Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, October 02, 2022

Shohei Ohtani to make $30 million in 2023, record amount for arbitration-eligible player

Shohei Ohtani has agreed to a $30 million deal with the Los Angeles Angels for the 2023 season in the two-way superstar’s final year of arbitration eligibility before free agency.

The Angels announced the deal Saturday, avoiding a potentially complicated arbitration case with the 2021 AL MVP.

Ohtani’s deal is fully guaranteed, with no other provisions. The deal is the largest one-year contract ever given to an arbitration-eligible player, surpassing the $27 million given to Mookie Betts by the Boston Red Sox in January 2020, a month before he was traded to the Los Angeles Dodgers.

Ohtani’s $24.5 million raise from his 2022 salary is by far the largest for an arbitration-eligible player in major league history. He shattered the previous record of $9.6 million set by Cy Young Award winner Jacob deGrom of the New York Mets when his pay was bumped from $7.4 million to $17 million before the 2019 season.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: October 02, 2022 at 12:50 PM | 51 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: angels, shohei ohtani

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.

   1. Walt Davis Posted: October 02, 2022 at 02:58 PM (#6098741)
I know it's just a single word in colloquial usage, probably usage I've used, but it seems representative of how society views this: the $27 million given to Mookie Betts. Even for ridiculous CEO salaries, the press would say "X earned $30 M" or at worst "X was paid R30 M." But the Red Sox gave Mookie $27 M and he still wasn't grateful enough to give them a discount on a long-term deal.
   2. John Reynard Posted: October 03, 2022 at 04:05 AM (#6098806)
I know it's just a single word in colloquial usage, probably usage I've used, but it seems representative of how society views this: the $27 million given to Mookie Betts. Even for ridiculous CEO salaries, the press would say "X earned $30 M" or at worst "X was paid R30 M." But the Red Sox gave Mookie $27 M and he still wasn't grateful enough to give them a discount on a long-term deal.


I concur with you. It would be interesting to see if "gave" is used with minority athletes substantively more often than white ones as well to see if its similar to how reporters always saw "immense talent" in guys like Lou Whitaker and "gritty hard workers" in guys like Alan Trammel (it was a trend outside Detroit too, but, I remember those two so solidly because they were both talented, hard-working, and basically played nearly the same time period for most of their careers).

I guess I have to make some parameters and set a dataminer going on this.
   3. The_Ex Posted: October 03, 2022 at 07:53 AM (#6098810)
Did the Angels settle with Ohtani early so that anyone trading for him knows the salary cost?
   4. The Duke Posted: October 03, 2022 at 09:06 AM (#6098823)
More likely the Angels gave him a huge number to ward off suitors. He's got to be looking at a multi-year deal at 40 million AAV if he keeps pitching this way. I assume he will be a Dodger when the dust settles. They've got plenty of payroll space and he's already in LA.
   5. Nasty Nate Posted: October 03, 2022 at 09:36 AM (#6098831)
I know it's just a single word in colloquial usage, probably usage I've used, but it seems representative of how society views this: the $27 million given to Mookie Betts. Even for ridiculous CEO salaries, the press would say "X earned $30 M" or at worst "X was paid R30 M." But the Red Sox gave Mookie $27 M and he still wasn't grateful enough to give them a discount on a long-term deal.
I also notice when teams "give" a player an extension (or "extend him," or "lock him up"), as if it was a decision made by one party alone.
   6. Walt Davis Posted: October 03, 2022 at 03:26 PM (#6098914)
#5: Yep, I do that one all the time. On further thought I know that I use give/gave a lot too but I think (maybe) it's more in the sense of "the player gave (produced) X WAR and the team gave him $Y" so hopefully I at least usually phrase it as an exchange. I ain't counting on that though and I suspect I don't use "earned" very often.

#2: My first hypothesis is that it's more of a sports vs other careers thing, maybe sports and entertainment or "serious vs frivolous" job, educated vs non-educated, brain vs physical type of distinction rather than race/gender (which isn't to say I'll be surprised if those play a role). Athletes are stilly "playing a game", they show up for at most a few hours a day, they "stand around doing nothing" most of the time, they're "having fun out there." I suppose it's part of the fan's fantasy that they've got this great life we envy and we don't want to hear about playing their sport 8 hours a day for 10 years while they were growing up, risking a future on the 1 in a 100,000 chance of making it as a pro, the daily training hours, the boring meetings, the video nerd time, etc.

But quite possibly not. The first thing I thought of was movie actors. It seems to me we more often see Tom Hanks "earned" or "was paid" $X for this film. I suspect somebody like Jennifer Lawrence gets the "was paid" treatment more than Hanks.

There's likely an "individual" element as well -- I'm pretty sure golf and tennis paydays are "earned" or "made." They are probably "given" the trophy (or green jacket) but that usage seems fine to me.
   7. SoSH U at work Posted: October 03, 2022 at 03:29 PM (#6098915)
I also notice when teams "give" a player an extension (or "extend him," or "lock him up"), as if it was a decision made by one party alone.


To be fair, locking someone up is typically a one-party decision (with apologies to the BDSM crowd).
   8. DL from MN Posted: October 03, 2022 at 05:04 PM (#6098935)
Even for ridiculous CEO salaries, the press would say "X earned $30 M"


But they're management.
   9. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 03, 2022 at 05:56 PM (#6098943)
I can hardly think of a single media story that said that X "earned"** or "was given" $$$$, no matter whether it was an athlete or a CEO. It's either "made", "received" or "got". I think some of you are reading way too much into nothing.

** Here I'm talking about straight salary, as opposed to money from stock options, tournament winnings, or other cases where there's a direct connection between performance and reward.
   10. John Northey Posted: October 03, 2022 at 06:24 PM (#6098945)
Trammell Whitaker is a great case for racism in baseball - Trammell in HOF since 2018, BBWAA gave him 40% his final year on the ballot 70.7 bWAR 4 gold gloves 6 ASG 3 silver sluggers. Whitaker not in HOF, just 2.9% his only year on the ballot, 75.1 bWAR 3 gold gloves, 5 ASG, 4 silver sluggers. Very similar players by most measures, both very respected for defense and offense while playing. Yet one is in the HOF and always had support, the other is not with minimal support. Quite disgusting imo. Hits are 2369 to 2365, HR 244 to 185, SB 143 to 236, OPS+ 117 to 110 - first is Whitaker, second is Trammell. I really see no reason for one to be in the HOF while the other isn't. Trammell had one year where he nearly got an MVP (1987) but that is the only thing that stands out as a plus for him over Whitaker. Yeah, one is a SS the other a 2B but WAR factors that in and Lou has 5 more than Alan.
   11. John Northey Posted: October 03, 2022 at 06:29 PM (#6098947)
For Ohtani getting $30 mil - still underpaid but he'll get his after 2023 I suspect. I wonder where he wants to play long term? I suspect whoever is in the WS this year and next, in the playoffs those 2 years will be a big factor to him signing with someone. Every team would find a way to play him at DH/P. You need a team with $40+ mil a year of payroll space, one that can do that and still have a good team around him (unlike Texas with A-Rod in the early 2000's). The NY's, LA's, Philly, Toronto are the teams I see as having the ability to do that (SD is spending but I think they are nearing their limit). Chicago's teams could do it but have cheaper owners.

FYI: The Jays get over 1 million viewers PER GAME unlike any other team so they easily can afford any player they want. The question is just do they want to or are their owners happy as a 90ish win team.
   12. TomH Posted: October 03, 2022 at 06:44 PM (#6098949)
#10: You REALLY think it's Racism? And not the huge difference in star seasons, however you measure them? Six seasons of WAR >=6, versus two. Seven times mentioned in MVP voting, versus once.
   13. SoSH U at work Posted: October 03, 2022 at 07:02 PM (#6098952)
Very similar players by most measures,


Not as similar as Whitaker and Bobby Grich. Same position, Whit had more career WAR, Grich a higher peak. Each won multiple GGs (Grich four), one WS. Grich got 2.6 percent his one year on the ballot.

   14. sunday silence (again) Posted: October 03, 2022 at 07:05 PM (#6098953)
I know it's just a single word in colloquial usage, probably usage I've used, but it seems representative of how society views this...


so SURE...
   15. TVerik - Dr. Velocity Posted: October 03, 2022 at 07:14 PM (#6098956)
The arbiter gave - probably "awarded" is better, but "gave" works the contract to the player, not the $$.
   16. You can keep your massive haul Posted: October 03, 2022 at 07:59 PM (#6098963)
I know it's just a single word in colloquial usage, probably usage I've used, but it seems representative of how society views this...


Also why's it called taking a #### instead of leaving a ####?
   17. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: October 03, 2022 at 08:07 PM (#6098965)
I know it's just a single word in colloquial usage, probably usage I've used, but it seems representative of how society views this: the $27 million given to Mookie Betts. Even for ridiculous CEO salaries, the press would say "X earned $30 M" or at worst "X was paid R30 M." But the Red Sox gave Mookie $27 M and he still wasn't grateful enough to give them a discount on a long-term deal.

I think you are reading too much into this. It's not uncommon to use "give" when describing a contract for future performance in any industry (see JPMorgan gives Jamie Dimon options ‘award’ to remain CEO for another five years, for example. Dimon was literally the first example I searched for, I'm sure you can find others). When the person receives his actual compensation after the fact, it's then described as "earned" or "received".
   18. John Northey Posted: October 03, 2022 at 10:56 PM (#6098992)
Maybe I am reading too much into it - but Trammell and Whitaker were said in one breath for nearly 20 years in Detroit. It was clear they were a package there and in 2018 they should've gone into the HOF together (it would've been nice to see).

Sure Trammell had 1 more 'star' season, but the overall package is what is supposed to matter and by that measure Whitaker was slightly better. Bobby Grich was an injustice too and is between the two Tigers at 71.1 bWAR with 6 ASG, 4 gold gloves, and 1 silver slugger. Another close but no cigar guy is Willie Randolph - 65.9 bWAR 6 ASG, 1 Silver Slugger, no gold gloves. The super-rare case of a Yankee who was underrated, getting just 1.1% in his only year on the HOF ballot. Meanwhile we see Harold Baines, a DH who had sub 40 WAR, get in plus be on the ballot for 5 years. Something really, really wrong with that. Or Bill Mazeroski who got in thanks to a single home run (big one) and a rep for defense that the stats don't back up given his 36.5 bWAR. The vets have treated Whitaker, Grich, and Randolph poorly without a doubt while letting in all kinds of fluff. Seems to be more of a anti-2B issue mixed with an anti-black attitude (if they don't have power) as Sweet Lou had his equally qualified teammate go in, and Randolph was never recognized as the star he was while he played or after despite being a Yankee with one of the most overrated players of my time on his team (Don Mattingly). Grich never played on a team that won a round in the playoffs (5 times his teams lost in the ALCS, but he did get a ring while not playing on the '70 O's as a rookie) - he was never higher than 8th for MVP voting despite an 8.3 WAR season and two 7.3 WAR seasons all of which helps explain the lack of votes (no playoff glory pre internet = invisible to many voters). Whitaker also never finished above 8th for MVP, despite 2 years in the 6's. Trammell had the one great year (1987 8.2 WAR) but otherwise wasn't any better than Whitaker (5 years in the 6's but 0 in the 5's vs Lou's 2 in the 5's, Lou had 6 in the 4's vs Trammell's 3 thus showing how Whitaker was the more reliable player but Trammell a touch more flashy).

   19. Lars6788 Posted: October 04, 2022 at 12:20 AM (#6098994)
With regards to Whitaker - maybe there is less of a sentiment to campaign for him and being a duo with Trammell doesn’t drive the narrative anywhere.

It has been decided, Grich is the poster child for that ‘underrated, should be in the Hall’ second baseman.
   20. SoSH U at work Posted: October 04, 2022 at 12:29 AM (#6098995)
Or Bill Mazeroski who got in thanks to a single home run (big one) and a rep for defense that the stats don't back up given his 36.5 bWAR.


It's fair to say he doesn't belong in the Hall, but it sure as hell isn't because his defensive rep is overblown. He's got more dWAR than any pure second baseman in the game's history.
   21. Walt Davis Posted: October 04, 2022 at 12:30 AM (#6098996)
First off, "made" is a similar positive connotation as "earned." Next, from some quick google searches

CNBC (note the EPI report they are summarizing explicitly use the terms "were paid" and their "compensation" and even references the stock they were "given."

Motley Fool (sub-headline, first paragraph)

Fortune Our analysis evaluated the pay packages of 280 Fortune 500 CEOs, who earned a median total compensation of $15.9 million, up 30% from a year

Time The COVID-19 pandemic sent the world into a financial crisis, leaving millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet. But CEOs did quite well during these challenging times. The average chief executive of an S&P 500 company earned $14.5 million last year, up 17.1% from 2020.

MLB.com Of the 10 biggest one-year contracts ever given to arbitration-eligible players,

USA TodayBut Zito admitted his landmark deal, the largest given to a pitcher at the time, placed pressure on him as a Giant.

Bleacher Report: But the only real quote from agent Casey Close is that the Phillies will need to do "much better" than the seven-year contract given to Chase Utley two years ago, ("given" may have come from Close or the author of the article)

There are others which are admittedly borderline like a player was 'given his $X request after winning his arbitration case' (awkward phrasing really, that's what winning your arbitratin case means) and 'the Yankees were willing to give Judge his desired $21 M for this year if he took a long-term deal' and similar.

All that said, both "earned" and "given" seem more common in NZ, Oz and UK publications based on my google search.
   22. John Reynard Posted: October 04, 2022 at 05:55 AM (#6098999)
#10: You REALLY think it's Racism? And not the huge difference in star seasons, however you measure them? Six seasons of WAR >=6, versus two. Seven times mentioned in MVP voting, versus once.


OK, so, lets first simply dismiss the idea that WAR decided that Trammell made the hall and Whitaker didn't even come close. When the votes in question happened, WAR was not widespread as a concept, let alone affecting HoF ballots.

I'll concede that Trammell did better in MVP voting. But, again, why better there too when their careers are very comparable? Trammell plays SS, a bit tougher position. Whitaker was a better offensive player by career value. The one great year seems dubious to me. The MVP voting is a symptom of the same thing which kept Whitaker out of the hall, he wasn't viewed the same way as Trammell by those who voted on these crucial awards, despite a relatively similar career. Making the hall vs. failing to make it to the 2nd ballot isn't something that should happen to comparable players, where the difference is a little higher peak vs a longer one with more aggregate value. They were both worthy in my opinion.

So, what separated them for voters for both MVP and the HoF? I'm not saying it has to be subtle racism (I doubt it was overt racism). But, Occams Razor suggests it is one of the more likely possibilities in the absence of other things which would separate them enough for such disperate results.

None of this is to make it seem like I don't appreciate Trammell, I do. In fact, I appreciate him even more that he said Lou should be in too on his induction day.
   23. John Reynard Posted: October 04, 2022 at 05:58 AM (#6099000)
I'm pretty sure golf and tennis paydays are "earned" or "made."


So, athletes get "given" stuff......but, not in the sports which are mostly white guys, and it doesn't have to do with race?

I haven't datamined this stuff yet. I do actually use my system for work primarily and its been busy. But, I mean, the fact that you know that golf and tennis are likely the sport outliers and that actors mostly get "make/made" instead of "given" suggests that we already know how these signs work in our heads, we just haven't parsed it all out.
   24. TomH Posted: October 04, 2022 at 06:24 AM (#6099001)
Thanks, Johns N & R, for the thoughtful posts. I agree, it ain't WAR that was the deciding part for HOF voters. It was more like "Trammell hit .300 six times". Voters did not appreciate Randolph and Grich and Whitaker whose skills were very broad based. That is true for Nettles and Dw Evans and Dr Evans and a bunch of others, regardless if they were white or black or green. I wish the Tiger pair had gone in the Hall together too, but the Hall did last generation what it has always done. We shouldn't be surprised. Just disappointed.
   25. Ron J Posted: October 04, 2022 at 09:31 AM (#6099013)
#24 Didn't help that Whitaker had a reputation as a flake and that he spent several years (at the end of his career) as a semi-platoon player.
   26. Rally Posted: October 04, 2022 at 09:34 AM (#6099014)
So, what separated them for voters for both MVP and the HoF? I'm not saying it has to be subtle racism (I doubt it was overt racism). But, Occams Razor suggests it is one of the more likely possibilities in the absence of other things which would separate them enough for such disperate results.


Is there a pattern here? Are White players of a given performance level more likely to be voted in?

I kind of doubt it, especially with guys like Jim Rice, Harold Baines, and Lee Smith getting in. But the data is there if someone wants to explore it.
   27. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: October 04, 2022 at 09:36 AM (#6099015)

Walt, your post doesn’t seem to address my earlier comment, which is that contracts are often described as “given” while actual compensation is often described as “earned” after the fact.

This would be consistent with why golf and tennis paydays are “earned” when it’s a tournament victory, if indeed that is the case (I don’t really follow either sport). I bet they are described differently when they are appearance fees.
   28. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 04, 2022 at 09:58 AM (#6099016)
I'm pretty sure golf and tennis paydays are "earned" or "made."

So, athletes get "given" stuff......but, not in the sports which are mostly white guys, and it doesn't have to do with race?

As has been pointed out, the non-endorsement income of players in individual sports like tennis and golf is essentially prize money, which players directly earn by winning tournaments. If they get eliminated in the first round, they earn nothing. If you were to read that Serena Williams was "given" her prize money, while Roger Federer "earned" his, then your point about race would have more credibility.

EDIT: coke to Dave

The LIV golf tour, OTOH, is a mix of guaranteed money and prize money. How are the media describing those two distinct types of income?

(I still see "made" as the most common way of describing most public figures' relation to income, regardless of the occupation or the race of the public figure.)

   29. BDC Posted: October 04, 2022 at 10:15 AM (#6099021)
I tend to think that the bigger-seasons factor is the most salient one separating Trammell from Whitaker in HOF-voter thinking.

It is the curse of consistency. Bobby Abreu was excellent for seven straight years and then good for another seven straight, a remarkable run. Abreu had a 60-WAR career; what separates him from Vladimir Guerrero and Harmon Killebrew and Willie Stargell is that those guys weren't as consistent, another way of saying they won MVP awards and so were perceived as having a higher talent ceiling. It may not be the best way of looking at Hall credentials but it's tended to be the case, probably also working against Grich and Dwight Evans and Kenny Lofton and others.
   30. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 04, 2022 at 11:55 AM (#6099029)
I tend to think that the bigger-seasons factor is the most salient one separating Trammell from Whitaker in HOF-voter thinking.

Though in this case it was just that single 1987 season that was the attention grabber. Other than that one year, their numbers were virtually interchangeable, with Whitaker having a slight edge.

But it didn't hurt that the 1987 Tigers staged a huge September comeback to win the AL East on the last day of the season, and that Trammell hit .417 / .490 / .677 / 1.167 for the entire month. It was like a variant of Yaz's historic stretch run in 1967 that also saw the Red Sox win the pennant on the final day.

Shorter version: Narrative, narrative, narrative.
   31. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: October 04, 2022 at 12:07 PM (#6099031)
I tend to think that the bigger-seasons factor is the most salient one separating Trammell from Whitaker in HOF-voter thinking.
Walks. It’s probably not just that, but that’s a huge (and I think the biggest) part of it. HOF voters have never rewarded players who got a lot of their value from walks relative to other things. Whitaker has a career OBP of .363 with 1197 walks. Trammell, .352 with 850 walks. Abreu, Grich, both Evanses, the list goes on. All of them drew a lot of walks.
   32. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: October 04, 2022 at 02:15 PM (#6099042)
Professional golf and tennis call the money you make through your playing "career earnings". That is because (with the exception of very small amounts everybody gets for making the tournament itself) you only get paid for what you do during the tournament. You "earn" the money by doing well going forward.

Baseball players are different from most NFL players in that their contracts are guaranteed (except for option years), regardless of injury or performance. You don't "earn" that money going forward - the minute you sign that contract, you have been given the (promise of the) money.

Yesterday, Rich Hill of the Red Sox pitched six strong innings in a 403 win against Tampa Bay. In doing so, he pitched 120.1 innings this year. The announcer noted that when Hill hit 120 innings, he "earned" a $250,000 bonus in his contract for hitting that IP milestone. He didn't say "the Red Sox gave him $250K" - he said Hill *earned* $250K, because it was contingent on future performance:

Obviously, people use language casually, and there is always going to be somebody who will use one of these words with negative intent ("My favorite team just gives money to sucky players!") And obviously, when a player becomes a free agent and signs a big contract, they have earned it, in the sense that something about their past performance made at least one team desire their services going forward.

But I don't think there is nefarious intent going on here, almost any of the time: "Give" is for a contract that will largely guarantee money going forward, regardless of performance or injury; while "earn" is money you get for what you do going forward to get that money.
   33. SoSH U at work Posted: October 04, 2022 at 02:31 PM (#6099045)

Baseball players are different from most NFL players in that their contracts are guaranteed (except for option years), regardless of injury or performance. You don't "earn" that money going forward - the minute you sign that contract, you have been given the (promise of the) money.


Sure, Years 2-on aren't guaranteed, but it doesn't change the fact in both sports you're paid based on what you're expected to do, unlike golf or tennis.
   34. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: October 04, 2022 at 02:41 PM (#6099046)
It's fair to say he doesn't belong in the Hall, but it sure as hell isn't because his defensive rep is overblown. He's got more dWAR than any pure second baseman in the game's history.


This. Maz' WAR is built off of his 148 RField and 61 RPos, for 209 fielding runs above average. His RBat was -160, which is why he was only slightly above average for his career despite the stellar defense.
   35. Karl from NY Posted: October 04, 2022 at 02:57 PM (#6099050)
Golf and tennis both give plenty of appearance fees to players they hope will perform well and attract interest. (Maybe not the majors, but mid-level events definitely do.)
   36. sunday silence (again) Posted: October 04, 2022 at 04:48 PM (#6099063)
Walt, your post doesn’t seem to address my earlier comment, which is that contracts are often described as “given” while actual compensation is often described as “earned” after the fact.


Inge made a perfectly logical point which has not been addressed.
   37. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 04, 2022 at 05:54 PM (#6099075)
Golf and tennis both give plenty of appearance fees to players they hope will perform well and attract interest. (Maybe not the majors, but mid-level events definitely do.)

That's true. But are those appearance fees ever described as "earned" income? In reality they're more like advertising money that's contractual in nature.
   38. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: October 04, 2022 at 06:32 PM (#6099081)
But it didn't hurt that the 1987 Tigers staged a huge September comeback to win the AL East on the last day of the season, and that Trammell hit .417 / .490 / .677 / 1.167 for the entire month. It was like a variant of Yaz's historic stretch run in 1967 that also saw the Red Sox win the pennant on the final day.

The variant being that Trammell somehow wasn't awarded the MVP that year despite all of this; it went to George Bell, whose team was passed by Trammell's tigers while Bell went 3/27 over the last week (albeit having hit well for the rest of September).
   39. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 04, 2022 at 07:29 PM (#6099087)
That was a very close MVP race. Trammell should've won it, but Bell's big advantage in the power stats probably put him over the top.
   40. TomH Posted: October 05, 2022 at 11:58 AM (#6099160)
The 80s MVP votes were the WORST at over-rating RBIs
   41. TomH Posted: October 05, 2022 at 12:20 PM (#6099166)
It was stated on ESPN today that Shohei Ohtani will qualify for the ERA title by pitching today. He will be the first EVER to qualify for both the batting title and the ERA title.
   42. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: October 05, 2022 at 01:00 PM (#6099175)
Ohtani is the rare athlete who is very, very hyped...and yet, the more you look at his stats, the more you realize he is even more valuable than the hype!

He is 4th in ERA+. He is 4th in OPS+.

He is all over the leader boards in both pitching and offensive categories - there is nothing gimmicky about what he is accomplishing. He is really, really good at hitting, and really, really good at pitching. And he is durable: He is going to be in about the top 20 in innings pitched, with the second-best ERA+ in the league...and he is going to be in the top 10 in games played among non-pitchers, even though he is doing more work than pretty much anybody else in baseball.

And this is not even taking into account all of the intangibles working in his favor: Coming from Japan and further engaging a foreign audience into MLB. His obvious likability and positive vibe. He is a good-looking guy, great smile, really entertaining way he swings the bat and pitches the ball.

As a Red Sox fan, I look at Ohtani, and go: How much would you pay Rafael Devers to be one of the best hitters in the game? $25m? Who knows. And we're paying Nathan Eovaldi $18m a year to throw a total of 407 innings with a 4.15 ERA for the last four years! (Every team could do some version of this...)

So how much is Ohtani worth? $50 million a year? If you're worried that he will eventually have to lay off of the pitching or something, give him a ####load of annual money the next four years, like 4 yrs/$200m, then add a few years where he gets $40m as a base, and then legit bonuses for reaching inning or appearance milestones. Or maybe you just give him the money for 8-10 years, because there's never really been anybody like him, so how do you use past comps to project his future? He is amazing.
   43. Karl from NY Posted: October 05, 2022 at 02:45 PM (#6099203)
But are those appearance fees ever described as "earned" income?

Sometimes, when you're talking about the player from their perspective rather than the event. You might see a phrasing like "Roger Federer earned $10 million in prize money and $5m in appearance fees."
   44. sunday silence (again) Posted: October 05, 2022 at 03:34 PM (#6099210)
is Walt not coming to back this ?
   45. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 05, 2022 at 04:04 PM (#6099216)
And he is durable: He is going to be in about the top 20 in innings pitched, with the second-best ERA+ in the league...
That says a fair amount about 2022 pitching, since Ohtani will only qualify for the ERA title, and other pitching stats that share the innings requirement, on the last day of the season, assuming he goes 1 inning in his start today. That’s not meant to minimize Ohtani, just noting the evolution of the durability standard.
   46. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: October 05, 2022 at 08:29 PM (#6099271)
So Ohtani ended up pitching 5 innings, 1 ER, but took the loss. He ended up at 166 innings, good for 20th-most in the AL. I believe only 23 pitchers qualified for the ERA title in the AL this year - an average of about 1.5 per team.

SEA, HOU, TOR, and CLE had three each.
NYY and TB had two.
BOS, TB, BAL, CHI, TEX, OAK and LAA had one each.
DET, KC, and MIN had none.
   47. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: October 05, 2022 at 09:47 PM (#6099287)
That list is pretty interesting. Every playoff team had more than one qualifier, no non-playoff team did.

In the NL, the Mets only had one qualifier (plus 3 more guys between 145-158 IP), but all the other playoff teams had at least 2. Not sure about non-playoff teams, didn’t have time to check them all.
   48. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 05, 2022 at 11:02 PM (#6099301)
So Ohtani ended up pitching 5 innings, 1 ER, but took the loss. He ended up at 166 innings, good for 20th-most in the AL. I believe only 23 pitchers qualified for the ERA title in the AL this year - an average of about 1.5 per team.

50 years ago the 12 team AL had 37 qualifiers for the ERA title, just over 3 per team, with each team having between 2 and 4. That was a very weak hitting year (3.47 RPG vs 2022's 4.22), so it's not that surprising, even not taking into consideration the current emphasis on pitch counts, etc.
   49. Hombre Brotani Posted: October 06, 2022 at 03:49 AM (#6099318)
Does this make high quality starters who can qualify for ERA titles more or less valuable? More, right? Or does it matter where you get good innings from?
   50. Ron J Posted: October 06, 2022 at 09:01 AM (#6099326)
#49 Doesn't matter where the innings come from.
   51. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: October 06, 2022 at 09:32 AM (#6099331)
Yes, but roster spots are scarce. You'd rather have one pitcher who's good for 200 quality innings over two who throw 100 IP each.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BDC
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogSource: Cardinals, Willson Contreras reach 5-year, $87.5M deal
(19 - 8:56am, Dec 08)
Last: Moses Taylor loves a good maim

NewsblogMasataka Yoshida, Red Sox agree to deal
(25 - 8:47am, Dec 08)
Last: Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer

NewsblogHot Stove OMNICHATTER 2022
(99 - 8:25am, Dec 08)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogChaim Bloom's empty words about Bogaerts are insulting
(12 - 8:19am, Dec 08)
Last: cHiEf iMpaCt oFfiCEr JE

NewsblogSources: Red Sox, closer Kenley Jansen reach 2-year deal
(15 - 8:17am, Dec 08)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

Newsblog2022-23 NBA Kick-Off Thread
(680 - 7:59am, Dec 08)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

NewsblogLong-time Cubs’ radio voice Pat Hughes receives Baseball Hall of Fame’s Ford C. Frick Award
(9 - 7:58am, Dec 08)
Last: And You Thought Zonk Was Terminated?

Hall of Merit2023 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(298 - 7:48am, Dec 08)
Last: Dr. Chaleeko

Newsblog2022 Rule 5 Draft Pick By Pick Selections
(9 - 2:58am, Dec 08)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogKen Rosenthal on Twitter: "Deal is pending a physical." / Twitter
(31 - 12:42am, Dec 08)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogBrooks Raley: Shipped to Mets
(5 - 11:07pm, Dec 07)
Last: Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb

Newsblog2022 Major League Baseball Rule 5 Draft Preview Version 6.0 - $
(8 - 9:16pm, Dec 07)
Last: JJ1986

NewsblogReport: Mets sign Jose Quintana to two-year, $26 million deal
(15 - 7:54pm, Dec 07)
Last: Banta

NewsblogOrix Buffaloes Officially Post Masataka Yoshida
(9 - 7:02pm, Dec 07)
Last: Jay Seaver

NewsblogSources: Cubs, Jameson Taillon agree to 4-year, $68M deal
(11 - 6:35pm, Dec 07)
Last: Moses Taylor loves a good maim

Page rendered in 1.0910 seconds
45 querie(s) executed