On Riley Cooper, Victor Payano, Franklin Gutierrez And Defense
Joey Matschulat
Florida Gators wide receiver Riley Cooper pulls down an 80-yard catch on Friday, January 1st.Despite several fairly close calls, Randy Johnson never did make it around to pitching in a Texas Rangers uniform, but that's okay -- it was an honor and a privilege to watch him carve up opposing hitters for as long as he did, and it's not at all hyperbolic to suggest that he's probably the greatest left-handed pitcher that most of us ever got the chance to see. Enjoy your retirement in peace, Randy:
● From the "Are We Ever Going To Make It To April?" newsfeed comes a bit of that always welcome "chatting through the media" between general manager Jon Daniels and 25th-round pick Riley Cooper, who recently intimated that he might leverage his successful senior season as the University of Florida's leading wide receiver into a bid for NFL stardom, and also suggested that the Rangers' lack of contact reflected a lack of interest in keeping him around.
Daniels clarified that he had remained in regular contact with Riley's representatives and fully expected Cooper to report to spring training next month, but if Riley's primary motivation is money, that may no longer be the safe bet. Why? Well, Riley procured a $250,000 signing bonus from Texas (which he must forfeit if he ultimately opts for football), but if you assume that his NFL draft stock has been elevated to a point where he will be selected within the first three rounds ... well, guess what? He could be in line for a signing bonus worth two to four times as much in the NFL, as well as greater expected future earnings, neither of which would be available via baseball.
● There has been some limited amount of under-the-breath grumbling about the Rangers' seeming inability to fully capitalize upon what has been a somewhat depressed winter market for amateur Latin American talent (e.g. Noel Arguelles and Aroldis Chapman, among others), but Texas did recently manage to cash in on Victor Payano, a sturdy 6' 3", 165-pound Dominican left-hander whose previous $900,000 deal with the Red Sox was nixed after his required pre-signing physical revealed shoulder problems; embedded below is a 12-second clip of Payano plying his craft during pre-July workouts:
[Direct link available here. Regarding Payano's stuff, Kiley McDaniel of Baseball Prospectus -- from whom the above video was obviously borrowed -- remarked back on June 8th, 2009 that Payano flashed a "heavy" 85-88 mph fastball during this showcase, as well as an "average slider and change-up. Points were awarded for his "very projectable" frame, "solid" command and "simple, repeatable mechanics."]
Payano's market value somewhat resembled the EKG tracing of a single heartbeat, in the sense that he was originally "thought of as a low-to-mid six-figure guy" (also via Kiley McDaniel), followed by a marked value spike that launched him to the doorstep of seven digits, and now a major health-related plunge in value that has rendered him accessible to Texas. Back in mid-November, ESPN.com's Jorge Arangure Jr. speculated that Payano would yet again secure Red Sox-esque money, but it doesn't seem terribly likely that he managed to squeeze that much out of the Rangers, let alone even $500,000.
● When word of Franklin Gutierrez's impending four-year, $20.5 million contract extension with the Mariners broke on Tuesday afternoon, the first thought to race through my head went something like this: "Damn, what a steal." Yeah, he's entering his arbitration-eligible seasons (with his first free agency year also being bought out, and an attached fifth-year team option), but they're also his prime production seasons, and not even a nondescript offensive year could mitigate the Hall of Fame-caliber defensive range that pushed him to the 5.9-win mark in 2009. He'll regress from that mark, but not enough to render this extension anything less than superb for Seattle.
This all immediately segued into a second, more pointed thought: "Why couldn't Gutierrez get more than what he got?" It's true that he sacrificed some future compensation in exchange for the security afforded by a long-term deal, but that still doesn't fully account for the rather wide disparity between his projected value and future earnings ... and then it hit me. Defense. It's great for winning games, and great for your paycheck/reputation if you can collect a Gold Glove or three, but what if your overall value is mostly predicated on your defensive contributions and you have no hardware to show for it?
We know that major league teams are now, by and large, properly valuing defense, but arbitration panels -- which still largely rely upon Elias-friendly counting stats such as hits, runs batted in and home runs in ruling for the team or the player -- have not yet progressed to the point where advanced defensive metrics such as Ultimate Zone Rating and plus/minus are properly weighted. Oh, sure, they'll presumably get there at some point, but they're certainly not there yet, and until they do get there, defense-first, offense-second guys like Gutierrez are going to remain at an inherent disadvantage in the arbitration process relative to their more offense-inclined counterparts.
I suppose this hypothesis -- which hasn't yet been tested, but certainly passes the logic test -- is best illustrated by a quick example: Player X and Player Y exist in alternate dimensions, but are exactly the same age, play the same position 162 games per year, are both arbitration-eligible for the first time, are equivalent in "leadership qualities," have identical peers and so on. The only difference? Player X is 20 runs above average offensively and 10 runs below average defensively, whereas Player Y is five runs below average offensively and 15 runs above average defensively. They might both be 10 runs above average overall, but Player X is assuredly going to pull down the bigger paycheck.
Reader Comments (11)
Joey, Just a thought about defensive value. I totally agree that teams do not have to pay as much for defense as they do for offense. However, which ability (defense or offense) puts more fans in the seats. Even the most devoted fan will have a hard time telling the difference between an +5 defender and a +15 defender without the aide of stats. I guess what I'm wondering is if fans love of offense leads to more ticket sales and hence more revenue even if it comes at the sacrifice of defensive ability and potentially more wins. Just pondering.
@Andrew in Boston
I guess it depends on what you feel puts fans in the seats. If the added runs that you get from a guy like Player Y sqeak you into the playoffs, is that going to drive more revenue? You would certainly have the added revenues for at least one playoff series. Beyond that, I think most Ranger's fans would agree that we are more likely to buy a ticket to see our team winning than we are to see home runs being hit.
I think an individual player would absolutely have more marketability as an offensive star than he would as a defensive star. However, it seems that the team (which is the real concern of owners and GM's) would garner more marketability from net runs contributed.
Good article and thank you.
I too understand the importance of defense, however, I am not completely sold on UZR or any other formula I have seen that purports to quantify defensive ability (defensibility?) into wins. My main beef is that stats like UZR tend to vary wildly from year to year, and therefore, past performance does not translate into future results as predictably as hitting stats. For example, if you take the UZR ratings this year of Jayson Werth and Raul Ibanez for this season (Phillies Fan here), Ibanez would appear to be the better fielder. I can assure you he is NOT.
So if Gutierrez ' UZR falls to those of above average fielders in the next 4 years, the Mariners are left with a good fielder and league average bat - possibly worthy of the contract but not a "superb" deal.
I like your idea Andrew. Most fans would probably prefer to watch a player with A-Rod's offense and his -8.6 UZR than Adrian Beltre and his +14.3.
Let me add that I don't personally like the idea that the average fan values offense above defense but I think Andrew in Boston's idea was probably very accurate.
Adam: unfortunately, I think we have a distorted view of the "average" Ranger fan here at BBTiA. While winning is ultimately more important that hitting home runs, the argument concerns to players that both net +10 runs. We're assuming equals win totals, the only difference is if it comes from offense or defense. While the difference might not affect ticket and merchandise sales from the BBTiA and Newberg report crowds, the average fan is going to be drawn to the offense.
I think the average fan will be drawn to winning. Sure I like to see the fireworks but I also like to see people pull off miracle plays in the field. As long as the team wins and puts entertaining players on the field both with the glove and the bat the fans will come.
I think breaking the playoff drought puts fans in the seats.
If I was a baseball executive not working for the NYY the concept that one's (unlike the NYY) limited dollars go further buying defense is an interesting thought. I find it especially interesting because I strongly believe (A) defense can be relied on while hitting comes and goes plus (B) good defense is a foundation for good pitching.
Somebody please explain something to me (I mean this!). How does the signing of 16 year olds affect the completion of their high school education? Didn't the Rangers sign Pudge and Juan Gonzalez before they had finished high school? What about the kid that pitched for the Rangers in Arizona this fall? How old was he?
I agree with the sentiment that arbitration would not have accurately valued Franklin Gutierrez because most of his contribution is defense; plus there isn't a good precedence for these types of players.
But I think his bat will improve, his defense stays super-good and that could build his arbitration case, which if that happened along with a greater weighting of defense by arbiters, then Franklin's pay could have equaled or exceeded the reported contract. Besides, Franklin's hitting is better than many might guess - http://tinyurl.com/yam3vpu
Maybe Jack Z didn't want to see Franklin's case go to arbitration because the arbitration process would be forced to reckon with new defensive metrics sooner, and that could wreck Jack Z's business model.
@ Dave H
You're right. I missed that both players were a net of +10 runs.
However, assuming a team has a fixed budget for payroll in a given year, and assuming that you can get Player Y for less than Player X...you would have more of your budget left over to put towards adding superior value at other positions. This would ultimately net you a team with more wins and more playoff potential. I still submit that the average fan values this over offense.
If the question is whether a given player, in a vaccume, drives more team revenue by contributing offense or defense, then the offense admittedly has more appeal, but I'm not sure what relevance that has. When you look at that player in the context of building an entire team, the increased value/$$ of that player should ultimately help build a better team, netting more wins thus more fans in seats.
On the point of what the casual fan wants, the BBTIA community is not the only group that has shown that they want to support a winner over an offensive juggernaut. Look at ticket sales in the late 90's compared to those throughout the early 2000's. The numbers tell the tale of the casual fan supporting a playoff contending franchise and fading when that frachise stopped winning.
Adam: The whole conversation was started with Franklin Gutierrez. The "vacuum" applies when you're looking at it from his perspective. As far as the team is concerned, I've never had an argument with valuing defense and winning. However, Gutierrez probably could've netted a much larger chunk of money had he hit 35 homeruns. A team with more money in their budget and a less savvy GM will often opt for the offense over the defense.
As for the fan thing, winning is the ultimate factor for attendance; however, as a separate factor offense will matter. If you have two teams who are playing 90 win baseball (one wins/loses all their games scoring 2-3 runs, the other scoring 6-8), I'd venture to guess that the higher offensive output would get a little more attendance. I don't think it would be very much, but even $500 per game would amount to $786,105 over an entire season which would pay for Chris Davis and a few extra bats. Personally I'd rather go to see Feliz throw a complete game 1-hit shutout than a game than a 10-8 game with a lot of dingers; I just don't think I'm the norm.