Does Max Scherzer Make Us Favorites

[jimmer]

What was it we added in 1991 to become worst to first?   Aging pitcher and an untested rookie (with no plan B for 2nd base by the way unless you consider Newman to be a viable plan     

SO THOSE were the two moves that made us go from worse to first.  I've always had a hard time pinning it down :-)

[ashbury]

How about some for us by slicing concession prices in half?

The eternal fantasy that prices at the ballpark are driven by salaries, and those prices could come down if only...  Nah, Seth threw out a side comment, the bait got taken, let's move such discussion to a new thread if it needs to be hashed out any further.

 

Anyway, with regard to the subject thread, I have a feeling that this 14 year contract may no longer be paying benefits to the team around year 12 or 13 or so.

[tobi0040]

 

 

Strasburg and Zimmerman have both exclusively pitched in the NL.  Scherzer has spent the last 5 in the AL. Comparing their career ERAs (and just that sta) seems odd to do.

 

Strasburg also has injury issues and I doubt, due to all the hype that's always been around him, that he is going to extend and/or give any kind of discount.

 

ERA + factors in league.  Max's career is 117, Zimmerman 120, and Stras 128.

 

The biggest factor here is age. They have cheaper and likely better options over the next seven years. 

 

Before teams shell out money for Boras clients on long term deals, they should look at a few of the doozies he has gotten for his clients in the past.  Then ask themselves, was this a good deal for the team?

 

A-Rod, Choo, Zito, Werth, Teixera, Ellsbury, Fielder, Dice-K, etc.

 

2-3 years into every one of these contracts, teams would have taken back salary to dump these guys.

[jimmer]

Yes, if you like to judge by ERA, looking at ERA+ (or even better ERA-) is better.

 

How has Max's ERA+ (or -) looked the last three seasons compared to the other two?  What about FIP and IP and other peripherals compared to the other two?

 

In fairness, I'm not a huge Scherzer fan.  I've never really been one and he may very well age poorly, but I don't see it happening really soon.

 

You mention how badly Boras contracts end up, but also suggest they sign Strasburg instead and he is a Boras client and one with a nagging history issue too.

[tobi0040]

Yes, if you like to judge by ERA, looking at ERA+ (or even better ERA-) is better.

 

How has Max's ERA+ (or -) looked the last three seasons compared to the other two?  What about FIP and IP and other peripherals compared to the other two?

 

In fairness, I'm not a huge Scherzer fan.  I've never really been one and he may very well age poorly, but I don't see it happening really soon.

 

You mention how badly Boras contracts end up, but also suggest they sign Strasburg instead and he is a Boras client and one with a nagging history issue too.

 

True, Stras is a Boras client. But they would have leverage given he is not a free agent for two or three years.  Again, the broader point is Max will be almost 31 by the time this seven year deal starts.

 

As others have noted, his velocity has already started to drop a bit.

[jimmer]

True, Stras is a Boras client. But they would have leverage given he is not a free agent for two or three years.  Again, the broader point is Max will be almost 31 by the time this seven year deal starts.

 

As others have noted, his velocity has already started to drop a bit.

The way this contract is structured works pretty well for the Nats as well.  15M a year as opposed to 30M a year. Gives them more financial flexibility, they can avoid the luxury tax issue, and 15M is worth more now than it will in future years, etc.

 

'If Scherzer had signed for 7/$170 with an equal payout in each season that he actually played for the Nationals, that contract would be roughly equivalent in value to the $210 million deferred compensation contract he actually signed.'

 

It's going to be interesting.

[jimmer]

If you figure one WAR is worth 7M right now on the FA market (and that will go up) and he AVERAGES 4.0 WAR over the next 7 years (taking into account normal incremental dropoff) you're looking at a value at 196M in PRESENT worth. He's averaged a hair over 5 WAR the last 3 seasons. BTW, Star and Zimm have both averaged around 4

[Dantes929]

SO THOSE were the two moves that made us go from worse to first.  I've always had a hard time pinning it down :-)

Sorry, forgot Chili was added also but the post I was responding to made light of the idea that adding two pitchers and an aging outfielder could get us from 92 losses to 92 wins.    Of course its never that simple.   After the 2007 season there were plenty that questioned how in the world the Twins could expect any better results when every other team in the division was getting better (sound familiar?) and the Twins were losing Hunter and Santana?  My response was that they could get better by getting better at the other 23 roster spots, not necessarily by change but by young guys maturing and simply playing better.   Essentially they lost their two best players but went from losing to game 163 simply by improving at other positions.  I'm saying it is quite possible for the Twins to turn into 92 win team just by guys presently on the roster playing better.   I can easily see May and Meyer pitching a lot like Erickson and Tapani.   I can easily see Mayer, Plouffe and Arcia having much better years.     Change can come from within just as easily as from without and it is the way I prefer it.

[jimmer]

Sorry, forgot Chili was added also but the post I was responding to made light of the idea that adding two pitchers and an aging outfielder could get us from 92 losses to 92 wins.    Of course its never that simple.   After the 2007 season there were plenty that questioned how in the world the Twins could expect any better results when every other team in the division was getting better (sound familiar?) and the Twins were losing Hunter and Santana?  My response was that they could get better by getting better at the other 23 roster spots, not necessarily by change but by young guys maturing and simply playing better.   Essentially they lost their two best players but went from losing to game 163 simply by improving at other positions.  I'm saying it is quite possible for the Twins to turn into 92 win team just by guys presently on the roster playing better.   I can easily see May and Meyer pitching a lot like Erickson and Tapani.   I can easily see Mayer, Plouffe and Arcia having much better years.     Change can come from within just as easily as from without and it is the way I prefer it.

I was just joking around with my comment.  

 

I'm glad you're optimistic about the current MLB talent on this team.  I wish I could join you in that optimism.  We still had a lot of quality MLBers going into 2008 even after losing Santana and Hunter. Talent that had a good amount of MLB experience and had done well.

 

In regards to Arcia, Meyer, May.  Even if the talent is there, talent that could turn them into quality MLBers (something we don't know yet), they are still very inexperienced/or not at all experienced at the MLB level.

 

BTW, I think what we saw from Plouffe last year is likely his ceiling.  He had a very good year and I can't see him ever having a season that will be much better than that.

[tobi0040]

The way this contract is structured works pretty well for the Nats as well.  15M a year as opposed to 30M a year. Gives them more financial flexibility, they can avoid the luxury tax issue, and 15M is worth more now than it will in future years, etc.

 

'If Scherzer had signed for 7/$170 with an equal payout in each season that he actually played for the Nationals, that contract would be roughly equivalent in value to the $210 million deferred compensation contract he actually signed.'

 

It's going to be interesting.

 

I think you are using really shaky logic here.  I get the time value of money piece.  But pitchers tend to really hit a wall, get hurt a ton, regress, around 33-34 years old.  That is great that it is $15M a year, but what about the $15M a year they will be paying Max from ages 34-38, or better yet, the $15M a year for seven years they will be paying him when he is no longer on the team?

 

If you figure one WAR is worth 7M right now on the FA market (and that will go up) and he AVERAGES 4.0 WAR over the next 7 years (taking into account normal incremental dropoff) you're looking at a value at 196M in PRESENT worth. He's averaged a hair over 5 WAR the last 3 seasons. BTW, Star and Zimm have both averaged around 4

 

Also pretty shaky logic, IMO.  It is tough to take a pitchers prime, ages 27-29 and use that to justify a deal in the 30.5 to 37.5 seasons.  Additionally, in the case of Max, he averaged 1.8 WAR in the four years prior to the three you cited.

 

At the end of the day, these deals rarely work out.  They effectively gave Max the same deal Kershaw got.  Two huge differences though, age and performance.    Kershaw's deal covers him from 25 to 32 and he is hands down the best pitcher in this era.

[jimmer]

I think you are using really shaky logic here.  I get the time value of money piece.  But pitchers tend to really hit a wall, get hurt a ton, regress, around 33-34 years old.  That is great that it is $15M a year, but what about the $15M a year they will be paying Max from ages 34-38, or better yet, the $15M a year for seven years they will be paying him when he is no longer on the team?

 

 

Also pretty shaky logic, IMO.  It is tough to take a pitchers prime, ages 27-29 and use that to justify a deal in the 30.5 to 37.5 seasons.  Additionally, in the case of Max, he averaged 1.8 WAR in the four years prior to the three you cited.

 

At the end of the day, these deals rarely work out.  They effectively gave Max the same deal Kershaw got.  Two huge differences though, age and performance.    Kershaw's deal covers him from 25 to 32 and he is hands down the best pitcher in this era.

Well, the first part you quoted wasn't my logic, it was written by a SABR guy with an economics degree (Dave Cameron) which is why I had the quotes.  Additionally, it only discussed what the contract value (210M) would actually be worth if it was for 7 years. Nothing at all to do with whether he'd be worth it or not, just putting the 210M) into context.

 

Overall, though, I'm not sure how my logic is faulty just because you disagree with it, and I believe it's reasonable to figure how a player has done more recently (over the last three years) is far more indicative of what the player is now as opposed to how he did from 4 years ago out to 7 years ago, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I accounted for age dropoff when I said AVERAGES 4 WAR over the course of 7 years. You figure if he's playing in the high 5.0 War for the next couple years then starts dropping, it could very well still AVERAGE 4.0 WAR (not be 4 WAR six years from now, never said that). It's about the overall value. They will UNDERPAY some years and OVERPAY others.  Just the way it is.

 

So, again, I doubt it's faulty logic.  Whether or not you agree with it, obviously you don't, but I doubt it's faulty.

 

I'd recommend the following two articles: 

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/max-scherzer-and-when-210-million-isnt-210-million/

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/nationals-build-potential-super-team-add-max-scherzer/

[jimmer]

Again, though.  It could very well end up blowing up in the Nats face, but I think with the spread out payments, his health history, and the money being tossed around now AND in the future, this contract might not turn our that bad.

[tobi0040]

I'm not sure how my logic is faulty just because you disagree with it, and I believe it's reasonable to figure how a player has done more recently (over the last three years) is far more indicative of what the player is now as opposed to how he did from 4 years ago out to 7 years ago, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I accounted for age dropoff when I said AVERAGES 4 WAR over the course of 7 years. You figure if he's playing in the high 5.0 War for the next couple years then starts dropping, it could very well still AVERAGE 4.0 WAR (not be 4 WAR six years from now, never said that). It's about the overall value. They will UNDERPAY some years and OVERPAY others.  Just the way it is.

 

So, again, I doubt it's faulty logic.  Whether or not you agree with it, obviously you don't, but I doubt it's faulty.

 

I'd recommend the following two articles: 

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/max-scherzer-and-when-210-million-isnt-210-million/

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/nationals-build-potential-super-team-add-max-scherzer/

 

I get the time value of money concept. What I also get is that contracts in the 7 year range handed out to guys around 30 year has been a really, really bad proposition for MLB teams.

 

Here is a really quick few that turned out really bad.  If we want to compile a good and bad list, I am positive this will be at least 2-1 bad to good.

 

Barry Zito - 1 WAR across 6 seasons at 30+

 

Johan Santana - 4.6 WAR as a 31 year old.  Hurt all of 32.  .2 WAR at 33.  Effectively out of baseball at 34.

 

Kevin Brown - the exception, actually pitched well up to 34 (named the Mitchell report however).  Averaged 3.2 WAR after age  34.

 

Mike Hampton - averaged .7 WAR after 30.

 

CC Sabathia - Averaged 1 WAR a year from 31 to 33

 

Justin Verlander - 1.1 WAR last year at 31, in the first year of a 7 year deal.  Huge velocity drop.  Probably the reason the Tigers passed on this one.

 

Of these guys, Brown, Johan, CC, Verlander, and Zito all had a higher 3 year peak WAR than Max's 16.9 (what is used to justify the deal).

 

Brown 23.6.  Johan 23.3.  Verlander 20.8.  CC 18.3.  Zito 17.   Max 16.9.  His peak WAR is only better than Hampton on this list at 14.8.

[Dantes929]

Jimmer, I took your comment lightly but the roster of 1990 and 1991 wasn't really that much different.   I am optimistic about the talent on this team but I am in it for the long haul.    I would never give up on a team before a season but I am guessing I will be even more optimistic for 2016.    Worst thing about the 2011 and 2012 teams IMO is that we were promoting guys with little upside and that were not even doing well in the minors.   Different story now even though recent results are similar.

[jimmer]

Here's a nice breakdown on Scherzer.  It's a good read. At the end, it reads

 

'I am not and never have been a fan of the seven-year, mega-contract for starting pitchers, no matter how good they are. Even the Clayton Kershaw and Felix Hernandez deals scare me because of their length, and those are the two very best pitchers in the game. Given all of that, Scherzer’s peak will be higher, and his decline slope will be less steep because of his new club and ballpark.'

 

When he brings up the new club, he's talking about the defense of the new club as opposed to Detroit's defense that negatively impacted his peripherals as discussed in the article.

 

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/max-scherzers-future-in-washington-is-bright/

[tobi0040]

Here's a nice breakdown on Scherzer.  It's a good read. At the end, it reads

 

'I am not and never have been a fan of the seven-year, mega-contract for starting pitchers, no matter how good they are. Even the Clayton Kershaw and Felix Hernandez deals scare me because of their length, and those are the two very best pitchers in the game. Given all of that, Scherzer’s peak will be higher, and his decline slope will be less steep because of his new club (and he's talking about the defense of the new club as opposed to Detroit's defense that negatively impacted his peripherals as discussed in the article) and ballpark.'

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/max-scherzers-future-in-washington-is-bright/

 

I guess that is a conclusion that I disagree with. And comparing the 7 year deals of those three guys seems very silly to me.  For one, Kershaw and Felix have been dominant their whole careers, versus Max who kind of struggled a bit over four years, before having three good years.  Secondly, those deals cover the ages of 25-32 and 26-33, versus Max's 30.5 to 37.5.   Huge difference.

 

Here is a story that goes more along the lines of my thinking.  A  - these deals rarely work out and B - to see a team do this that has younger pitching, arguably one of the best rotations already is silly.  If the Rockies did this deal because they had to....I could at least understand that.

 

http://www.rantsports.com/mlb/2015/01/19/washington-nationals-will-regret-money-spent-on-max-scherzer/

[jimmer]

I believe the analysis provided by Fangraphs in the three articles I've linked here is much better than the analysis in that article, assuming that article can even be said to have much analysis. He writes for rant sports.  Their job is to pick the popular opinion and play to that audience by stirring things up.

 

Comments like the following is, 'For his career Scherzer, has averaged 15 wins, a 3.58 ERA and 222 Ks. Based on these factors, it would appear the team just spent $210 million in the wrong area.'  

 

I don't think these stats are really that telling(but they are very popular among the casual fan) when there are much better stats to tell the story, yet that seems to be his jumping point. Additionally, his comparison of Scherzer to a pitcher who has one year behind his belt (Roarck) and who has only pitched in the NL and for a quality defensive team, seems odd. We just assume Roarck is going to have that kind of stats because of ONE year?

 

Also Adam's conclusion in the article you provided:, 'It will be interesting to see how a seven-year deal for Scherzer, who will be pitching the majority of the contract on the wrong side of 30, will turn out. There has been a history of pitchers such as Mike Hampton, C.C. Sabathia and Barry Zito, who have received contracts of seven-plus years, all ending up flopping over the length of contract. There is no reason to think Scherzer’s contract will be any different.'

 

Yet the article I just posted this morning from Fangrapgs shows MANY reasons why Scherzer's contract could be different than those pitchers he named.  They do actual analysis to show why it could very well work out way different.  Adam just picked three guys who it didn't work out for and said because of them, it won't work out for Scherzer too.  That's not analysis.

 

In any event, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.  Just providing links to stories with detailed analysis. People do with it what they will.

[Mike Sixel]

Well, there is the certainty of signing Sherzer, vs the uknown of whether or not Boras will have his client re-sign 2 years form now.

 

People undervalue certainty, a lot, around stuff like this. A Lot.

[jimmer]

Sorry for all the edit's. I type fast but make up for it by typing horribly. :-)

[ashbury]

Sorry for all the edit's. I type fast but make up for it by typing horribly. :-)

I cna ytpe 300 wrods pre mniuet!

[tobi0040]

I believe the analysis provided by Fangraphs in the three articles I've linked here is much better than the analysis in that article, assuming that article can even be said to have much analysis. He writes for rant sports.  Their job is to pick the popular opinion and play to that audience by stirring things up.

 

Comments like the following is, 'For his career Scherzer, has averaged 15 wins, a 3.58 ERA and 222 Ks. Based on these factors, it would appear the team just spent $210 million in the wrong area.'  

 

I don't think these stats are really that telling(but they are very popular among the casual fan) when there are much better stats to tell the story, yet that seems to be his jumping point. Additionally, his comparison of Scherzer to a pitcher who has one year behind his belt (Roarck) and who has only pitched in the NL and for a quality defensive team, seems odd. We just assume Roarck is going to have that kind of stats because of ONE year?

 

Also Adam's conclusion in the article you provided:, 'It will be interesting to see how a seven-year deal for Scherzer, who will be pitching the majority of the contract on the wrong side of 30, will turn out. There has been a history of pitchers such as Mike Hampton, C.C. Sabathia and Barry Zito, who have received contracts of seven-plus years, all ending up flopping over the length of contract. There is no reason to think Scherzer’s contract will be any different.'

 

Yet the article I just posted this morning from Fangrapgs shows MANY reasons why Scherzer's contract could be different than those pitchers he named.  They do actual analysis to show why it could very well work out way different.  Adam just picked three guys who it didn't work out for and said because of them, it won't work out for Scherzer too.  That's not analysis.

 

In any event, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.  Just providing links to stories with detailed analysis. People do with it what they will.

 

I think think my article was cherry picking at all.   How many pitchers that were signed to 7+ year deals at 30 or longer turned out to be good deals?  It is easy to rattle off 5-6-7 really bad one's.  I honestly can't think of any that turned out to be good deals.  Or even a 6 year deal when the guy started at 30 or longer.

[jimmer]

I think think my article was cherry picking at all.   How many pitchers that were signed to 7+ year deals at 30 or longer turned out to be good deals?  It is easy to rattle off 5-6-7 really bad one's.  I honestly can't think of any that turned out to be good deals.  Or even a 6 year deal when the guy started at 30 or longer.

Again, not trying to convince you my view is right, just sharing info. I enjoyed our discussion.

[tobi0040]

Well, there is the certainty of signing Sherzer, vs the uknown of whether or not Boras will have his client re-sign 2 years form now.

 

People undervalue certainty, a lot, around stuff like this. A Lot.

 

But my point is, either one of Zimmerman or Strasburg would have likely signed the same deal and they are 2 and 4 years younger (so they would have certainty).  It would probably not have cost as much given Zimmerman has 1 year left of arbitration and Stras has 2 or 3.

 

While it is true that Boras does not have a history of accepting early deals, to my knowledge nobody has offered one that was $200M.  He has a duty to present those to his clients, both would have a hard time saying no to that kind of money.

 

Career Numbers:

 

Strasburg (26 yrs)   ERA 3.02, FIP 2.84, ERA+ 128, WHIP 1.08

 

Zimmerman (28 yrs) ERA 3.24, FIP 3.31, ERA+ 120, WHIP 1.14

 

Max          (30 yrs)    ERA 3.58, FIP 3.39, ERA+ 117, WHIP 1.21

[tobi0040]

Again, not trying to convince you my view is right, just sharing info. I enjoyed our discussion.

 

Me too. It will be interesting to see it play out.  

[Mike Sixel]

They might have, but they didn't, and maybe they didn't want to right now. We don't know. Sherzer was willing to sign it, and they took the certainty of that contract rather than the uncertainty of the future.

[tobi0040]

They might have, but they didn't, and maybe they didn't want to right now. We don't know. Sherzer was willing to sign it, and they took the certainty of that contract rather than the uncertainty of the future.

 

You and I don't know that a comparable offer was on the table, unless I missed that story.

 

Anyone could argue that Kershaw is the top pitcher in the game, so I would hope 7-210 is about the ceiling for a deal.  Especially for a Zimmerman or Strasburg.    If the Nats offered 7-180 to both of them, my gut says at least one would take it.  Especially Strasburg.  He has two more years of injury risk.   That is probably about the ceiling for Zimmerman anyway.

[nicksaviking]

If you figure one WAR is worth 7M right now on the FA market (and that will go up) and he AVERAGES 4.0 WAR over the next 7 years (taking into account normal incremental dropoff) you're looking at a value at 196M in PRESENT worth. He's averaged a hair over 5 WAR the last 3 seasons. BTW, Star and Zimm have both averaged around 4

 

I would be surprised if he averaged a 4 WAR the next 7 years.  Last year only one pitcher over the age of 32, Adam Wainwright, had a WAR over 3.7.  Only five had a WAR over 3.0.  Scherzer isn't a pitcher he's a hurler, he just rears back and throws as hard as he can.  When the velocity gets low enough, he's going to be pretty average if not flat out bad.  The stats already show that when he doesn't miss bats he gets hit hard. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

What was it we added in 1991 to become worst to first?   Aging pitcher and an untested rookie (with no plan B for 2nd base by the way unless you consider Newman to be a viable plan      

Hey, Nelson Liriano was still around that spring.  Chip Hale was there too, and would probably have been a similar MLB hitter to Knoblauch at the time.  Leius was still considered a potential shortstop, and Reboulet was already hanging around.

 

But yeah, we did show a worrisome willingness to start Newman, although mostly in our down years of 1989-1990.

[jimmer]

  The stats already show that when he doesn't miss bats he gets hit hard. 

yeah, his BABIP is pretty high but he also had a horrible defense behind him and he played in the AL. Those things change going to the Nats. You should read the article I linked earlier. it goes into much more detail.

 

But he won't even have to average 4.0 WAR to make that contract a fair one.

[tobi0040]

yeah, his BABIP is pretty high but he also had a horrible defense behind him and he played in the AL. Those things change going to the Nats. You should read the article I linked earlier. it goes into much more detail.

 

But he won't even have to average 4.0 WAR to make that contract a fair one.

 

A WAR of 4 would have put him 16th in MLB last year. 

 

I am of the belief you are always going to overpay in free agency and maybe this contract was "fair" given what he is worth in free agency.

 

That is why I was okay with the Twins signing Ervin.  It isn't going to be a value deal, but we absolutely needed to improve our starting rotation.  The Nationals led the league in ERA last year and it wasn't even close.  They have a decent mix of guys under contract, guys going year to year, and guys like Roark who has a ton of control left.  In addition, Lucas Giolito is rated as the 8th best prospect in baseball and they have the 56th best guy as well, also a starter.

 

So I just think the value Max provides at ages 30.5 to 37.5 over the alternative is worth a heckuva lot less than $210M.  This deal 2-3 years from now could easily fall into the somebody please take this from me category. 

 

They were 9th in runs last year and lose 26 HR and 91 RBI from LaRoche. Seems like more of a need.