Scoring the MLB Offseason

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

A few days ago, Steve Phillips appeared on ESPN news and gave his picks for the five teams with the best offseasons, and the five with the worst. I wish I could remember the specific teams. I do remember hearing the Phillies names as having one of the worst offseasons. That struck me as silly. It seemed like Phillips just looked at the big signings, and I think a lot of people do that. So I decided to go about an objective rating system.

 

The concept is simple. I look at the win shares from last year of the players a team added, and subtract those whom the team lost. For example, the Phillies lost Billy Wagner to free agency, thus losing 16 win shares. They gained 10 for Tom Gordon, for a net loss of six. This system is not perfect, as it is subject to variations in playing time, fluke and out of context seasons, and ignores up and coming prospects. Still, I think it's worth a look.

 

One note. If you were to take the sum of these numbers, you'd get -132. The totals are uneven due to unsigned players and retirees. So -4 is closer to breaking even than zero.

 

Instead of commenting on each team, I'll discuss teams as requested.

 

1. Toronto (+41)

2. LA Dodgers (+40)

3. Kansas City (+36)

4. Oakland (+32)

5. NY Yankees (+30)

t-6. NY Mets (+29)

t-6. Chicago Cubs (+29)

t-6. Seattle (+29)

9. Detroit (8)

10. Pittsburgh (7)

11. Minnesota (6)

12. Cincinnati (2)

13. Cleveland (1)

14. Philadelphia (0)

t-15. San Francisco (-4)

t-15. Arizona (-4)

17. Texas (-6)

18. Baltimore (-6)

19. Houston (-11)

20. Colorado (-13)

21. Washington (-14)

22. LA Angels (-19)

23. Milwaukee (-22)

t-24. Atlanta (-23)

t-24. Tampa Bay (-23)

t-26. Boston (-24)

t-26. Chicago WS (-24)

28. St. Louis (-29)

29. San Diego (-39)

30. Florida (-161)

 

That four of the bottom five were playoff teams indicates there is probably a natural falloff, as 90+ win teams have nowhere to go but down. Outside of Florida, I don't think any team has had an offseason that completely knocks them out of contention (provided they started there).

[snuffbox 0]

Milwaukee?

[therealworldschampion 0]

The Mets may have signed big names, but there was no way the Phils were going to guarantee Wagner a 4th year at $10 million or whatever the salary was.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Milwaukee?

That surprised me too. They dealt Lyle Overbay (18 win shares) for David Bush, Greg Gross, and Corey Koskie (14 win shares total). Because they acquired Koskie, they let go Russell Branyan and Wes Helms (another 15 win shares). The only other moves they made were losing Gary Glover, Wes Obermueller and Julio Santana, and adding Brent Abernathy. They're in better shape than that, because they're adding Prince Fielder from the farm system.

[the max 0]

I'm assuming that the loss of JD hurts the Red Sox that badly.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

The Orioles should be given an F- just because the A-F system doesn't go any lower. I dont exactly see how they came close to breaking even on Al's scale here, but if breaking even means that they are as good as they were last year then whoopdidoo, 70 wins again this year!

[snuffbox 0]

Al, thanks for the info.

 

Those seem like good developments to me. It was obvious that Overbay would be dealt with Prince (who 'could be' a future hall of famer) coming up...and they seem to have actually received some decent talent in exchange, something Milwaukee rarely gets in its one-sided trades of late. Neither Helms or Branyan were everyday players, though they were pretty good off the bench.

 

I think the Brewers will finally have a pretty good season...and Ill probably be living in Baltimore.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I'm assuming that the loss of JD hurts the Red Sox that badly.

Yeah, Damon's the difference between that and breaking even. They also lost Bill Mueller (18 win shares) and Edgar Renteria (14). People forget though that they picked up Josh Beckett and Mark Loretta.

[MrRant 0]

I still don't think Seattle will be better this year.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I still don't think Seattle will be better this year.

Sure they will. They took a motley crew of catchers and replaced them with Japanese star Kenji Johmima (and his acquisition isn't even reflected in the number). Miguel Olivo had an OPS+ of 17. I'm sure Johjima can top that. The rotation adds Jarrod Washburn, and hopefully a full season of Felix Hernandez. I don't think Seattle contends, but it's hard to envision them doing worse than 69 wins. 75-80 is more likely.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

Wait, you're saying Florida got worse this offseason? Dude, no way!

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Wait, you're saying Florida got worse this offseason? Dude, no way!

By comparison, the Marlins would have scored -103 for the 1997-98 offseason firesale. They didn't unload some of their key parts until midseason.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Brewers had a way better off-season than indicated by that chart (which I understand has admitted flaws). I don't understand how losing Helms and Branyan can be that big of a drop, since neither one was a regular starter. Helms had a great season as a DH, that's it. Branyan was pretty mediocre. Also, I dunno if Corey Koskie is accounted for, but he adds a lot of depth to the Brewers infield.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Brewers had a way better off-season than indicated by that chart (which I understand has admitted flaws). I don't understand how losing Helms and Branyan can be that big of a drop, since neither one was a regular starter. Helms had a great season as a DH, that's it. Branyan was pretty mediocre. Also, I dunno if Corey Koskie is accounted for, but he adds a lot of depth to the Brewers infield.

It's because the Brewers made no offseason acquisitions from outside except the Corey Koskie trade, and signing Brent Abernathy to a minor league contract. Koskie had a poor season last year so he accounts for just six win shares. Let me give you the whole process.

 

ADDITIONS

Corey Koskie (6)

David Bush (6)

Gabe Gross (2)

Brent Abernathy (1)

 

DEPARTURES

Lyle Overbay (18)

Russell Branyan (9)

Wes Helms (6)

Victor Santos (3)

Julio Santana (2)

Gary Glover (1)

Wes Obermueller (1)

 

I only recorded players with win shares, so Dan Kolb goes unrecorded. It isn't as bad as it might seem, because the Brewers have several young players from the farm. That doesn't get noticed in this process.

[Vern Gagne 0]

How about the Twins

[Mik 0]

I don't think the Marlins got worse. Granted, they put the 2006 season in the bag, but they acquired more key parts and upper level prospects than they did in the previous firesale.

 

Everyone assumes that the previous firesale built the 2003 championship but go back and look at the moves. The only key players that came over was Derek Lee and AJ Burnett and AJ contributed exactly nothing to the 2003 championship run.

 

The rest were shrewd draft moves/fa signings (Beckett, Cabrera, Alex Gonzalez, Luis Castillo) or trades that came later (Lowell, Willis, Conine, Pierre, Encarnacion).

 

The previous firesale also didn't leave two mega-studs behind like Cabrera and Willis.

 

The Marlins aren't going to be as bad off as everyone thinks.

[Precious Roy 0]

The Marlins aren't going to be as bad off as everyone thinks.

 

I'm sure they'll be fine in a couple years if everything goes as planned, but they're going to totally suck next season. They have exactly one proven starter and one proven hitter, plus no bullpen, how can they not finish in last? I mean, they might, might have a better record than the Reds or Pirates or Rockies, but so what?

[Guest Brian]

When do we start calling them the Las Vegas Blackjacks?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

How about the Twins

Only real notable moves are trading for Luis Castillo, signing Rondell White, and losing Jacque Jones to free agency. Using Castillo to replace Rivas and company is a big plus.

 

The Marlins aren't going to be as bad off as everyone thinks.

 

I'm sure they'll be fine in a couple years if everything goes as planned, but they're going to totally suck next season. They have exactly one proven starter and one proven hitter, plus no bullpen, how can they not finish in last? I mean, they might, might have a better record than the Reds or Pirates or Rockies, but so what?

The Marlins are going to finish dead last this season, and the only question is how spectacular of a fashion do they do so? Is the team in bad shape long term? Depends on how you look at it. Talent wise, they added a ton to their farm system. But there isn't a great deal of minor league hitting talent beyond Jeremy Hermida, Josh Willingham and Hanley Ramirez. Worse, the fire sale and relocation proclamations have decimated the Marlins' fan base in South Florida. Not only are they a good bet to lose 100+ games, but they are at least a 50/50 shot to draw less than a million fans.

[The Czech Republic 0]

When do we start calling them the Las Vegas Blackjacks?

God, Vegas would be a miserable place for a baseball team. Norfolk, Nashville, Memphis, or something. Not Vegas.

[Gert T 0]

The Blue Jays get an "incomplete" until they sniff the playoffs.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Out of curosity, I decided to score some other famous firesales.

 

The 1914-15 Philadelphia A's scored -101. Connie Mack, rather than compete with the Federal League, sold off his best players including Eddie Plank, Eddie Collins, Chief Bender and Wally Schang.

 

The 1919-20 Boston Red Sox score just -33. They sold and traded many players, but did so gradually. This offseason just saw Ruth's sale.

 

The 1898-99 Cleveland Spiders score -141. That's right. The Florida Marlins' firesale beats out the development of the worst team of all time. The reason is that the Spiders picked up some minimal MLB pitchers, while the Marlins are using AA prospects. The Marlins' prospects are probably better than the sorry lot the Spiders picked up, but that's how it works.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Go Jays! Al, what do you think of their chances for a playoff berth this year?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Go Jays! Al, what do you think of their chances for a playoff berth this year?

They're serious contenders.

[randomguy 0]

How did the Yankees move up so much? I can't even remember who they've signed other than Farnsworth.

 

Also, is it possible to have negative win shares? I mean, Embree is reponsible for losses, not wins. The Yankees are better off without him even without *any* replacement sad as that may seem.

 

Edit: I'm an idiot, forgot about Damon. The CF position did nothing for the Yankees last year so that should be a huge upgrade.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

How did the Yankees move up so much? I can't even remember who they've signed other than Farnsworth.

 

Also, is it possible to have negative win shares? I mean, Embree is reponsible for losses, not wins. The Yankees are better off without him even without *any* replacement sad as that may seem.

 

Edit: I'm an idiot, forgot about Damon. The CF position did nothing for the Yankees last year so that should be a huge upgrade.

The Hardball Times uses negative win shares, but Bill James does not. It's a debate both on the theory, and whether or not you can create a workable system. To calculate negatives you need to have an idea of "replacement level." That's a nebulous term, and it is hard to pinpoint. Personally, I am more comfortable with the system working from a base of zero. It doesn't make much of a difference in any case. If you use Win Shares from the Hardball Times, only 28 players fared worse than -1. Alan Embree was not one of them.

 

I don't think negative numbers are necessary. Win shares are pulled directly from a team's win total. If a team fails to win a game because of poor performance, they lose win shares. This may be a surprise, but the Yankees were 16-8 in games when Embree pitched. Embree gave up many hits, but he didn't walk many and he got his fair share of outs. He didn't earn many win shares, but he didn't pitch so badly that he was a negative. Tim Redding on the other hand...

[mike546 0]

That's because most of the wins he pitched in were blowouts or blowouts that he fucked up and made into close games. He wasn't the worst though. The Wayne Frankylin, Tim Redding, Darrell May, and Felix Rodriguez's(Thanks for him Al) of the world were.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

That's because most of the wins he pitched in were blowouts or blowouts that he fucked up and made into close games. He wasn't the worst though. The Wayne Frankylin, Tim Redding, Darrell May, and Felix Rodriguez's(Thanks for him Al) of the world were.

Embree had only one game where he surrendered more than two hits. His peripherals weren't awful, so I think a combination of poor luck and the poor Yankee defense hurt his performance. The other problem is that he was cast into a LOOGY role, which doesn't give a pitcher much opportunity to rack up innings.

 

Not that I'm saying Embree was good. He wasn't. But he was not horrible. He figured directly in two losses. One he gave up the go-ahead run to the Devil Rays, and the other was a 2-1 loss to the White Sox. When you score one run, it's not your pitchers' fault. Otherwise, he didn't hurt the Yankees.

[Precious Roy 0]

If you use Win Shares from the Hardball Times, only 28 players fared worse than -1. Alan Embree was not one of them.

 

Tony Womack?

[The Man in Blak 0]

Instead of using Win Shares, which have no predictive value in this context, could you use runs added/runs lost? If that's the case, I believe you could actually plug in projected data from the Hardball Times Annual (I think it has projected fielding data).