
The thing is, you have to draft and develop those guys, they don’t just appear out of thin air… Who is the Brewers’ 2010 Papelbon, Todd Coffey?
Ryan Braun: He loves it.
Did you look at Bailey's minor league stats?
There’s no way you look at those stats and think “here’s a guy who’s going to close in the big leagues next season, and go 27/31”
My point is, all of you folks act like you look at a pitchers numbers and say “well, he’s got a 1.00 ERA and .50 WHIP in the minors, THAT’S the guy that will close!” That’s not how it works. And you never know what you have until you give it a shot.
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Oct 26, 2009 7:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Best closers get about 1.8 leverage
So multiply those 50 innings by 1.8, and it’s the equivalent of about 90 starter innings.
E: George 4 (5, throw, throw, throw, throw).
quick question about leverage...
does it average 1? In other words, do the total number of innings after your leverage adjustment equal the actual total number of innings pitched?
second part of the question is: do starter innings average a leverage of 1? Or is it slightly lower?
by PagsBrewCrew on Oct 26, 2009 12:10 PM CDT up reply actions
1 is leverage neutral (context neutral)
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Oct 26, 2009 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions
Starters by definition have a leverage of 1
Which is not totally clear to me, because you’d think Sabathia’s innings in 2008 when he was pitching to the ninth every game would be different than Suppan’s. But yes, leverage has to average out to 1.
E: George 4 (5, throw, throw, throw, throw).
Quality Closer = Playoff Success
The guys at BP showed that, of the variables they could quantify (“catcher grittiness” excluded), closer quality had the strongest correlation to playoff success. Incidentally, this year’s divisional series illustrated that pretty clearly – I’m guessing that the Rockies wouldn’t think that spending 8 million on Hoffman would be irresponsible. I understand that playoff success doesn’t mean sh*t unless you can get there (i.e, have enough remaining payroll to get two new starters), but I just think there are more irresponsible ways to spend money.
The Rockies had a closer who was dominant
…except for one game. Which illustrates the quote very nicely.
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Oct 26, 2009 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions
Your right, that was a bad example
The point remains, however, that quality closers are, statistically, a valuable commodity. Saying that it is irresponsible to pay a pitcher xx% of the payroll based on xx% innings thrown is too simplistic. Is Hoffman getting too much? That’s debatable. But it certainly isn’t as clear cut as some are making it.
Andrew Bailey, then?
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Oct 26, 2009 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions
Bailey has already closed for us
Except for his hair was longer and his name rhymed with Barrick Durnboe.
Imperfect analogy
I guess you don’t understand the point, though
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Oct 26, 2009 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions
I get it; I just couldn't resist.
It’s nowhere near a perfect analogy, but suggesting that it’s easy to find an Andrew Bailey is just as flawed.
Right
If you’re going to throw a minor league guy there, you could pick from Axford, Butler, Smith….. You’re probably not going to hit on the first try. You could lose 5-6 games just trying to figure out who your closer is. Those games could cost you the playoffs. With Hoffman, we know we’re getting a solid closer.
Cards Announcers On Gamel's First Career HR, "That’s all they need is another home run hitter".
by tcyoung on Oct 26, 2009 4:29 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's how small market teams have to do it
But even if Hoffman had been perfect, they’re not going to the playoffs this year. Because larger chunks of money like that are more wisely invested in starting pitching.
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Oct 26, 2009 4:33 PM CDT up reply actions
There is still enough money to sign a SP
and trade for one.
Cards Announcers On Gamel's First Career HR, "That’s all they need is another home run hitter".
Oh, ok.
Welcome back Doug Davis!
That ought to solve the problem.
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Oct 26, 2009 5:02 PM CDT up reply actions
What's your option, then?
Whether you sign Hoffman or not, the SP market is dismal either way.
Cards Announcers On Gamel's First Career HR, "That’s all they need is another home run hitter".
You're not seeing the forest for the trees, I think
Generally, $8M sitting at the back of the bullpen for a small market team is a bad idea.
In addition, free agency isn’t the only way to add salary. I’m not ‘suggesting’ anything, but $8M more to spend is most certainly $8M more to spend. Remember how everyone got so excited that Mark A made money available for the Sabathia trade? Well, as it stands now, there’s not much salary available after arb and contracts to accomplish that AND sign TWO pitchers who will actually make a difference.
Signing two middling #3 starters because they’re bound by albatrosses like Suppan and Hall, and signing Hoffman to an $8M deal forces this team with these payroll constraints to have to settle for mediocre starting pitching. Suppan and Hall’s contracts will both be up after this year, but what does that matter? Is the team going to, again, sign Hoffman for a ridiculous amount of money NEXT year, and hope to get some big FA acquisition? So…he gots $10M next year if he performs to career average? And then the team has that one year to make it to the World Series before Prince Fielder leaves? The point is there’s a narrow window—one that was created by Doug Melvin’s contractual blunders—and after that, it’ll probably be a while until you’re talking about the playoffs again.
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Oct 26, 2009 5:34 PM CDT up reply actions
Perhaps I'm abusing the stat, but...
You replace 2009 Looper and Suppan in the rotation with a couple 2009 Doug Davises and the 2009 Brewers are an 86-76 team – and that’s still with the atrocious seasons from Parra and Bush.
Ryan Braun: He loves it.
You're talking 2009 Doug Davis, yes?
Since 2010 Doug Davis will likely not sniff 2009 Doug Davis.
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Oct 26, 2009 5:35 PM CDT up reply actions
Other than the fact that he had a career year in 2009?
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Oct 26, 2009 7:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Career year?
Davis has been exceedingly consistent over most of his career. If anything, 2009 was arguably one of the worst years of his career.
Ryan Braun: He loves it.
I guess
I don’t like his BB/9, his tRA is over 6, his FIP is near 5, and his WHIP is 1.50. We’ve already got Suppan under contract next year.
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Oct 27, 2009 8:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Really the point is, you're paying for a meaningless stat, saves.
If Trevor Hoffman had zero career saves, and everything else was constant, what would he get paid? Conversely, if he had the saves he has and all his peripherals were ridiculously jacked up, what would he get paid? The answer to the first part is: significantly less than $8M. The answer to the second part is: $8M.
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Oct 26, 2009 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions
Brad Lidge
is the exception to every rule.
by richardhkirkando on Oct 26, 2009 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions
I really never bought BP's Special Sauce playoff thing
The best teams are the best teams. I guess the top 3 starters and top 2 or 3 bullpen guys would be more important to a playoff team, but I don’t know how you could explain a closer correlating with postseason success.
E: George 4 (5, throw, throw, throw, throw).
I guess you just assume all constants and look at blown saves?
Or something? But you have to remove the blown saves that the rest of the bullpen gets before the closer comes in? Or maybe you un-extrapolate ERA for the 1 inning the closer pitches?
Meh whatever.
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Oct 26, 2009 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions
I tend to agree with you.
While BP argued that closer quality was significant based on a correlation factor of like 0.2 or something (I can’t remember exactly off-hand, so please forgive me if I’m way off), but dismissed other variables as insignificant with factors between .1 and .2. In the end, .2 is .2 – just flat out hard to say it’s anywhere near significant.
sure it's ridiculous
If the closer in question isn’t Trevor Hoffman, considering the comments that Rick Peterson made after he was hired. It’s still too much for a player/coach, but if you’re going to use a guy for both you may as well give him the financial incentive to do so.
I'm not sure I follow you...
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Oct 26, 2009 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't want to put words in his mouth...
… but I think he’s suggesting that Hoffman has more value than his on field performance suggests. We all read the articles last year and the comments from players and coaches that talked about Hoffman’s professionalism, how he prepared, his presence in the clubhouse, etc. I suspect that Melvin thinks that some of the other bullpen guys (like Coffey, perhaps) wouldn’t have performed as well without Hoffman on the team because he had a positive impact on their approach and preparation.
I think that’s what he meant.
Is it true? Beats the hell out of me.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 26, 2009 5:40 PM CDT up reply actions
I think Peterson made some comments about Hoffman being like having another coach.
Cards Announcers On Gamel's First Career HR, "That’s all they need is another home run hitter".
Considering there could be as many as four relievers in the Opening Day pen next year making the minimum (or thereabouts)
Why not rephrase it as “Committing 15% of your payroll to non-premium guys who’ll throw 30% of your innings – if they’re healthy – is __________.”
Yeah, you can argue that should be 5% and win one for the little guys. But I’m not convinced the $8 million spent on Hoffman would really be spent elsewhere, all of Doug Melvin’s upcoming protestations that Milwaukee can’t compete with the big boys in free agency to the contrary. Also, I don’t think spending on Hoffman is going to be the deciding factor on any future signings/trades. With that in mind, I don’t think it’s that big a deal.
Sign Corky Miller
by TheJay on Oct 26, 2009 5:48 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, this is how I feel about it
Also, I can definitely see the weak form of the point, that for a small-market team to commit 10% of its payroll to a closer isn’t the best idea (although I don’t think it’s quite as ridiculous as is being said). However, the strong form of the argument, as presented by Keith Law, is that this is a ludicrous signing because Trevor Hoffman isn’t even a good closer. (To wit, in his web chat, he said, apropos of nothing, “10% or more of the team’s payroll for a one-inning closer, and not a good one?” That, I think, is a poor argument. Trevor Hoffman probably isn’t worth $8 million, and maybe a small market team shouldn’t pay any closer $8 million, but I think it’s ridiculous to suggest he’s not a good closer, and isn’t worth a multi-million dollar contract.
And then you can go into the arguments about the intangibles, influence he has on the pitching staff, etc. I usually dismiss these arguments, but Hoffman definitely has had some sort of effect on the staff, as evidenced by the comments from Peterson, McClung, etc., and I’m much more okay with using the intangibles argument to justify an extra few million dollars in a one year deal than justifying an multi-year, 8-figure deal, which seems to happen more often.
Brewers Baseball and other assorted nonsense (mostly the assorted nonsense) at my blog, What's a Tararrel?
question about pitcher values though
If hoffman was worth 6.7M last season, how much was the TEAM worth? How much does the team cost? If you’re paying him more than he’s worth for next season and last season he was worth more than you paid him, don’t you make your team worse off by overpaying him? Especially when we still have players on the payroll that are guaranteed (Hall) or near-guaranteed (Suppan) to be worth much less than we’re paying them.
I guess the issue isn’t that we’re paying Hoff 10% of the TOTAL salary for 4% of the innings pitched, but ~15% of the available salary (note, I didn’t look up the “dead weight” players’ salaries) for 2% of the time played. But yeah…he’s worth more to the team than just 2% of the time obviously…but how much more?
Sorry for the ramble.
The Fangraphs value numbers are a pretty good indicator of what a team would pay on the free-agent market
on a 1-year deal for the production the player gave. So it about works out for last year. If that answers your first question. The fangraphs values intentionally “overpay” players that haven’t reached free agent status yet.
E: George 4 (5, throw, throw, throw, throw).
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
NL Central Standings
| W | L | PCT | GB | STRK | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chicago
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Cincinnati
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Houston
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Milwaukee
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Pittsburgh
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
St. Louis
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
(updated 2.13.2012 at 7:02 AM CST)
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
