Johan Santana

das11209 · December 3, 2007

Technically its worse on lefties but the park is considerably worse than Fenway to hit for average.

Well - he striked out too much last year - and that's park independent. That said - I would love to sign Jones and put him between Manny and Lowell if Ellsbury is traded. My hunch is he is not as bad as a player as his stats indicated last year. And this may be a good opportunity to buy low as he and his agent had bad reps recently.

Jayhawk Bill · December 3, 2007

Santana is bound to slow down. Let's speculate that through the rest of his career he will be able to produce 1.5 times what he has already, and let's just suppose the Sox have him for that duration. That would give him a career 307.5 WS total in 3271.7; or, roughly the career success of Tom Glavine or Randy Johnson in the amount of innings that Schilling has pitched. A very, very nice career and I think it is a generous assessment of his future for making any ellsbury comparison... (which most of you undoubtedly know is inevitable at this point )

That is a pretty fair assessment, right?

No.

Example1, thank you for taking the time to carefully construct complete positions regarding this issue. Others are taking pot shots at small chunks of your work to call you wrong, but they're not laying out equivalent effort to support their own thoughts in almost every case.

That said, I still disagree with your assessment.

I have two differences:

1) I strongly dislike Win Shares as a metric. Its weakness is in the area of players' defense, so it's not necessarily as bad when used strictly to evaluate pitchers. When one starts evaluating hitters, though, one gets some terrible results.

Here's a quick example: I called up the best seasons from 2004-2007 from THT for a quick counterexample. A great one was right at the top of the list: the best two seasons were both achieved in 2004, by Barry Bonds and Albert Pujols. Both, of course, were mostly great hitters. But Win Shares has Barry Bonds at +2.6 as a fielder and Albert Pujols at +2.1. That's absurd: Bonds is a defensive liability, and Pujols is a Gold Glove-caliber fielder, regarded by some as one of the top defensive players in MLB at ANY position. Checking FRAA for a quick contrast, FRAA had Pujols at +9 in 2004, while it had Bonds at -8; other systems might be less kind to the slow-moving outfielder.

Want another example? Check 2007 outfielder stats. The system has Manny Ramirez pegged at +2.7 WS for his defense this year. It awards Carl Crawford, the fleet-footed Rays' LF, just 1.6 WS for his defense. Checking RZR, Crawford was almost 20% more likely to field a ball hit into his zone than Manny. How could Manny be considered 50% better than Crawford if he's reaching over 100 fewer fly balls over the course of a season? :blink:

OK, enough on why I don't like Win Shares. On to my second, and bigger concern.

You project that Johan Santana will earn 150% of the value earned thus far in his career over the rest of his career, and you write that he's earned 123 WS so far. Let's examine that, using these fairly generous assumptions:

1) Although he might be slowed by injury, unless he is injured he will never be worse than his current talent level;

2) His current talent level isn't his 2007 level, but the median value of his three most recent seasons, his 2005 level (23 Win Shares); and

3) We'll use Nate Silver's estimate of a cumulative 15% chance each year for career-ending/talent-level-altering injury.

Here's what the next 12 years look like using those assumptions:

Year	WS	Cumulative Win Shares
2008	19.6	 19.6
2009	16.6	 36.2
2010	14.1	 50.3
2011	12.0	 62.3
2012	10.2	 72.5
2013	 8.7	 81.2
2014	 7.4	 88.6
2015	 6.3	 94.8
2016	 5.3	100.1
2017	 4.5	104.7
2018	 3.8	108.5
2019	 3.3	111.8

Let's look at this differently: using this method and 2007 WS rankings* as a benchmark, between what two current 2007 AL pitchers would we find Santana's likely performance, INCLUDING the risk of zero value from injury, for each year?

2008 Lackey/Haren

2009 Kazmir/Wang

2010 Blanton/Pettitte

2011 Matsuzaka/J Weaver

2012 Gaudin/Marcum

2013 Westbrook/Robertson

These are all pretty good pitchers. For four years he projects to be as good or better than the 2007 Matsuzaka. For two more years he projects to be a 3/4 starter. Now, I understand that Santana isn't likely to be Nate Robertson in six years--he'll either be better or he'll be injured, I expect, but the net value is roughly the same as a guaranteed-healthy Westbrook or Robertson.

But even giving Santana very considerable value for the next twelve years--more than I'd expect that PECOTA would offer over the next five, more than BR would consider likely from using its top comparable pitchers--he doesn't end up earning 150% of his value thus far in his career over the rest of his career. Almost no starting pitcher Santana's age would earn that much value.

The way that seems plausible is by looking at great pitchers who did earn that much value. Yes, they were similar to Santana at his age. But so were a bunch of other pitchers, and a whole bunch of them flamed out young.

You know, it's easy to forget that Matt Clement still ranks 33rd in the all-time MLB list of qualifying pitchers for strikeouts per nine innings pitched. Certainly nobody thought that he'd miss half of his three-year contract to injury when he was signed by Boston in 2004, and that he'd pitch only three months for Boston without displaying the effects of what we now know to have been serious injury. Boston paid Matt Clement over $19 million these past two years to pitch 65.1 IP with a 6.61 ERA. Other teams have done similar things: Carl Pavano earned $18 million to pitch 11.1 IP at a 4.76 ERA these past two years; Pedro Martinez earned just over $14 million to pitch 28 IP for the Mets (but with a 2.57 ERA!) Mike Hampton earned $29 million the past two seasons not to pitch at all.

Pitchers get injured. Speculating that Johan Santana might earn 150% of his career value to date through the rest of his career is a reasonable upper bound. As an assumption or a forecast, it's very optimistic.

* THT lists AL starting pitchers by whole Win Shares. In each case where Santana projected to other than a whole number, I gave the names of the lowest higher-ranking pitcher and the highest lower-ranking pitcher. For 2011, where Santana projected at 12.0, I gave the two middle names on their list of AL Starting Pitchers ranked at exactly 12 WS.

cam780 · December 3, 2007

Well - he striked out too much last year - and that's park independent. That said - I would love to sign Jones and put him between Manny and Lowell if Ellsbury is traded. My hunch is he is not as bad as a player as his stats indicated last year. And this may be a good opportunity to buy low as he and his agent had bad reps recently.

I actually had this discussion with Kilo some pages ago. The strikeout rate isn't a considerable difference above Coco although it sounds like it - the difference is between 85 and about 140 but thats over 150 games so it'd be about one more strikeout every three games. I think he'd play great here but I personally don't think the Sox will make that commitment unless its short term or short money. Thats why I think a trade for someone like a Jason Bay or a Pat Burrell might be the direction the club goes.

The team has alot of pitching that is going to be available to contribute in the next few years and not enough rotation spots which is one of the reasons why I think they're in on Santana.

Beckett. Dice-K are young and signed long term - Lester is under control thats two rotation spots for Buchholz, Bowden, Masterson, and Hagadone probably in the next two years. If you acquire Santana and keep Lester that's four long term spots filled and if you also keep Buchholz thats a rotation thats set and most likely with only using one of Bowden or Masterson which gives you flexibility and at that time the question would become is Jon Lester or Michael Bowden or Justin Masterson more valuable to your team as a fifth starter or as a piece in a deal that would improve another position and I think the latter would be the case especially given the fact that propects don't always live up to potential. So if you can get a Matt Kemp from the Dodgers for the price of a Jon Lester / Coco Crisp / Bowden or Masterson then if I'm the Sox I probably do it. I don't think it happens but I think Lester, Ellsbury, Lowrie, Crisp and Masterson and Bowden for Santana and Kemp would be worth it Kemp would provide an upgrade over Ellsbury, Santana an upgrade over Lester. Lowrie is currently blocked so the only thing that you're given up is two pitchers that you don't need because Hagadone would then slide into that fifth starter role. It would be a dream scenario for me but I know that it is never going to happen but my rather long point is that it almost makes more sense to trade for a replacement outfielder than it would be to get into a 5/75 commitment for Jones.

Beckett95 · December 3, 2007

i think if the sox really want to get another top notch starter, it has to be santana. the A's want 2 of lester/buchholz/ellsbury for haren and the orioles would probally want 2 also, maybe even all 3 for bedard. Ben sheets? way to injury prone, just like Harden or Prior.

Santana could be had for 1 and even possibly none of the 3. i dont get how that works, that the best pitcher in baseball can be had cheaper than those 2 guys, who are very good, but not as good as santana. as long as he gets an extension, he'd be an absolute steal.

das11209 · December 3, 2007

i think if the sox really want to get another top notch starter, it has to be santana. the A's want 2 of lester/buchholz/ellsbury for haren and the orioles would probally want 2 also, maybe even all 3 for bedard. Ben sheets? way to injury prone, just like Harden or Prior.

Santana could be had for 1 and even possibly none of the 3. i dont get how that works, that the best pitcher in baseball can be had cheaper than those 2 guys, who are very good, but not as good as santana. as long as he gets an extension, he'd be an absolute steal.

The reason why Santana can be had for less than the other 2 in terms of prospects( not cash) is everyone knows he is gone after this year and also he told the twins that he will not do a mid-season trade and will waive NTC now only if he is traded to the Yankees or the Red Sox. Also as far as Haren is concerned - Billy Beane has shown before he can get the best returns for his star pitchers.

BoSox21 · December 3, 2007

Santana could be had for 1 and even possibly none of the 3. i dont get how that works' date=' that the best pitcher in baseball can be had cheaper than those 2 guys, who are very good, but not as good as santana. as long as he gets an extension, he'd be an absolute steal.[/quote']

Because the As and Os can hold onto Haren and Bedard respectively past this season meaning they aren't under the gun to trade either guy. Minnesota can't afford Santana and Santana has said he won't waive his no-trade clause once the season starts meaning Minnesota can't wait until the July 31st trade deadline.

Beckett95 · December 3, 2007

ya thats why i wouldnt want to deal with Beane and the A's. I'd love to see Bedard here, but i read he's gonna cost much more than santana in terms of prospects.

He Hate Me · December 3, 2007

ya thats why i wouldnt want to deal with Beane and the A's. I'd love to see Bedard here' date=' but i read he's gonna cost much more than santana in terms of prospects.[/quote']

just curious where you saw that? I'm interested in reading up more on Bedard

Beckett95 · December 3, 2007

ino its not a great source but heres some info on bedard from mlbtraderumors

Bedard Has No Interest In Extension With O's
UPDATE, 12-3-07 at 8:35am: I knew the Red Sox belonged in the mix for Bedard. Jayson Stark confirms their interest, and adds a new one in the Phillies. Stark also verifies that the Orioles want more for Bedard than the Twins want for Santana - as in four top youngsters. Stark's source thinks the Orioles will hang onto Bedard.

FROM 12-2-07 at 11:30pm:

According to Dave Sheinin and Barry Svrluga of the Washington Post, Erik Bedard has informed the Orioles that he has no interest in signing an extension. He's under Baltimore's control through the 2009 season.

The authors indicate that Bedard would cost half the talent Johan Santana will. I don't agree with that assertion - two years of a cheap Bedard is easily worth more than one of Santana, without question. If anything, Bedard should require more talent than Santana to pry loose.

According to Jeff Zrebiec, six teams have inquired on Bedard so far: the Yankees, Mets, Mariners, Angels, Dodgers, and Diamondbacks. The Mets reportedly made an offer of Lastings Milledge, Aaron Heilman, and Philip Humber to the Orioles before trading Milledge to Washington, according to the Roger Rubin of the Daily News. A source of Rubin's believes replacing Milledge with Carlos Gomez or even Ryan Church would represent a superior offer. And to further the speculation, I think the Mets would have to replace Humber with Mike Pelfrey to really get the Orioles thinking. I repeat: Erik Bedard is worth more than Johan Santana

Gom · December 3, 2007

just curious where you saw that? I'm interested in reading up more on Bedard

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove07/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3138769&campaign=rss&source=MLBHeadlines

das11209 · December 3, 2007

In case you are not tired of Santana updates - The Twins are not happy with Hank's statement and considering tampering charges.

Do you guys remember any other hot stove drama like this one? Dice-K, Randy Johnson, Becket was not even close IMO.

La Velle E. Neal III of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports that the Twins are not amused with Hank Steinbrenner's public comments regarding their negotiations. It's not known if the Twins will pursue tampering charges.

Interestingly, Neal debunks the notion that Santana has demanded he be traded to only the Yankees or Red Sox. Neal says Santana has placed no limitations on where he ends up, as of yet.

Jayhawk Bill · December 3, 2007

Player A:

[table]Age|Level|AVG|OBP|SLG|OPS|AB|XBH|BB|SO
21|A|.306|.368|.423|.791|530|37|52|64
22|AA|.306|.367|.429|.796|408|29|39|61
23|AAA|.360|.426|.511|.937|225|26|26|24

|Career|.316|.379|.442|.821|1163|92|117|149[/table]

Player B:

[table]Age|Level|AVG|OBP|SLG|OPS|AB|XBH|BB|SO
21|A-|.317|.418|.432|.850|139|9|24|20
22|A+/AA|.303|.382|.425|.807|442|32|49|53
23|AAA|.323|.387|.424|.811|436|33|38|54

|Career|.314|.381|.426|.807|1017|74|111|127[/table]

Hint - Both play on the Red Sox now. Player B is the uber-prospect, and Player A can't hold his jockstrap, according to some here.

The investment argument against acquiring Santana I buy. The fact that Ellsbury is an untouchable stud I cannot.

First, if we're looking at talent value less contract value as investment value, then we're in concurrence, more or less. I've already explained why, IMO, (Crisp + Lester) ~ Santana in investment value. The price for Santana seems to be higher, so unless the up-front years are valued much more highly than the out years, I don't see the rumored trades for Santana as good investments.

But you're looking at Crisp vs. Ellsbury. Who's going to be better over the rest of their obligated service?

The funny thing is, each of the players in question has some odd spikes in performance. If I may:

1) I look at Coco Crisp's MiLB record--a .299/.372/.411 batting line, put up at about the right age for each level--and I expect an MLB hitter posting a .270/.335/.370 batting line, give or take. In 2006/2007 Crisp batted roughly .266/.326/.383, pretty close to my expectation. In 2004/2005 Crisp batted .299/.347/.456, similar with respect to IsoD but way higher with respect to BA and, especially, SLG. It would seem that there might have been some factor that made Crisp hit relatively better in MLB than MiLB in 2004, but that the factor in question had gone away by 2006.

2) Whatever was making Crisp a better hitter in 2004-2005 might've been making him a worse fielder--there's nothing in Crisp's past that suggests his superb work in CF in 2007, except that he was better in 2006 than he'd been in 2005. MLB players peak defensively very early--this looks to be a performance spike, unless there's an external factor of which we're unaware.

3) I look at Ellsbury's MiLB batting line of .314/.390/.426 and I expect a .285/.350/.385 MLB hitter. Ellsbury's .353/.394/.509 MLB batting line from 2007 appears unsustainable.

Overall, the biggest advantage Ellsbury has over Crisp is possible upside; the second is remaining obligated years; the third is salary. I'd rank likely 2008 hitting as the fourth-biggest advantage, trailing all three of these other factors. Ellsbury should be better than Crisp as a hitter, but maybe not by as much as we're hoping.

Crisp has two advantages: demonstrated MLB performance over more than 44 games and superior defense, at least in 2007.

In the short term, disregarding salary and counting defense, Crisp is roughly equivalent to Ellsbury. If that's your point, you've got my support--as long as it's understood that the other "investment factors" make Ellsbury a much more valuable commodity than Crisp.

TheKilo · December 3, 2007

not that it matters how i feel but you can take those win shares and stick em up roger clemens ass.
john smoltz is 1 of the best money pitchers in MLB history and they have him tied in with kenny lofton and behind roger""my groin i mean my elbow i mean my hammy"" clemens?
does anyone watch baseball anymore or is the average fan just pulling stats off msn.com to determine who value is higher?
this isnt a dig at anyone on board here as much as it is to this new system of deciding who can play and who cant.
we need a good night of book burnings mass arrests and random beatings to get everyone back to the mindset that pitching, above all,including hope prayer and dogma,wins in the post season and there are only a handful of john smoltz's josh becketts and chin mein wangs(LOL) out there..

I actually....agree? Although I do think stats are very valuable, and when used to argue a point they can be very effective.

But they are not the be all or end all. I will agree with you. There needs to be a proper balance between statistical evaluation and perception, not have it weighted one way or the other.

aces
those of you who played at a level that goes beyond hitting off a tee understand that when you bring a legit ace to the mound you have a certain swagger,a certain sense of confidence that says to the other team to basically stay home,you got no chance.
that said
danny haren is a good pitcher,however that oakland park is a cavernous hell hole for hitters.i have a bit of anxiety regarding santana in fenway but hes a better pitcher than haren.
id be much hotter for santana if john lester didnt have balls like a gorilla and now the success that went with his efforts only reaffirms this kids value.
f*** phil hughes and melky cabrerra
the yanks need johan santana a lot more than we do
considering they are coming to play with wang(confidence in the shitter,may get deported by steinbrenner)mussina(deep thinker,poor pitcher) and a cast of question marks the yanks must sell their souls and get this guy.
if they get him theyre back in the fold as their offense wins them 80 games a year
if they dont and truly want to rebuild?
they will have some growing pains but will still be competetive based on offense alone,post season aspirations would be attainable but advancement unlikely

I agree on all major points in this portion.

1. Haren is not an ace, he's a good pitcher who benefits greatly from the park he is in. Looking at his second half stats (lol) from last season prove this.

He's not worth the package we'd give up for Santana. If we don't get Santana I say stand pat.

2. Aces are difficult to come by and the Red Sox need to at least seriously explore the opportunity to add one, which they have. Which leads us to point 3...

3. They need to draw a line in the sand with their offer. They can't sell the farm, but a the same time they cannot let the Yanks get him without giving up Hughes or Joba. Again, it seems they have done that.

TheKilo · December 3, 2007

The Sox, who so far are prepared to offer pitcher Jon Lester or center fielder Jacoby Ellsbury but not both as part of their package to acquire the two-time Cy Young Award winner, placed Ellsbury back on the table, which would cause a reshuffling of the players who would have gone as part of a Lester deal (Coco Crisp, Jed Lowrie, Justin Masterson). An Ellsbury deal almost certainly would include either Masterson and/or Michael Bowden, but Clay Buchholz was not in play as of last night. The Sox have not set a deadline on their offer.

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2007/12/03/ellsbury_not_untouchable_for_santana/?page=1

TheKilo · December 3, 2007

Now, back to Steinbrenner-gate.

A Twins official this morning confirmed that the club is not pleased with comments made by Yankees senior vice president Hank Steinbrenner about trade talks involving Santana.

When asked if he thought the comments constituted tampering, the official replied, “We’re not happy. We’ll deal with this internally.'’

Steinbrenner made his comments on Sunday while threatening to pull out of talks with the Twins over the two-time Cy Young award winner.

While charging that the Twins were playing his team against the Red Sox in the Santana sweepstakes, he said the following:

“Because as much as I want Santana, and you can make that clear — for his sake, to know that I do want him — but the fact is that I’m not going to play the game,'’ Steinbrenner said.

It’s unsure if the Twins will pursue tampering charges (or what the penalties are) but it’s definitely added even more spice to the Twins attempts to trade Santana - as if more was needed.

http://www.startribune.com/blogs/neal/?p=282

Fried Neckbones · December 3, 2007

Ron Sen's most recent post got me thinking.

http://redsoxrealitycheck.blogspot.com/ (also on dirtdogs).

His point that young prospects are like raw minerals - valuable because of future production, was the one that got me. His conclusions are different than the ones that I drew from the article, however. Yes, raw minerals (or young talent) will certainly rise in value. There are two ways that this can happen, though. The first is that you develop it yourself, mine it if you will, and reap the rewards directly. The second way is to sell off the rights to those materials.

Theo and the rest of this ownership group seem to have a good grasp of long term strategy, short term viability on the field, and ways to beat the curve in terms of aquiring players. Big FA signings aside (becuase they can always do that due to having boatloads of $$$), there have been a few different philospohical movements in the Sox FO. At first, they went and got undervalued players - Mueller, Millar, Ortiz, etc. This worked pretty well. Then, their value rose and this philosophy was changed to another: let older FA's go and reap the rewards in the draft. The Sox farm system is currently one of the deepest in MLB. The winds are again changing due to shifts in the compensatory pick rules. So, Theo injects young talent into the big club (Youk, Pedroia, Lester, Paps) again with dividends.

The way that I see it, it could be time for another shift in organizational philosophy. Rather than standing pat and using the excess money from having young cost controlled players on the MLB roster, it could be time to use those "raw materials" as a direct means to improvement - by selling off their rights. The big club has a number of cost-controlled players for quite a while. The farm system (especially the lower levels) will not be gutted. Maybe it is time for another shift and time to sell of some of our organizational resources, rather than waiting for contributions from each one, one at a time.

das11209 · December 3, 2007

I am positive that I will post another 'whisper' soon.

Buster Olney has heard whispers that the Twins might decide to hold onto Johan Santana. With a healthy Francisco Liriano alongside Santana in the rotation, that would be a fearsome 1-2 punch. If the Twins do some big things in '08, they could find a way to re-sign Santana. If not, they could move in July.

BoSox21 · December 3, 2007

I guess Olney thinks Santana isn't being serious when he says he won't waive his no-trade clause after the season starts

das11209 · December 3, 2007

IN OTHER NEWS - THIS THREAD IS NOW TIED FOR THE 4TH PLACE (IN TERMS OF NUMBER OF REPLIES) IN THE ALL TIME LIST FOR THIS FORUM. THIS WILL BE A TIEBREAKING POST.

jacksonianmarch · December 3, 2007

I am positive that I will post another 'whisper' soon.

Well, the twins are in a hole now. If Smith does come away with a championship in Santana's walk yr, then he'll go down in history as the ultimate "NOW" GM. If the Twins dont, then this move is an utter failure. You have the opportunity to get yourself a top pitching prospect at the age of 21 who has already had some success in the majors and in the playoffs and you pass to go for it? Not sure what the logic is behind it. If he is banking on Santana and Liriano being a 1-2 punch, has he forgotten that Liriano is coming off surgery? As good a surgery as it is these days, the standard "return to glory" time is 2 yrs. So we can expect Liriano to be a workhorse along with Santana? This guy is a moron. But I think that is the absolute best case scenario for us. Hang onto Johan, have him veto any trade offer at mid season and come to us next yr for strictly cash.

das11209 · December 3, 2007

But I think that is the absolute best case scenario for us. Hang onto Johan' date=' have him veto any trade offer at mid season and come to us next yr for strictly cash.[/quote']

Could not agree more. With players coming of the book - the Yankees will be huge fav to sign him if he goes to free agency.

das11209 · December 3, 2007

Another no news update.

The Mariners have dropped out of the race for Johan Santana, MLB.com reports.

Agent Peter Greenberg insists that Santana is willing to accept trades to teams other than the Yankees and Red Sox, but the Mariners took themselves out of contention anyway. There was little to indicate that they ever made a serious bid, though in Adam Jones, Brandon Morrow, Jose Lopez and Wladimir Balentien, they had some interesting pieces to offer up. They're primarily focusing on signing Hiroki Kuroda at the moemnt.

cam780 · December 3, 2007

I think this is what you call posture-gate. The Yanks don't have a deadline. The Sox aren't going to turn to Haren or Bedard. The Twins aren't going to keep Santana. I would like to think that the dispute between the Twins and Yanks may give us a slight edge but its doubtful.

I'm getting a little bit tired of the waiting game but I think this is one of those crucial points in the AL East just like the fall of '03 was the Yanks got A-Rod and the Sox got Schilling who tipped the balance to just about even and then set the foundation for the 2007 WS. This is that moment all over again - it is the difference between competing for championships year in and year out or dominating the league year in and year out because even despite the WS this rotation which most everyone thinks is flawless still has plenty of question marks - Beckett and his blisters - this year it cost him two starts what if it shows up at the end of the year? Dice-K - is he going to be dominant or he is going to be another Irabu - Can Buchholz hold up - Next year you have two forty-year olds in your rotation and after that you're basically counting on rookies. Add to it that even if the Yanks get Santana, they will still be in on the front line starters year in and year out - its their MO. I think it needs to get done throw in Lester with Lowrie and you have the deal that beats the Yankees.

yankeessuck013 · December 3, 2007

From SI.com

Twins people apparently won't have such an option with Santana, as the Yankees set a Monday deadline for the Twins to accept the proposed trade of top young pitcher Phil Hughes, center fielder Melky Cabrera and a third "mid-range' prospect from a list. The Twins acted like the deadline was no big deal, but Red Sox people seem ready to bring this to a head, as well, so Monday may be the day.

While Minnesota says they could still hold onto Santana, most people here believe they will deal him, and if they have any fear that the Yankees will stick to their Monday deadline, they may well have no choice but to make their best trade before Tuesday.

The Yankees apparently believe they have lead. And thanks to their gambit, they should find out by late Monday whether their hunch is correct.

Rdsxmbnt · December 3, 2007

The Twins brass met until 12:30 a.m. and are continuing to field offers for Santana, a two-time Cy Young Award winner. The Yankees have agreed to include pitcher Phil Hughes in a package while the Red Sox have agreed to include center fielder Jacoby Ellsbury their offer. The Twins, who need a center fielder, rate Ellsbury as a better prospect than Hughes.

http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/the-johan-santana-meetings/

that is big if it's true

TheKilo · December 3, 2007

The Twins, expected to resume discussions with the Yankees and Red Sox about left-hander Johan Santana on Monday, are considering filing tampering charges against the Yankees because of Hank Steinbrenner's public comments about the pitcher, according to a major-league source.

Rosenthal

TheKilo · December 3, 2007

Sweepstakes could be over soon:

While Minnesota says they could still hold onto Santana, most people here believe they will deal him, and if they have any fear that the Yankees will stick to their Monday deadline, they may well have no choice but to make their best trade before Tuesday.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/jon_heyman/12/03/monday.scoop/

example1 · December 3, 2007

No.

Example1, thank you for taking the time to carefully construct complete positions regarding this issue. Others are taking pot shots at small chunks of your work to call you wrong, but they're not laying out equivalent effort to support their own thoughts in almost every case.

That said, I still disagree with your assessment.

I have two differences:

1) I strongly dislike Win Shares as a metric. Its weakness is in the area of players' defense, so it's not necessarily as bad when used strictly to evaluate pitchers. When one starts evaluating hitters, though, one gets some terrible results.

Here's a quick example: I called up the best seasons from 2004-2007 from THT for a quick counterexample. A great one was right at the top of the list: the best two seasons were both achieved in 2004, by Barry Bonds and Albert Pujols. Both, of course, were mostly great hitters. But Win Shares has Barry Bonds at +2.6 as a fielder and Albert Pujols at +2.1. That's absurd: Bonds is a defensive liability, and Pujols is a Gold Glove-caliber fielder, regarded by some as one of the top defensive players in MLB at ANY position. Checking FRAA for a quick contrast, FRAA had Pujols at +9 in 2004, while it had Bonds at -8; other systems might be less kind to the slow-moving outfielder.

Want another example? Check 2007 outfielder stats. The system has Manny Ramirez pegged at +2.7 WS for his defense this year. It awards Carl Crawford, the fleet-footed Rays' LF, just 1.6 WS for his defense. Checking RZR, Crawford was almost 20% more likely to field a ball hit into his zone than Manny. How could Manny be considered 50% better than Crawford if he's reaching over 100 fewer fly balls over the course of a season?

OK, enough on why I don't like Win Shares. On to my second, and bigger concern.

You project that Johan Santana will earn 150% of the value earned thus far in his career over the rest of his career, and you write that he's earned 123 WS so far. Let's examine that, using these fairly generous assumptions:

1) Although he might be slowed by injury, unless he is injured he will never be worse than his current talent level;

2) His current talent level isn't his 2007 level, but the median value of his three most recent seasons, his 2005 level (23 Win Shares); and

3) We'll use Nate Silver's estimate of a cumulative 15% chance each year for career-ending/talent-level-altering injury.

Here's what the next 12 years look like using those assumptions:
Year	WS	Cumulative Win Shares
2008	19.6	 19.6
2009	16.6	 36.2
2010	14.1	 50.3
2011	12.0	 62.3
2012	10.2	 72.5
2013	 8.7	 81.2
2014	 7.4	 88.6
2015	 6.3	 94.8
2016	 5.3	100.1
2017	 4.5	104.7
2018	 3.8	108.5
2019	 3.3	111.8
Let's look at this differently: using this method and 2007 WS rankings* as a benchmark, between what two current 2007 AL pitchers would we find Santana's likely performance, INCLUDING the risk of zero value from injury, for each year?

2008 Lackey/Haren
2009 Kazmir/Wang
2010 Blanton/Pettitte
2011 Matsuzaka/J Weaver
2012 Gaudin/Marcum
2013 Westbrook/Robertson

These are all pretty good pitchers. For four years he projects to be as good or better than the 2007 Matsuzaka. For two more years he projects to be a 3/4 starter. Now, I understand that Santana isn't likely to be Nate Robertson in six years--he'll either be better or he'll be injured, I expect, but the net value is roughly the same as a guaranteed-healthy Westbrook or Robertson.

But even giving Santana very considerable value for the next twelve years--more than I'd expect that PECOTA would offer over the next five, more than BR would consider likely from using its top comparable pitchers--he doesn't end up earning 150% of his value thus far in his career over the rest of his career. Almost no starting pitcher Santana's age would earn that much value.

The way that seems plausible is by looking at great pitchers who did earn that much value. Yes, they were similar to Santana at his age. But so were a bunch of other pitchers, and a whole bunch of them flamed out young.

You know, it's easy to forget that Matt Clement still ranks 33rd in the all-time MLB list of qualifying pitchers for strikeouts per nine innings pitched. Certainly nobody thought that he'd miss half of his three-year contract to injury when he was signed by Boston in 2004, and that he'd pitch only three months for Boston without displaying the effects of what we now know to have been serious injury. Boston paid Matt Clement over $19 million these past two years to pitch 65.1 IP with a 6.61 ERA. Other teams have done similar things: Carl Pavano earned $18 million to pitch 11.1 IP at a 4.76 ERA these past two years; Pedro Martinez earned just over $14 million to pitch 28 IP for the Mets (but with a 2.57 ERA!) Mike Hampton earned $29 million the past two seasons not to pitch at all.

Pitchers get injured. Speculating that Johan Santana might earn 150% of his career value to date through the rest of his career is a reasonable upper bound. As an assumption or a forecast, it's very optimistic.

* THT lists AL starting pitchers by whole Win Shares. In each case where Santana projected to other than a whole number, I gave the names of the lowest higher-ranking pitcher and the highest lower-ranking pitcher. For 2011, where Santana projected at 12.0, I gave the two middle names on their list of AL Starting Pitchers ranked at exactly 12 WS.

At work, shouldn't be writing, but can't resist.

I don't know a better overall metric to use other than WS. I look around and have a hard time finding one. Runs Created is great for offense, WARP, VORP are other options. I chose WS.

I know, from private messages between you and I, that you disagree with the fielding aspect of it, which is fine with me. I think it is still a useful way of looking at players--especially hitters and pitchers--and is a good way, as far as I can tell, of comparing one player at one position with one player at another position.

Given that we are comparing a pitcher with a 'hasn't really played yet' CFer (for whom OF WS are hard to find), I did the best I could.

Second, if I'm reading your post right, you think it is too high for me to assume that Santana will produce 150% of what he already has. FINE WITH ME!!!

If you couldn't tell, I made that estimation, placing him in the pantheon of great career pitchers like Smoltz, Glavine, Clemens and Maddux, to get people to stop thinking I was biased against Santana in favor of Ellsbury. I'm trying to be generous, because I think the argument for Ellsbury's ability to match Santana's career WS from here on out is a pretty strong one. If you think that is too high then you're in luck, so do I.

Even with those lofty 'expectations" I thought I showed pretty solidly why that further amount of Win Shares, by an OF, is not at all unattainable. Pitchers who produce like Santana has for the past 5 years are very valuable, but as soon as they start slipping into the middle group of pitchers they become players who only play every 5th day and their WS totals dip considerably.

If you have the time (and energy) to do it, I would love to see a NON-WS based evaluation of the projected future.

FWIW, I'm in the middle of reading Bill James' "Win Shares" right now, and actually--aside from the fielding, which we can talk about privately--I find it a brilliant work.

Aside:

I don't know if you're at all familiar with Ludwig Wittgenstein's "Tractatus Philosophica" but it is a point by point, logical break down of analytical thought, using logic, with the goal toward putting an end to philosophy. It is WAY over my head as an analytical philosophical work, but it supposedly is quite profound (when Bertrand Russell asked questions about it at Wittgenstein's doctoral defense of the work, he was told, essentially, "Don't worry Bertrand, you just won't get it"). Anyway, I have a similar feeling reading this book by James. I am able to follow it pretty well, but I find the scope and approach of the book to be very solid. I also LOVE the idea of having a simple number to quantify and summarize all of the OTHER numbers that statisticans keep.

There are undoubtedly criticisms of the system at large, but the majority or lists produced using it, and the methods for composing it, are really, really solid in my opinion (much more solid than claims like "he will never match the production of so and so). Getting a solid number gives you a good barometer to compare players by. Again, my guess is that if Win Shares is Bill James' baby, and if James is one of the Sox consultants on things like this, then they are using some modified WS method for this question.

Furthermore, the WS totals that I am using are from THT, and have been adapted from James's to a revised model.

Forgive me for OVER hyping what Santana is capable of, if only to prove a point. I get the sense that a lot of people around here expect him to keep producing at the same rate, and they don't realize that anything below that rate moves him into the group of other regulars who do NOT justify 20m a year.

Again, thanks for filling me in. I'm going to stick with WS but your observations are dualy noted. I hope you now recognize that when I say "do you think that would be fair?" I'm trying to get over the anti-Santana bias that people ascribe to me. My valuation of the rest of his career is, truly, much closer to yours.

cheers.

example1 · December 3, 2007

not that it matters how i feel but you can take those win shares and stick em up roger clemens ass.
john smoltz is 1 of the best money pitchers in MLB history and they have him tied in with kenny lofton and behind roger""my groin i mean my elbow i mean my hammy"" clemens?
does anyone watch baseball anymore or is the average fan just pulling stats off msn.com to determine who value is higher?
this isnt a dig at anyone on board here as much as it is to this new system of deciding who can play and who cant.
we need a good night of book burnings mass arrests and random beatings to get everyone back to the mindset that pitching, above all,including hope prayer and dogma,wins in the post season and there are only a handful of john smoltz's josh becketts and chin mein wangs(LOL) out there..

Okay, Mr. just watch a baseball game to see who's better:

What did you notice from your careful observation of Ellsbury's poor streaks last year? What percentage of strikes was Santana throwing when he got beat last year? Did it 'look' like he was getting shelled, or did he just give up bloop hits.

The fact is, unless you study tape and watch EVERY SINGLE INNING of a pitcher pitching you are going to be off base with your 'just watch him' philosophy. Chances are you, like most of us here, watched MAYBE 4 Santana starts last year, and MAYBE 4 the year prior. So you may have seen 8 Santana starts, where you watched every single pitch and took really careful note... you know, like professional scouts do.

Or, you might be like me and have only watched, MAYBE 1 or 2 starts of his from start to finish the past few years.

I think it's funny how much 'observation' some people claim to be capable of. Personally, I don't have the time to watch a majority of Red Sox games AND to catch every other significant player out there. Unlike you, I apparently must rely on the statistics.

Fortunately, statisticians understand that this is a problem and have developed reliable statistics to measure production over a large span of time. If you don't think it's valid then more power to you, but you should be thankful that the Red Sox do because your view--based on an insufficient scouting report--would be wholly inadequate.

aces
those of you who played at a level that goes beyond hitting off a tee understand that when you bring a legit ace to the mound you have a certain swagger,a certain sense of confidence that says to the other team to basically stay home,you got no chance.

Yes, but if it isn't backed up by a statistical record, I have to wonder whether that "swagger" or even that "ace" actually exist.

that said
danny haren is a good pitcher,however that oakland park is a cavernous hell hole for hitters.i have a bit of anxiety regarding santana in fenway but hes a better pitcher than haren.
id be much hotter for santana if john lester didnt have balls like a gorilla and now the success that went with his efforts only reaffirms this kids value.
f*** phil hughes and melky cabrerra
the yanks need johan santana a lot more than we do
considering they are coming to play with wang(confidence in the shitter,may get deported by steinbrenner)mussina(deep thinker,poor pitcher) and a cast of question marks the yanks must sell their souls and get this guy.
if they get him theyre back in the fold as their offense wins them 80 games a year
if they dont and truly want to rebuild?
they will have some growing pains but will still be competetive based on offense alone,post season aspirations would be attainable but advancement unlikely

1. Haren isn't Santana. True. Neither are most pitchers. What does Haren cost again?

2. Whether or not Haren is

It is fine to ridicule someone who uses Win Shares as a metric, but to then say that using your 'eyes' is just as good or better is absurd. Try again.

BoSox21 · December 3, 2007

I think Haren makes around 6 mil

Sign In

Johan Santana

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blog Entries

Recent Status Updates