Neyer - Angels (August 15, 2003)
According to UZR, here are the Angels fielding numbers above average for the last 4 years, starting with 1999: +53, +37, +32, +103.
Overall, in the last 4 years, here are the team leaders on a per season basis:
Angels: +56
KC: +32
STL: +31
Sea: +29
Atl: +26
So, what do we have here? The Angels last year were 70 runs above what the next best fielding team has been in the last 4 years. (Think: regression towards the mean.) AND, they lost possibly the best-fielder in the game today.
Anaheim has made .016 less outs / BIP than last year. With about 4500 or so BIP, that comes out to 72 more hits allowed, or about 60 runs worse than last year over a full season.
As for Erstad's contract: I figure the marginal $ / marginal win is about 2 million$, and an average full-time hitter is worth about 4 million$. Erstad's fielding in the last 4 years is worth about +4 wins over average. Factoring in regression, his true talent was probably +3 wins. Moving forward for the next 4 years, and figuring that speed drops down almost immediately, we can guess that Erstad's fielding would have been worth about +9 wins in the next 4 years. Figuring Erstad as a slightly average hitter for a CF, let's say over the next 4 years he'd be 0 wins. So, we expect him to be worth about +9 wins over average.
Work it out: +9*2 + 4*4 = 32 million$
Factoring in a "injury factor" (though I'm guessing the insurance will cover 70% of the salary anyway), and maybe 28 million$ would have been appropriate. So he got 28. Where's the problem?
Finally, showing his 2003 numbers is unfair without the number of PAs. And, whether you look at EqA or superLWTS, you will quickly realize that Erstad is a slightly above average hitter over the last 3 years (about +6 runs). His throwing arm is a bit above average, his little things (taking the extra base, moving runners over, staying out of the DP) is about the best in the league.
Paint the whole picture on Erstad, and you'll see teams lining up for him.
--posted by TangoTiger at 12:27 PM EDT
Posted 12:41 p.m.,
August 15, 2003
(#1) -
Shredder
I agree.
Posted 1:43 p.m.,
August 15, 2003
(#2) -
tangotiger
That "32" should be "34".
Posted 2:28 p.m.,
August 15, 2003
(#3) -
JBS
I think there may be an added benefit to contract in that it sends a message to the rest of the Angel core that management is serious about keeping them together. This may encourage them to re-sign with the team without testing the free agent market, and therefore at below-market prices.
If this is true, overpaying Erstad now (and I don't think he is, at least not significantly) may lead to signing Troy Glaus at a bargain price later.
Posted 2:34 p.m.,
August 15, 2003
(#4) -
Silver King
Very interesting. Thanks for the UZR'n'stuff analysis, Tango.
Posted 3:05 p.m.,
August 15, 2003
(#5) -
Danny
Finally, showing his 2003 numbers is unfair without the number of PAs. And, whether you look at EqA or superLWTS, you will quickly realize that Erstad is a slightly above average hitter over the last 3 years (about +6 runs).
I think this is the key area of dispute. Obviously, his 2000 season should not be completely ignored. But look at his offensive performance since 2000. In 2003, he has a .240 EqA (10.1 runs below average). In 2002, He had a .256 EqA (11.7 runs below average). I don't have his RAP for 2001, but his EqA was just .252.
It seems that using 2000-2002 puts Erstad's offense in the best possible light. If one were to use more or fewer years, his offense would look worse.
Posted 3:48 p.m.,
August 15, 2003
(#6) -
tangotiger
(homepage)
I agree you can't just say take the last 3 years, and ignore the rest.
The homepage is Erstad's br.com page. His career OPS+ (park adjust OPS) is 100, or league average.
If you were to weight his OPS on a 5,4,3,2,1,1,0.5 basis from 2002 back to his rookie year, his weighted OPS would be: 96.
So, that's pretty darn close to average. Also, don't forget all the little things he does that I mentioned that does not show up in OPS or the "boxscore".
Anyway you cut it, our best guess is that Erstad was an average hitter entering 2003. He has 280 PAs in 2003.
Posted 4:34 p.m.,
August 15, 2003
(#7) -
Danny
I'm pretty sure a 100 OPS+ is below average for a CF. This year the average CF has a .272 EqA. Last year, the average CF had a .270 EqA. The average player has a .260 EqA. Erstad seems to be a below average CF offensively.
I do not doubt his defensive prowess at all. I do, however, have problems seeing how he can be 40-50 runs better than average defensively per year when he makes just 3 plays per game. I'm sure this is just my own ignorance of defensive metrics. If you, or MGL, could offer a quick explanation, I'd be very appreciative. On second thought, I'm sure there's one somewhere on Primer already, if you could point me to that.
Posted 5:04 p.m.,
August 15, 2003
(#8) -
tangotiger
Actually, just because you perform at +40 runs over average doesn't mean that is your talent level. It's more likely he is +30 runs over average.
Anyway, how can you figure it out at home? Assume there are 3.5 plays available for every CF, and the avg CF makes 3 outs on them (rate of .857). How much would a great and bad CF make? Let's guess .900 on the top end and .800 on the bottom end. So, essentially, a great defender will be +.05 hits / BIP better than average. In this case, that works out to about +.2 hits per game, or about 32 hits per season.
Each hit-to-out is worth .80 runs, and so, the top defender would be worth about +25 runs in this example.
If the great defender is +.06 hits / BIP, then, he would be +30 runs.
For all intents and purposes, I think that +30 is the upper boundary for a CF, and realistically, +20 is the upper boundary for a CF's career.
Posted 4:29 a.m.,
August 16, 2003
(#9) -
Will B
I'm a little ignorant to Erstad's popularity. Could it be that he is one of those guys that is worth the money no matter how poorly he plays? I'm thinking Derek Jeter and Hideki Irabu with the Yankees or Ichiro with the Mariners (or crossing over, Michael Jordan of the Bulls, Lebron James of the Cavs, David Beckham of Real Madrid) - these guys surely made back their salaries for their ballclub just in free publicity, increased sales/tv ratings, merchandise, etc.
Is Erstad one of those rare fellas that are just marketable and make the team money as long as he plays? I know it's hard to analyze this effect when you just look at boxscores or play-by-plays, but it is an important part of contracts that can't be completely forgotten. Anna Kournikova isn't the most recognizable tennis player in the world for her tennis ability after all.
Posted 3:33 p.m.,
August 18, 2003
(#10) -
Danny
Thanks for the response, Tango. Is that .80 runs for each hit-to-out unique for CF, or is it universal?
Posted 3:53 p.m.,
August 18, 2003
(#11) -
tangotiger
No, each position should have its own converter, based on how many extra base hits are hit in his zone. I believe Chris Dial may have published this somewhere, or maybe it was MGL?
Pretty much, I think, it was between .75 and .85 for every position. So, to not complicate matters, I like to use .8