Over his last four seasons (2004-08), Sheets has averaged about 120 innings with a 3.45 ERA. If he does that for the A’s, he’ll be worth about what he’s paid. If he does more than that, he’ll be paid more. For him to create any real extra value he’ll have to pitch like a true ace, and there’s little reason to think he’s physically capable of doing so. It’s not a bad signing, just an uninspired one. As a broke team in a tough division, the A’s need to do better than that.
Down in San Diego, the Padres made a far sharper signing this week. Unlike Sheets, Jon Garland will never start an All Star Game or have a season where he strikes out 10 men for every one he walks. He’s pitched at least 190 innings eight years in a row, though, and run up a below-average ERA in just one of them. He’s also just 30 and signed for about half what Sheets is guaranteed. As a nearly mortal lock to be worth about twice his $5.3 million salary, Garland is a steal. Given how durable he is and that Petco Park is the most extreme pitcher’s park in the majors, he may even have more trade value than Sheets this summer.
Beane made his reputation exploiting market inefficiencies, an unfortunate bit of jargon that just means he had an eye for players who were worth more than they cost. He used statistics to find them, something you can’t really do anymore. Aside from the real paste eaters, every team understands that it’s better to have hitters who get on base than those who don’t, and that there is some benefit to be had from evaluating defense with math.
There are still inefficiencies out there, though, and taken together these two signings hint at a big one, the hardwired human desire to hit a jackpot. Teams are more willing than they should be to bet a lot on the small chance that a player will be really great, and curiously uninterested in paying for a sure thing. That the A’s are on the wrong side of this might seem a bit odd given their reputation, but then that always had less to do with how sharp they were than how dull some of their rivals were.
Repoz
Posted: January 30, 2010 at 03:12 PM |
19 comment(s)
|
Login to Bookmark
Related News:
General,
Oakland,
San Diego
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
By what standard are the Oakland Athletics broke?
Still amazed he got that much money.
120 innings sucks for a starter; only a little more than half a good year.
Yeah, that makes more sense---he probably meant five years, including last year with zero innings.
For the A's, however, their "replacement" pitchers include a stable of pretty good young pitchers. When Sheets breaks down, he will be replaced by a pitcher like Trevor Cahill, Gio Gonzalez, Josh Outman (when he returns from surgery), or Vin Mazzaro. I think this makes the gamble considerably more worthwhile, since for the "replacement salary" the A's will (hopefully) get better than "replacement pitching." It would be one thing if it were Edgar Gonzalez waiting in the wings, but it's not.
The Padres, on the other hand, have pretty thin pitching (I think), so they need a guy to soak up innings lest they really run a replacement pitcher out there.
Think about it this way: Sheets + replacement may very likely return 10 MM of value, in the A's particular context.
Why the A's don't simply let one of their young pitchers take the bump and leave Sheets out of the equation likely has to do with the risk calculus surrounding (what the A's evidently perceive as) a weak division and the potential ROI on the small but finite likelihood on star performance by Sheets.
The A's actually have lost 259 games over the past 3 seasons. That's basically 86 losses oper year. 409/3 = 136 losses per season.
If they get a very good half-season out of Sheets and a very good half-season out of Justin Duchscherer, there is no reason to think they won't be a significantly better team than they were last year, when they had a P-record of .500. By taking on two guys with histories of injuries (plus mental problems in Duke's case), it is very unlikely Oakland will get anything like 400 IP from them combined. But they might get 300 IP, and that would be enough. And If they only get 200, those will (probably) be 200 innings pitched with a very low ERA.
It's odd, to me, that Marchman thinks so highly of the Garland signing. Garland could be a nice addition. He's not too old and he was excellent for the Dodgers. However, the Padres have NO CHANCE of contending. That doesn't mean San Diego shouldn't try to improve; and that if a pitcher is available who makes them better at a reasonable price, they should sign him. I'm not at all down on the Garland signing.
But there is a difference between a club like the A's, which is within grasp of making the playoffs, stretching out for a shot at improvement of a couple of wins and a cellar-dweller* like the Padres just improving a speck. At best, Garland makes the Padres a 70-win team.
* Yes, I know the A's finished in 4th in a 4-team division in 2009. However, I think it is nonsense to not think they are not at least very close to contending for the ALW this year, given their P-record, their youth, their pitching upgrades, their defensive upgrades and garlic fries.
* Yes, I know the A's finished in 4th in a 4-team division in 2009. However, I think it is nonsense to not think they are not at least very close to contending for the ALW this year, given their P-record, their youth, their pitching upgrades, their defensive upgrades and garlic fries.
And the Angels trading John Lackey for Joel Pineiro...
I've come to loathe this sort of logic. For him to have more bang for the buck, yes, he'll have to pitch like an ace. But every extra effective inning he pitches has value to the cause of victory for the Oakland Athletics. Though they're operating on a budget, the A's aren't really trying to win the Fangraphs Memorial $/Win Derby any more than the Red Sox or the Yankees. So what if Sheets gets a raise commensurate with his value over a certain level? If he pitches 175 innings, unlikely as that is, maybe he isn't some kind of magical steal for the money, but he still gets the A's that much closer to the goddamned playoffs. I don't understand why this is so difficult for people to understand. The point of a baseball team is to win as many baseball games as possible.
This is very, very important.
Is that a triple negative?
Marchman's point stands because the nuance-the idea-of the column points to crosscurrents
"exploiting market inefficiencies"
"something you can't really do anymore"
Do you know what parentheses mean?
The A's could contend this year. I like the signing. If he's healthy, he pitches them to the playoffs or is traded for more prospect loot.
Omar: Jeff, I don't have any paste.
Jeff Wilpon: Did you eat it?
Omar (tube of paste stuck to his teeth): No, sir.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main