Kershaw, Greinke, Lohse, Gallardo: Value & Dependability | Disciples of Uecker

Disciples of Uecker

We'd like to go to the Playoffs, that would be cool.

Clayton Kershaw‘s seven-year, $215 million contract might be the first megadeal in MLB history that seems like a bargain. First and foremost, Kershaw’s exceptional pitching record does not make it strange to hear that he’s the best-paid pitcher in MLB-history. Not only does Kershaw boast the most valuable ERA among active starters, he has the best ERA+ of any modern pitcher except Pedro Martinez. Recent big-time contract earners Justin Verlander, Felix Hernandez, Zack Greinke, Matt Cain, or even CC Sabathia could not make the same claim to historical greatness at the time of their deals. Secondly, since the Los Angeles Dodgers will be able to keep at least $6 billion of the revenue from their absurd TV contract, Kershaw’s contract does not even take one full year of TV money from the Dodgers. During Kershaw’s deal, the Dodgers will earn more than $1.6 billion in revenue.

Kershaw’s age is also another factor that makes his contract seem like a bargain. The lefty will be 26 for opening day in 2014, which means that the Dodgers wouldn’t necessarily expect the same potential physical decline during Kershaw’s contract as they would with an older pitcher. Furthermore, Kershaw’s career performance at age-25 also places his greatness in context. 37 MLB pitchers made a start during their age-25 season in 2013, and little more than half of those pitchers have more than 200 IP in their career; no one but Kershaw has an ERA+ above 130 (let alone 145):

Pitcher W-L IP ERA+
Clayton Kershaw 77-46 1180 146
Trevor Cahill 61-57 929.7 105
Mat Latos 55-40 849.7 114
Mike Leake 42-29 677.3 100
Jhoulys Chacin 37-41 608.7 126
Mike Minor 32-24 507.3 100
Chris Tillman 32-25 473 99
Brett Anderson 26-29 450.7 109
Felix Doubront 24-18 358.7 90
Alex Cobb 25-14 332.3 113
Vance Worley 19-18 326.3 98
Jeanmar Gomez 17-16 287.3 82
A.J. Griffin 21-11 282.3 105
Zach McAllister 15-18 277.3 93
Zach Britton 18-17 254.7 89
Dallas Keuchel 9-18 239 78
Joe Kelly 15-12 231 121
Garrett Richards 11-13 230 86
Hector Santiago 8-10 224.7 126
Sam O’Sullivan 10-16 218.7 70
Jeff Locke 11-13 217.3 88
Brad Peacock 7-6 95.3 87
Adam Warren 3-2 79.3 103
Paul Clemens 4-7 73.3 75
Chad Jenkins 2-3 65.3 117
Andre Rienzo 2-3 56 89
S. Johnson 5-1 54 116
Kyle Gibson 2-4 51 62
Hiram Burgos 1-2 29.3 62
Tyler Lyons 2-4 53 77
Josh Stinson 0-2 39.3 106
Eric Surkamp 2-3 29.3 48
Vidal Nuno 1-2 20 183
Nate Karns 0-1 12 52
Sam Dyson 0-2 11.7 38
David Hale 1-0 11 46
Pedro Villarreal 0-1 6.7 40

Given Kershaw’s age, exceptional performance, and the Dodgers’ TV situation, it seems like the southpaw did not sign a contract that matches his value to their club. Specifically, in the last three years, Kershaw prevented 120 runs (against the NL/Dodger Stadium), which was 81 runs better than the club’s second starters from 2011-2013. In fact, the Dodgers needed 18 starting pitchers to complete the last three seasons, and their their full rotations were 110 runs above average:

2011-2013 Dodgers Runs Prevented
C. Kershaw 120
Z. Greinke 22
H-j. Ryu 15
H. Kuroda 14
D. Eveland 3
R. de la Rosa 1
N. Eovaldi 1
S. Fife
J. Garland -2
A. Harang -2
E. Volquez -2
R. Nolasco -3
J. Blanton -5
J. Beckett -8
T. Lilly -9
C. Billingsley -10
C. Capuano -12
M. Magill -13

Basically, it is not a stretch to say that the vast majority of the Dodgers’ pitching value has come from Kershaw. This is yet another reason that Kershaw’s $215 million deal seems like a bargain. Certainly, one can use replacement theory and similar contracts to build a player’s expected contract, but how does one weigh the value of a pitcher that carries an entire team’s rotation?

Dependable Starters
At a certain point, there are diminishing returns from dependable starters. This seems like a strange thing to read on a Brewers website, given the club’s pitching issues in 2013 due to a lack of dependable starters. Yet, I think Kershaw’s contract shows that, at some point, simply having dependable starters does not create rotation success. In fact, even though fans lament the Brewers’ rotation, the rotation does feature two of the best dependable starters in the National League (Kyle Lohse and Yovani Gallardo). Despite these dependable starters, the Brewers’ rotation had a tough year in 2013 (especially compared to the successful seasons of 2011 and 2012). This shows a difficulty for general managers: although maintaining a strong top rotation sounds absolutely necessary for success, having that solid top rotation does little to nothing for the bottom rotation.

Ideally, value is simply production measured against scarcity. However, in the MLB, value is also determined by service time. This can be demonstrated when analyzing arbitration buy-out contracts, as compared to free agent contracts. Madison Bumgarner is a better pitcher than Tim Lincecum, but since Lincecum’s arbitration pedigree and service time is higher than Bumgarner’s, Bumgarner boasts a max 7/$69 million contract while Lincecum is earning $17.5 million per season (for two years). In fact, when analyzing the NL’s dependable starters from 2011-2013, it appears that the sheer scarcity of dependable starters produces contracts that only minimally reflect performance value. Notably, there were only 26 pitchers to work 100+ IP each season from 2011-2013 in the NL:

2011-2013 NL starter IP Runs Prevented Full Remaining Contract
C. Kershaw (LAD) 697 120 7/$215
Cl. Lee (Phi) 670.7 91 3/$77.5
C. Hamels (Phi) 651.3 64 6/$132.5
J. Zimmermann (Was) 570.3 54 7/$118
K. Lohse (Mil) 598 43 2/$22
M. Latos (Cin) 614.3 36 1/$7.25
Z. Greinke (LAD) 472.3* 33 5/$130
T. Hudson (SF) 525.3 24 2/$23
M. Cain (SF) 625.3 22 5/$101
M. Bumgarner (SF) 614.3 20 6/$46
Y. Gallardo (Mil) 592 15 2/$24.25
H. Bailey (Cin) 549 15 arbitration
M. Leake (Cin) 539 10 arbitration
I. Kennedy (SD) 611.7 9 arbitration
T. Wood (CHC) 462 8 arbitration
P. Maholm ( n/a ) 435.7 AVG free agent
B. Arroyo ( n/a ) 603 -4 free agent
R. Vogelsong (SF) 473 -13 1/$5
J. Niese (NYM) 490.7 -13 5/$42
K. Kendrick (Phi) 456 -16 arbitration
D. Gee (NYM) 469.3 -17 arbitration
C. Capuano ( n/a ) 490 -28 free agent
R. Nolasco (Min) 596.3 -30 5/$62
T. Lincecum (SF) 599.7 -36 2/$35
J. Westbrook ( n/a ) 474.7 -44 free agent
E. Volquez (Pit) 461.7 -72 1/$5
*AL stats not counted

In terms of annual value, the below average dependable starters earn more than $10.6 million, while the above average dependable starters earn more than $19.4 million. This undoubtedly reflects the service time of Jordan Zimmermann, Mat Latos, Bumgarner, and even Gallardo, compared to Ricky Nolasco and Lincecum. Still, the average distance between these pitchers’ performances is between 66 and 80 runs prevented over three years:

Pitching Class Years / $Millions Average Runs Prevented Median Runs Prevented
Above Average (11 under contract) 46/$896.5 47 36
Below average (5 under contract) 14/$149 -33 -30

This basic distance in runs prevented translates to anywhere between 2.5 and 3.0 wins above average (not replacement) for these two classes of pitchers. That value is reflected, in part, by the differences in contract length (no below average dependable starter has a contract with more than 5 years remaining, while four above average dependable starters have contracts with 6-7 years remaining). However, that value is not reflected in the annual value of those contracts, since the floor for the below average contracts is so high. Lincecum’s contract is one thing, but even near-replacement pitchers such as Ryan Vogelsong and Edinson Volquez landed $5 million contracts. Given that three replacement pitchers could arguably match their production for minimal cost (between $1.5 million and, maybe at most, $3 million. See here, also), the $5 million contract seems high. Yet, this is where factors such as service time impact contracts (as well as free agency, in some cases); for example, the arbitration-controlled Mat Latos will earn $7.25 million in 2014, despite being between 49 and 108 runs better than Vogelsong and Volquez during 2011-2013.

Interestingly enough, only one AL and 10 NL clubs control these 26 dependable starters (four remain free agents). Here is where one might question the impact of dependable starters on a rotation. San Francisco, Cincinnati, and Philadelphia control the most dependable starters (11), and the Dodgers, Mets, and Brewers each control two. The Cubs, Minnesota, Pittsburgh, San Diego, and Washington each control one, and Atlanta, Arizona, Colorado, Miami, and St. Louis do not control any dependable starters. Needless to say, only Cincinnati made the playoffs among teams that control several dependable starters, and two NL clubs made the playoffs (and will be expected to compete again) without dependable starters. This simply shows that if a club can develop excellent young pitchers, going with those pitchers instead of dependable veterans can help those clubs compete (even if several of their starters do not have experience). On the other hand, the Phillies and Giants prove that having a rotation full of dependable starters is not as beneficial as one might expect.

One could draw the same ambivalent conclucsion about the Brewers’ rotation. While the club controls two of the best dependable starters in the NL, the balance of the 2014 Brewers will hang on the back-end starters, including Wily Peralta and Tyler Thornburg. Solid seasons by Gallardo and Lohse could ease the pressure on the back end of the rotation, but there’s still a question about how the Brewers’ young arms compare to those of their competitors.

RESOURCES:
Baseball-Reference. Sports Reference, LLC., 2000-2013.
MLB Advanced Media LP, 2014
2011-2013 NL Rotations with Runs Prevented.

Share Our Posts

Share this post through social bookmarks.

  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Newsvine
  • RSS
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Comments

Tell us what do you think.

  1. Jeff K says: January 16, 2014

    This deal has guaranteed that Milwaukee and other small markets will never even sniff a World Series. We are now a AAA feeder team for the rest of the league. truth be told, it’s pretty much what we’ve been for a while now. We may see a wildcard appearance once in a blue moon, but win it all? Not. Gonna. Happen. Attanasio has a great heart. But he doesn’t has the $$ at his disposal to compete. Milwaukee cannot support the level of payroll required to run with the “big dogs” of MLB these days. Sad but true, These idiot owners are pricing “America’s pastime” out of reach of “America’s Working Class”

    • Nicholas Zettel says: January 16, 2014

      I agree to some extent, especially about the overall revenue disparity. However, the league has increased overall TV revenue to an extent that should allow clubs like the Brewers to sign at least a few big contracts.

      I completely disagree that owners are pricing the game out of the Working Class. Insofar as nearly half of Americans own cable, these owners can land excellent television contracts. It’s all in the hands of people to make that change — if we don’t want revenue disparity in baseball, the swiftest action is to cancel cable en masse.

      • Jon Resch says: January 17, 2014

        Really? You want everyone to cancel their cable in order to end big TV contracts? I don’t have cable myself at the moment, but that seems a little ridiculous.

        • Nicholas Zettel says: January 17, 2014

          Why is it ridiculous? If people don’t watch sports on TV — especially cable TV — that interrupts one source of advertising, which drives the lucrative nature of these contracts in the first place.

          Where would cable companies get the money for big TV contracts if they didn’t have an advertising base to fight over? Or a subscriber base to broadcast to?

          • Jon Resch says: January 17, 2014

            I understand your logic, it’s just not a realistic solution. Unfortunately, cable TV is the only medium to watch MLB regularly, especially out of market games. The majority of fans aren’t going to give up that luxury, especially since even without the big TV contracts the Brewers won’t be able to compete for big time free agents.

          • Nicholas Zettel says: January 17, 2014

            Right — I 100% agree with what you said there. Which is why I disagreed with the comment that the owners are pricing the game out of the range of fans; so long as people agree to subscribe to cable, under this arrangement, the game is entirely within reach of fans (or, fans willingly pay for the opportunity to watch broadcasts).

Trackbacks

Websites mentioned my entry.

  1. Daybreak Doppler: The Lesser of Two Evils For Championship Sunday | PocketDoppler.com
  2. Fluctuation and Dependable Starters | Disciples of Uecker
  3. Series Preview: Brewers @ Phillies | Disciples of Uecker
  4. Series Preview: Nationals @ Brewers | Disciples of Uecker
  5. Series Preview: Dodgers @ Brewers | Disciples of Uecker

Add a Comment

Fill in the form and submit.