In the wake of the Twins' quick exit from the playoffs last year, as I prepared myself for the offseason by looking through the team's financial particulars, I came to one clear conclusion: "The Twins would be insane to bring back Matt Capps."
In my blog post discussing the subject, I surmised that the Twins and arbitrators would overemphasize the value of Capps' saves, comparing him to other closers with similar totals. I concluded that "it's not hard to imagine Capps at least doubling his $3.5 million salary in 2011."
Of course, there was little doubt that the Twins would be bringing back Capps. They obviously overvalue the heck out of him, otherwise they wouldn't have traded away a top prospect to have him come in and close when they already had a guy who was adequately handling the job.
So I wasn't at all surprised when I heard that the Twins had tendered Capps a contract at the early-December deadline. The decision created a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach that kept growing and growing until the inevitable news came through yesterday: the Twins and the arbitration-eligible Capps have agreed on a one-year, $7.15 million deal.
In justifying the move on ESPN 1500 yesterday afternoon, after Phil Mackey astutely pointed out that the team could have kept two of its other departed relievers by not tendering Capps a contract, general manager Bill Smith said that the Twins want a good closing option should Joe Nathan be unable to fill the role. As if Capps -- who was non-tendered by the Pirates following a terrible campaign just a year ago -- is all that different of a pitcher from Jesse Crain ($4M next year), or Jon Rauch ($3.5M).
The Twins are talking out of both sides of their mouths with regards to Nathan. On the one hand they claim that they're very optimistic about his recovery, to the point where they apparently won't carry any trustworthy setup men other than Capps and Mijares. On the other hand, they're spending over $7 million on insurance at the closer position, where they've already got $11.25 million invested in what has been illuminated as a mistake of a contract. (I was on board with that extension myself at the time, but let's face it, losing Nathan had virtually no effect on the team's outcome last year.)
Meanwhile they refuse to spend $5.8 million -- the amount in J.J. Hardy's new one-year deal with the Orioles -- on insurance at shortstop. Even if you don't think Hardy should start, he's a drastically better backup plan than anything they have and it seems at least as risky to count on the perpetually underachieving Alexi Casilla to be a competent starting shortstop as it does to count on Nathan to close.
In what world is closer a more valuable and irreplaceable position than starting shortstop? And how would the Twins not be more aware of this than anyone? They've cycled through bad shortstops faster than the Vikings go through quarterbacks over the past decade but they've had no trouble turning solid setup men like Eddie Guardado and Nathan into All-Star closers.
What's that saying about insanity and trying the same thing over and over again while expecting different results?
37 comments:
Spot. On.
I got here via a retweet from Rob Neyer -- good stuff.
Well. Crain wreck could cost a game with one pitch and often did last year. Rauch developed a dead arm and despite his size, didn't throw very hard. He usually gave up at least a hit an innning. He seemed to flame out so the Capps deal was made. Capps is a tough guy with a great closer mentality. Those guys don't grow on trees.
I think you really don't know much about baseball. You should give up your blog and go sell insurance. You are a natural insurance salesman, always expecting a disater.
Capps converted 42 of 48 save opportunities for the Twins and Nationals last season, posting a 2.47 ERA.
Much better than other stars getting paid more.
I'll say it again but the average conversion rate for saves in the league is around 85%. Capps has converted saves right around that for his career. So Capps is right average at best. For those who love to point out his 2010 ERA, don't forget his '09 ERA was 5.09. He's the very definition of average and replaceable. Rauch converted saves at the same rate as Capps. He would have cost half of what Capps did. For a team whose bullpen has been decimated, and who has refused to acknowledge its shortcomings from last year's palyoff debacle (and the previous 4 playoff debacles), that cash would have been much better spent elsewhere. It's a terrible signing, and one that speaks to the increasingly obvious reality that this front office is incompetent in managing the larger payroll that Target Field has afforded.
People are optimistic about the payroll flexibility we will have in 2012 with some salaries coming off the books, but this front office gives me no confidence whatsoever that the money will be spent wisely.
"In what world is closer a more valuable and irreplaceable position than starting shortstop?"
None, but we're talking about a backup shortstop versus a setup man. Now which is more valuable? Especially when Hardy has no speed and no position flexibility for a bench that includes Jim Thome. And since when were we told that it was a choice between Hardy and Capps? Yes, the salary is similar, but the Twins could have traded away any number of players instead of Hardy. Plus, the Twins have former first-round pick Trevor Plouffe in AAA, and he's as ready as he's going to be to play SS in the majors. Plus, Nishioka has not been ruled out yet as a SS, so there are other options. I'm sure trading for Capps and re-signing him is all about Gardy not being able to trust Rauch or other players who haven't been closers in the past.
Again, you are completely over-valuing JJ Hardy, I think the Twins overpaid for Capps to. But you can't point out Capps campaign with the Pirates and not point out the fact that Hardy was sent to the minors that same year for ineffectiveness.
Hardy is great defensively, we know that Nick. Alexi is a damn fine defensive SS as well.
Hardy gave this team next to nothing on offense: a meager 93 OPS+, zero speed on the bags resulting into more base-cloggers, a very low OBP and he only managed to hit 6 HR's. Meanwhile he managed to miss over 1/3rd of the season with various injuries.
Short Sample size I know, but Alexi gave them a 97 OPS+ and speed on the base paths. I see no reason why Alexi can't post a 90-95 OPS+ next year while giving the team good D at short.
Again, nobody is going to disagree with you that 7.15 million for Capps is on over pay (By about 1.5 mil or so)
Stop making everything about JJ Hardy, the team isn't going to miss him offensively and the decline in defense will be much smaller then the chicken little scenario makes it out to be.
While it is understandable that there should be some anger about this deal, I think people have to relax a bit and consider the fact that the Nathan situation (like the Morneau situation) requires some contingency planning. A. If Nathan struggles or is re-injured, you have a true closer to close for you. B. If Nathan is fine, then you have an excellent setup man who *can be traded midseason* to those teams who will inevitably need a closer or a setup man (given any number of possible injuries).
None, but we're talking about a backup shortstop versus a setup man. Now which is more valuable?
When you can get a similar setup man for half the price you actually spent, and when the backup shortstop actually happened to be one of the best in the AL at his position last year, I'll opt to go cheaper in the bullpen. The Twins are going to need someone other than Casilla to spend a lot of time at SS this season because either he or Nishioka (very possibly both) is going to get hurt or struggle. If you trust Plouffe, more power to you. I don't.
Hardy is great defensively, we know that Nick. Alexi is a damn fine defensive SS as well.
No he's not.
No he's not.
Whoa! You showed me, what a great and well articulated rebuttal.
Care to expand on that thought?
When I watch him play I see a kid with great range, and a good arm. The one knock he has received is he can get a bit lackadaisical at times on backing plays up etc, however I think he has matured enough to put that behind him.
Also a quick check on his UZR/150 at SS shows he has a career 25.7 at the position, including a 27.0 last year.
So in addition to passing the eye test at SS for me, he passes the saber test as well. (Even if the sample size is rather small, though it still comes in as positive)
"None, but we're talking about a backup shortstop versus a setup man"
I think Nick was speaking hypothetically here because if hardy was on the team hed without a doubt be the best option to start.
"Short Sample size I know, but Alexi gave them a 97 OPS+ and speed on the base paths. I see no reason why Alexi can't post a 90-95 OPS+ next year while giving the team good D at short."
Why dont we glance at a larger sample size. In his 1073 PA career hes posted a career line of 249/306/327 good for an OPS+ of 71. He has a career 306 obp is quite a bit lower than hardys career 323 obp which you described as "very low". So if you dont seen any reason why he cant produce a career batting line over an entire season, even though hes never done it before and most of his career statistics indicate that hes a horrible player, I dont think youre looking hard enough.
"In what world is closer a more valuable and irreplaceable position than starting shortstop?"
People believe this because they think because the closer pitches high leverage innings late in games that the difference between and elite and very good pitcher is some unreasonable number like 10 games. This isnt the case and theres a boat load of evidence and simple analysis that supports this claim, but lots of organization believe in the specialness of a closer. And if any organization is going to blindly believe in something it will be the twins.
Shane,
I would MUCH rather see the Twins spent 7 mil on a contingency plan for Morneau than Nathan. As I mentioned before, closer is a fairly replaceable position - Capps is around or slightly below league average for save percentage. So was Rauch, so would have been Crain, Guerrier, etc.
The Twins' backup plan for Morneau is Mikey Cuddyer, who is far below average both defensively and offensively at 1B. That the Twins would put 7 mil into an average backup plan at a very replaceable position but have no contingency for a guy at a premium offensive position who cannot stay healthy for a full season, whose contingency for their fragile 23-mil/yr superstar (after trading 2 players with at least modest offensive skills) is the worst hitter in baseball, and who decides to sacrifice defense for "speed" at a premium defensive position while maintaining one of the slowest outfields in the league - well let's just say it makes you wonder.
I think it comes down to the fact that JJ Hardy just isn't that good of a player.
For the second off-season in a row he was traded for a very marginal return (Gomez in 2009 and a couple minor league arms who won't crack the Twins top 30 prospects in 2010)
The fact that both teams that traded him have good and well regarded G.M.s speaks volumes about JJ Hardy's true value.
VodkaDave - I agree that Nick somewhat overvalues Hardy, he's entitled to that opinion. But do you seriously think that we're better off with Casilla at shortstop? I sure don't.
I don't think we are better off, I just don't think its the huge disaster some are making it out to be.
Man Vodka dave, these stats you are using have completely unusable sample sizes. He had 59 plays at SS last year and you think its responsible to list a UZR/150? Did you know that doug mientkiewicz has a UZR/150 of 22.6 at 2b? I know, I know, small sample size but still. He's got a much large sample at 2b that says hes an awful defender. UZR does peg him as a solid 2010 defender but making judgments about a players defense based UZR using a tiny sample from 1 season is foolish. Other advanced metrics like +/- list him as a pretty non discript defender. Youd have to use very shaky statistics to quantify casilla as a damn fine defensive player.
"When I watch him play I see a kid with great range, and a good arm." An initial eye test gives you no actual perspective on range. What you should have said is when ive watched him play hes made a lot of flashy plays, and flashy plays are a good indicator of strong defense. The eye test is stupid.
The twins infield should concern twins fans. Casillas ceiling is an average middle infielder and hes never shown he can consistently perform anywhere near that modest level. No one knows anything about nishioka but the list of good middle infielders to come from japan is extremely short. Id guess hes more likely to be bad than he is to be average. Valencia is going to regress because his babip was very fluky last year. Im sure not all of these players will be bad, but its exceptionally likely at least one is, and for backups we have tolbert and plouffe. If a lot of things go right i think this infield has a chance to be average, but id say theres a stronger chance they are one of the leagues worst, and there is no depth at these positions if things go bad.
The twins infield should concern twins fans. Casillas ceiling is an average middle infielder and hes never shown he can consistently perform anywhere near that modest level. No one knows anything about nishioka but the list of good middle infielders to come from japan is extremely short. Id guess hes more likely to be bad than he is to be average. Valencia is going to regress because his babip was very fluky last year. Im sure not all of these players will be bad, but its exceptionally likely at least one is, and for backups we have tolbert and plouffe. If a lot of things go right i think this infield has a chance to be average, but id say theres a stronger chance they are one of the leagues worst, and there is no depth at these positions if things go bad.
Nailed it.
I think it comes down to the fact that JJ Hardy just isn't that good of a player.
Look, there's just not any question that Hardy is a really talented shortstop. He was a high draft pick, a top prospect coming up, and by his third year in the majors he was one of the league's best at his position.
I don't know what happened to him in '09, but he's still only 28 and he showed signs of bouncing back last year, especially after putting his wrist issues behind him in the second half.
I agree that MLB general managers don't seem to value Hardy all that much, but plenty of baseball teams undervalue players all the time and overvalue even more.
You people crack me up. You act like its your money that the Twins are spending. Nick, you are such a downer.Ed devalues closers. Well, Ed, the whole of baseball values them highly. So your opinion is worthless.
To see how Nick mourns Hardy is really kind of weird.
a)Nish/Casilla will not be a step down from Hardy/Hudson/Plouffe/Tolbert/Harris/Cuddy and whoever else played there last season. Nick-are you really JJ Hardy?
b)Relievers are dime a dozen. Rauch was losing confidence fast when Capps was obtained, but the difference between Capps and Rauch was probably 1, maybe 2 wins.
c)Capps was probably signed because it would be hard to part with your top prospect for a half-season with a guy that really didn't change things at all.
d)There is already a contigency plan for Morneau...his name is Cuddy.
e)Bill Smith has made some really questionable decisions over the years. If it were me (assuming I inherited his mess with prior contracts), I would've let Hudson and Hardy go, avoided Nish, got Infante from the Braves, let Casilla/Infante fill the middle, resigned Crain, Rauch, Guerrier and Capps, let Thome go, and resigned Kubel. Then, next year, adios to Cuddy and Nathan.
Word, Nick. Nice work. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go cry a little.
I'm going to channel my inner Nick here, and respond to VodkaDave about Casilla's defensive potential at SS: Obviously, 233 innings at SS at the MLB level is not enough to make an informed decision about Casilla's ability at short. However, he has played almost 2000 innings at 2B and, according to every system to evaluate defense, has been pretty terrible at it. He's below average according to Total Zone Rating, BIS, Ultimate Zone Rating. Even his .975 fielding percentage is well below average for 2B if you don't trust advanced defensive metrics, as 2B fielded at a .984 rate in the AL last year.
So what, if anything, leads you to believe that Casilla could possibly handle a harder position than 2B?
An initial eye test gives you no actual perspective on range. What you should have said is when ive watched him play hes made a lot of flashy plays, and flashy plays are a good indicator of strong defense. The eye test is stupid.
It has nothing to do with flashy plays, you are making a lazy assumption that I am one of those people who thinks Jeter is a good fielder because of his jump throws etc.
And yes, when you watch as much baseball as many of us do you can definitely use an eye test to determine range and arm.
Couple that with the fact that the Twins are absolute sticklers for defense, do you think they would give Alexi the starting SS job if they weren't completely confident he could handle it defensively?
Offensively it's another story with Twins management, but when it comes to defense it is often their way or the highway.
Nick:
It's simply a case of some people completing over valuing Hardy by looking back on his two nice seasons from 3 years ago. Whether it's injury, pitchers figuring him out or just overall regression he just isn't that player anymore.
Since his 2008 campaign his Iso has fallen from .195 to .128 to .126, couple that with the fact he has a poor OBP and no speed and you begin to see he just isn't that important offensively anymore.
To throw out his draft status and prospect at this point is hilariously irrelevant as that was a decade ago, by that token the Twins should have picked up Dallas McPherson and Brandon Wood ten different times.
Alexi,
Most of baseball, and certainly the Twins, overvalue closers. This article from the great Joe Posnanski (http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/11/26/the-age-of-the-setup-man/) goes into greater detail, but to summarize:
In 2010, teams entering the 9th with the lead won 95.5% of the time. In 1952, before the position of closer was invented, teams entering the 9th with the lead won 95.5% of the time. The percentage has remained pretty consistent throughout the years. Basically, defined "closers" have had zero impact on baseball.
So it's not really an opinion of mine, but rather a fact. I'm sorry that most of baseball overvalues closers, but I'm afraid it's true.
"And yes, when you watch as much baseball as many of us do you can definitely use an eye test to determine range and arm."
No you cant. Even if you did consistently see how far a player went, which you cant, you still have no perspective how much range an average player can cover which you would need to know in order to evaluate a player proficiency. You also have no capacity to catalog all the plays that a player has been involved in which will lead you to put more emphasis on things that have happened recently and things that were memorable, like very good look plays or very bad looking player. The eye test is just moderately to heavily biased guessing. Its stupid.
"Couple that with the fact that the Twins are absolute sticklers for defense, do you think they would give Alexi the starting SS job if they weren't completely confident he could handle it defensively?"
The twins are far more concerned with not making errors than they are with legitimately good defense. They've let rangeless players like orlando cabrera and brendan harris play SS the last 2 years. Tony bautista got half a season at 3b. Im certain the twins think cuddyer is a strong defender. They chose to play jason kubel in the outfield instead of carlos gomez for a lot of the second half of 2009 so they could get jose morales in as a DH. I dont think the twins do a very good job evaluating defense or they dont understand its importance, so i a confident they would trust casilla with the position even if he couldnt handle it.
INSANITY is the perfect headline. You said everything I thought when I heard this news yesterday. Fuentes, a superior pitcher in my mind at least, got $8M for two years. How is Capps worth $7.15M? Disgusting. With the departures of Guerier and Crain and Rauch, how many leads will we watch disappear in the 6th and 7th before we could even hand the ball to Capps?
Excellent post Nick! You nailed my thoughts on all this in one word. I like Aaron Gleeman's lengthy article title on the Hardball Talk website as well. I like Hardy and think we undervalued him and would rather have him and Nishioka then Casilla and Nishi. But that move isn't quite as bad, in my opinion, as the 1-2 punch of trading Ramos for Capps, then keeping him around so as to not of given up a top prospect for half a year of Capps. All around, terribad moves by Bill Smith.
plenty of baseball teams undervalue players all the time and overvalue even more
Pot, meet kettle.
Paying that much for any closer is pretty awful; doing so when there is a roughly equal comparable you could have for less is even worse. (And that is without noting - again - that Joe Pos is 100% correct that closers are overvalued.)
None of that makes JJ Hardy into a good SS though - not now and not ever. And 5.8M for a backup SS is mind-boggingly stupid.
As to the eye test, well it is very clear that the eyes can easily be biased and the memory can make it worse by remembering the good and forgetting the bad (or vice versa).
Still at this point in time, all advanced defensive stats are begun when someone eyes the play and records it. Anyone who thinks the eyes cannot be trusted then should immediately discard all defensive advanced stats. Right?
At least until the day when all aspects of a ball in play (speed, direction, acceleration etc) can be measured by technology. ATM that does not happen - heck the bias just among ballparks for how plays are witnessed and recorded is enough to make objective people like me crazy.
I've never seen such overreactions to a pitcher who likely earns less than league average as a closer.(not enclined to look it up). The Twins even have their diehard fans worried about the money they spend. Pathetic.
Everyone here is hung up on the fact that Nick singled out Hardy as someone the money wasted on Capps could have retained. Correct me if I'm wrong, Nick, but I believe Hardy was just an example of something valuable we could have received for Capps' salary. One of many.
We could have signed any two of the pitcher reclamation projects. I would much rather have Webb/Young then Capps, as either could have developed into a good starter (or even a really good setup guy making half of Capps salary).
We could have had signed Berkman or Lee for the same amount of money and had a good DH or bench righty (ok, Berkman isn't great as a righty, but hey, at least he can do it. Both could more importantly spell first).
We could have signed Martin as a backup catcher. He hits righty as a bonus compliment to Mauer. We also would have had a few mil left over.
We could have signed Tejada. He hits righty and could fill in at 3rd plus middle infield for emergencies. Also would have had money left over.
We could have signed Correia or Garland, neither my taste but at least something to give depth at starting pitcher.
OR we could have kept any of the guys we let go, including Hudson, Guerrier, Rauch, Crain, or yes, Hardy.
Now this list doesn't even take into account all we could do, as most the players mentioned have already been signed. We could also look to trade. Regardless, Capps' contract is a black eye that won't heal for exactly one year and really pisses me off.
"Still at this point in time, all advanced defensive stats are begun when someone eyes the play and records it. Anyone who thinks the eyes cannot be trusted then should immediately discard all defensive advanced stats. Right?"
Not what i said. This is certainly the biggest weakness of advanced metrics like UZR. But charting the plays allows you to keep track of all the plays which allows for large samples. Charting the plays gives better perspective on actual range and always players to be compared. Certainly these statistic are influenced by the human evaluators opinion of the conditions of the play but its a better effort than seeing a play and give a minimal perspective opinion.
garbage in garbage out or so I've been told.
If each and every witnessing is potentially biased (and I agree that it is) then it doesn't matter how large a sample you have.
If you can quantify the bias and remove it from the math, you are OK. If not, not so much
It looks like Bill Smith is making some very questionable moves this off-season. Also, have to think the Twins regretting that they committed so much of their payroll on a very solid but not spectacular home-town catcher.
"If you can quantify the bias and remove it from the math, you are OK. If not, not so much"
Meh, thats an unreasonable qualification. Youve made this point to be contrarian not because anyone could think thats a functional viewpoint. If a stat isnt perfect its garbage? I think people should be smart enough to assess the strengths and weaknesses of a stat and be able to use it responsibly. My problem with a simple eye test is its very short sided and easily influenced. Advanced metrics certainly arent perfect and you need a huge sample before you can even try to use them but they are better than an eye test. Im not a huge advocate of advanced defensive statistics but dont come with crap like i can tell hes a good defender because he looks like he is.
Well anonymous, I never said eyes are a good way to gauge defense. Nor did I even suggest that if a stat isn't perfect there is no use for it. And I certainly did not "come with crap like I can tell etc."
However,stats need to be as purely objective as possible, since subjectivity creates flaws in the stat, which (to varying degrees) limits its utility.
The whole reason that an individuals "eyes" are not that great at this kind of comparative evaluation is because of the viewers bias. Having a bunch of viewers doesn't get rid of that bias - no matter what you think.
Sorry about that.
"Having a bunch of viewers doesn't get rid of that bias - no matter what you think."
It certainly removes a large portion of the bias. If you chart every play in a consistent way preconceptions about a players defensive prowess are minimized, spectacular and terrible plays simply become results in a large sample, and aesthetics like player speed and smoothness are less of a consideration. Bias' about how hard the ball was hit, how the ball travel, and things of that nature are still present but much of the unnecessary bias attached to a perspectiveless snap judgments is removed. If you think a charted advanced defensive metric is biased to the same degree an initial impression is youre wrong.
Sorry about that.
Nope - you can hope that a lot of viewers working in a precise way can reduce some bias but juat having a large number of viewers doesn't get rid of it, nor large portions of it either.
Heck the viewers are placed in different locations in different parks, at varying heights, with varying tools to record - which almost certainly increases the bias since it adds to normal bias that eyes suffer.
So I'm sure that you are sorry about that
Im not talking about a lot of people viewing a single play im talking about charting all the plays a player makes in a systematic way. Assuming the system is responsible it will remove a ton of the bias added from an initial impression. I dont know if you arent understanding what im saying, are a troll or are just wrong.
Post a Comment