Better Know A Stat - OPS+
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 30, 2009 7:35 PM PST
in Glossary
93 comments
Inspired by Stephen Colbert and his Better know a congressman series, TBLA is launching our new "Better Know A Stat" series and today's debut is the baseball reference stat OPS+. OPS+ is a great stat to start with as we use it just about every day, and it incorporates several stats that everyone should know. OB%, Slug%, and OPS. From The Baseball Page Website
OPS+ is OPS adjusted for the park and the league in which the player played, but not for fielding position. An OPS+ of 100 is defined to be the league average. An OPS+ of 150 or more is excellent, and 125 very good, while an OPS+ of 75 or below is poor.
A common misconception is that OPS+ closely matches the ratio of a player’s OPS to that of the league. In fact, due to the additive nature of the two components in OPS+, a player with an OBP and SLG both 50% better than league average in those metrics will have an OPS+ of 200 (twice the league average OPS+) while still having an OPS that is only 50% better than the average OPS of the league.
Many of you understand the definition above but for those that don't let us take a look at each of the statistics being used in the formula, which is basically:
OPS+ = (OBP / lgOBP + SLG / lgSLG - 1) * 100
More information about OPS+ can be found at Baseball-Reference.com, as well as more information about how their park and league factors are calculated.
On Base Percentage
OB% is measured by the sum of hits (H), base on balls (BB), and HBP (hit by pitch) divided by the sum of times at bat (AB), (BB), sacrifice flies (SF), and HBP. The formula looks like this (H + BB + HBP) / (AB + BB + SF + HBP). If you have been here anytime at all you know that we usually use OB% instead of batting average when discussing the offensive potential of a player. Each person has loyalties to certain statistics, some have discounted the batting average as obsolete but it is hard for some of us to give up that ghost, however OB% factors in every time that a hitter reaches base safely, not just the time the batter gets a hit and is much more indicative of a the offensive value then batting average. Using Matt Kemp in our example:
(180+52 + 3) / (606+52+6+3) = .352
.350 is good not great but when combined with Kemp's power you have a valuable player. Jamey Carroll and Russell Martin have good OB% but a weak slug% with little speed to go with it, making them much less valuable from an offensive standpoint.
Slugging Percentage
The 2nd part of the OPS is the slug% which takes the total bases (singles (+1), doubles (+2), triples (+3), home runs (+4) ) divided by at bats. The forumula for slug% would be (Total Bases ) / (AB). Again using Matt Kemp as an example Matt had 122 singles, 25 doubles, 7 triples, and 26 home runs.
((122*1) + (25*2) + (7*3) + (26*4)) / 606 = .490
.490 is great for a center fielder. Only Tori Hunter had a higher slug% then Matt Kemp in 2009 for centerfielders.
On-Base Plus Slugging (OPS)
Adding OB% with Slug% gets you OPS. This statistic is credited to Bill James, It is designed to merge a player's OBP, which measures how often he gets on base, and his Slugging Percentage (which measures ability to hit for average and power). Until more advanced metrics came into play this is the stat that many used and still use when trying to determine the offensive value of a player. It has some good things and bad things. Stolen bases are completely ignored and it weights the OB% the same as Slug%. Also it does not normalize for era's and ballpark effects. For example Wes Parker had an OPS in 1970 of only .850 which at first glance is a good year for a first baseman but not really a great year. If you were to sort LA Dodger first baseman by OPS his .850 would be the 10th best offensive season. However when you use a normalized stat like OPS+ his season is actually tied for 3rd best. It was one hell of a season but the numbers are masked behind the tough hitting environment of Dodger Stadium.
That is why we love to use OPS+, it uses OPS but then normalizes the numbers for era and ballpark effects allowing you to compare what someone did in 1970 with what someone did in 2009. OPS+ still has the same problem of weighting OB% and Slug% equally and more complex metrics have become available to address this but for a quick and dirty way to compare players across leagues and era's, it makes for a great metric.
Below are the 17 greatest Los Angeles Dodger seasons according to OPS+.
Player OPS+ TB Year Age AB HR RBI BB BA OBP SLG OPS Pos
Mike Piazza 185 355 1997 28 556 40 124 69 .362 .431 .638 1.070 *2/D
Pedro Guerrero 181 281 1985 29 487 33 87 83 .320 .422 .577 .999 *7538/9
Gary Sheffield 176 322 2000 31 501 43 109 101 .325 .438 .643 1.081 *7/D
Reggie Smith 167 281 1977 32 488 32 87 104 .307 .427 .576 1.003 *9/8
Mike Piazza 166 308 1996 27 547 36 105 81 .336 .422 .563 .985 *2
Gary Sheffield 164 300 2001 32 515 36 100 94 .311 .417 .583 1.000 *7/D9
Adrian Beltre 163 376 2004 25 598 48 121 53 .334 .388 .629 1.017 *5/6
Reggie Smith 161 250 1978 33 447 29 93 70 .295 .382 .559 .942 *9/8
Eddie Murray 158 290 1990 34 558 26 95 82 .330 .414 .520 .934 *3
Pedro Guerrero 156 308 1982 26 575 32 100 65 .304 .378 .536 .914 *985
Shawn Green 154 325 2002 29 582 42 114 93 .285 .385 .558 .944 *9/D
Shawn Green 154 370 2001 28 619 49 125 72 .297 .372 .598 .970 *9/83
Kal Daniels 154 239 1990 26 450 27 94 68 .296 .389 .531 .920 *7
Pedro Guerrero 154 294 1987 31 545 27 89 74 .338 .416 .539 .955 *73
Mike Piazza 152 307 1993 24 547 35 112 46 .318 .370 .561 .932 *2/3
Jimmy Wynn 151 266 1974 32 535 32 108 108 .271 .387 .497 .884 *8
Pedro Guerrero 150 310 1983 27 584 32 103 72 .298 .373 .531 .904 *5/3
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 12/30/2009.
The purpose of this series is not for our regular commentators who are already well versed in modern statistics but for those of who have found our site, hang around but don't quite know what we are talking about. This series would be a good time to ask questions and we will do our best to answer them.
Also I'm no expert so if I have made any mistakes or misrepresentations, please let me know so I can fix them.
0 recs |
93 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Your partners on
Big League Stew (Yahoo!) are doing a similar series.
So far, they’ve done…WPA, wOBA, FIP, OPS+ and WAR.
It’s great that these stats are getting more and more mainstream exposure.
vr, Xei
by Xeifrank on Dec 30, 2009 7:50 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Your formula for slugging percentage is off...
it should just read: Total Bases / AB
by Coolguy_88888888 on Dec 30, 2009 8:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I get a little confused with OPS +
but I don’t think 100 actually represents league average (bad wikipedia). I think 100 was a little better than league average last year.
I found this explaination which is pretty good:
When somebody tells you that a stat is adjusted, or has a "+" suffix on the end of it, you expect it to be the ratio of the player’s stat to the league average, perhaps with a park adjustment thrown in. You don’t expect it to be a similar but different statistic. So the measurement that is labeled OPS+ does mislead. .
http://walksaber.blogspot.com/2007/08/audacity-of-ops.html
The thing to keep in mind with OPS and OPS+ are that they are ranking stats, used to compare batting to base capabilities. The numbers themselves are pretty meaningless.
by Cool Dudes on Dec 30, 2009 10:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
It's a good quick and dirty estimate
but you are right, it’s not exactly OPS/lgOPS.
The formula is 100 * (SLG / lgSLG + OBP / lgOBP), so two players with the same OPS and same park/league factors could have different OPS+.
Example…
Player A has a .350 OBP and .500 SLG
Player B has a .400 OBP and .450 SLG
League avg (assume same park factor here) is .340 OBP and .425 SLG
Player A’s OPS+ is 121 (120.59)
Player B’s OPS+ is 124 (123.53)
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 8:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I forgot to add one thing
formula is 100 * (SLG / lgSLG + OBP / lgOBP – 1)
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 8:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
100 OPS+ is average for AL.
94 OPS+ is average for NL when you include pitchers(and B-Ref does)
by Tripon on Dec 31, 2009 6:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Great series guys
Not all of us hardcore fans are experts in the statistical analysis that is so prevalent in today’s game; and its hard to get caught up easily. Thanks.
by BlueBulldog on Dec 31, 2009 4:44 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Thank you SO much
Finally, a plain-English definition of OPS+ for people like me who read through TBLA and DT on a (nearly) everyday basis.
I’ve look to read more definitions, such as the meaning of WAR or FIP.
Keep up the good work !
by Connector on Dec 31, 2009 6:44 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Tom Tango had done a great series of 10 answers to questions from Mike Silva, who was critical of sabermetrics in a recent article. There is really some fascinating stuff there.
Here is the link to the table of contents, and here are direct links to the articles about WAR and FIP
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 9:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The SBNation
link for the series is what finally got me off my duff to start our series. I figured we’d lean heavily on his stuff but since he didn’t mention OPS+ I thought we’d start out with that.
by meercatjohn on Dec 31, 2009 9:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What ever happened to Kal Daniels?
And, who is the Czar for figuring the era and ballpark adjustments? Seems to me that it could be fairly subjective.
What about reaching base on an error? I assume it is counted the same as an out.
by Dodgers1981 on Dec 31, 2009 8:36 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Kal Daniels who had one of the best strokes in all of baseball at the age of 23 was simply a victim of bad knees. They destroyed his career.
by meercatjohn on Dec 31, 2009 8:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Full explanation on how the park factors are calculated is at Baseball-Reference.com
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 8:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
ROE
Yep, reaching base on an error is counted in the box score as making an out.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 8:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ken Rosenthal says the A’s can’t offer Justin Ducscherer arbitration if he’s a Type A FA next offseason. I wonder if that will be more commonplace.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 8:59 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
The Rangers OF to Cubs pipeline is alive and well
From Rosenthal:
Marlon Byrd close on three-year deal with Cubs
Wow. Three years for Marlon Byrd? Really?
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 9:24 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
For the Cubs sake, I hope Byrd works out for them better than the last two Rangers’ OF to sign a multi-year deal (Matthews and Bradley, although Milton really only played 20 games in the OF for Tex)
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 9:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
WOW
wow…
has anybody checked out marlon bryds SPLITS…. They are INSANE…. he is a beast at home and terrible just terrible on the road….. poooor cubs.. they not over overpaid but they gave the guy 3 years!!!
by matthewmafa on Dec 31, 2009 9:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s for $15m total (per Bruce Levine / ESPN Chicago), which isn’t that bad I guess, but why on Earth would anyone give three years to Marlon Byrd?
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 9:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
15 mill is not bad
but 3 years.. outrageous
by matthewmafa on Dec 31, 2009 9:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.
must be the Cub motto
by meercatjohn on Dec 31, 2009 9:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
2010: $3m
2011: $5.5m
2012: $6.5m
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 11:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you
I come here almost every day and read (or try to when they are stat heavy/related) every post and now I finally have an understanding of what some of this is, thank you so much for making this easier to understand, I can’t wait to finally understand what all of these stats are and how they work. Now I shouldn’t feel so lame.
by Lidlbit on Dec 31, 2009 9:51 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
No reason to feel lame
One of my rules to live by is that if you like baseball, you are not lame (at least that’s what I tell myself in my bouts of lameness)
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 9:54 AM PST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
I way more than “like” baseball. :)
by silverwidow on Dec 31, 2009 10:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Baseball is LIFE, the rest are just details.
My motto
by VeroJoe on Jan 1, 2010 7:13 AM PST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Plus sometimes
it is better not to know just how fallible our heroes are. I’m just glad that Piazza measures up no matter what yardstick is used.
by meercatjohn on Dec 31, 2009 9:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Lots of '90s and '00s in the table
I would have expected a few more examples from years when the team as a whole did well, for a statistic that’s meant to make cross-season comparisons compatible, but I guess there are far too many variables for a team’s success to expect it to show up more individual batting successes in successful seasons.
You do point out several times that OPS+, like regular OPS, still simply adds OBP and SLG together, equally weighted. That has always seemed simplistic to me. Not that I have any idea what would be a better weighting, or why. But isn’t that what EQA purports to do, weight the two components more appropriately? I am puzzled why EQA has not caught on more on stat-inclined sites like this. I’d be very interested if you (Phil, and/or Eric) would venture an explanation. Is it just that you, like me, don’t really know what EQA is about, and so are a bit suspicious of it? Is it just too obscure to understand, so people are wary of it? Or has it been found wanting – maybe its weighting of OBP and SLG is no more accurate or scientific than just smushing them together like OPS does? Otherwise, if it really is more accurate, it seems a shame not to publicize it more, and just avoid it because it’s less popular. Anyway, I’ll look forward, if I may, to a discussion.
by berkowit28 on Dec 31, 2009 10:01 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I Love EQA
but baseball prospectus simply does an atrocious job of sharing data. Baseball-Reference is lights world a head of the competition when it comes to search and share. The things I would do to BP if I owned the organization. They are sitting on a goldmine of data that is quickly becoming irrelevant as the competition blows by them with more simplistic but better shared data. We will hit EQA in our series but it doesn’t help to have the best metric if no one can see it, along with the fact they hide the components behind the cloak of propriety without proper peer review.
My biggest problem with OPS+ or OPS is that it simply ignores speed as an offensive component. Using OPS+ as a gauge for comparing someone whose biggest offensive skill is speed like Juan Pierre or Maury Wills seems to be missing a vital component. Creating runs is not something that should simply be ignored. I love runs created for it’s simplistic nature but it is not ballpark or era adjusted which is why I embraced Win Shares but wish Bill James had left out the defensive component since I don’t trust defensive metrics. You never see me quote WAR for the same reasons. I only trust the defensive metrics when I look at them as a consensus and simply sticking UZR in as the defacto metric seems arrogant at this stage.
by meercatjohn on Dec 31, 2009 10:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
EQA has its own problems, but
at least it is a form of linear weights, which makes it a ton better than OPS+. However, with Fangraphs now offering wRC+, there is little need for EQA or OPS+.
by Paul Scott on Jan 2, 2010 1:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What's wRC+?
I’ve never heard of it.
by berkowit28 on Jan 3, 2010 11:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s on Fangraphs…a park-adjusted, league-adjusted way to measure a player based on linear weights
by Eric Stephen on Jan 4, 2010 11:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I know it's too soon to worry about this
But if the Rule 5 kids, Stults and Haeger make the team over better options simply because of their roster status, I will be pissed.
by silverwidow on Dec 31, 2009 10:21 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
May not
be so much roster status as a combination of limiting the innings of Elbert/McDonald in the rotation at the beginning of the year. Not even you must think that either would have much in the tank come Sept if they are pitching major league rotation innings from April 1st on. Not after the fairly light workload both had in 2009.
by meercatjohn on Dec 31, 2009 10:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
McDonald, no I don’t want starting in April. In fact, he’ll probably be a late inning bullpen guy all year.
Elbert, yeah I want him in the opening day rotation. As the 5th starter, he can easily be skipped several times to limit his innings.
by silverwidow on Dec 31, 2009 10:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I hate being a Clipper fan. Beat Boston, then lose to a team who was missing SEVEN players. SEVEN.
by meercatjohn on Dec 31, 2009 10:22 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
oden batum prizbilla outlaw and fernandez?
whose the other 2? Mills? and
by matthewmafa on Dec 31, 2009 11:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Alderidge went down in the firt quarter
by meercatjohn on Dec 31, 2009 11:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that is a bit embarrassing
by Julio Nievas on Dec 31, 2009 11:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Paula is there best player
that’s like beating the Lakers wo Kobe (kindof). Doesn’t count.
by Cool Dudes on Dec 31, 2009 6:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No surprise we see the same names
over and over in the list above.
Piazza – 3 times
Pedro – 4 times
Green – 2 times
Sheff – 2 times
Smith – 2 times
Murray, Daniels, Wynn, Beltre – one time each
I did expect Tommy Davis in 62 to make the list, I’ll check to see just how short he was of an 150 OPS+.
by meercatjohn on Dec 31, 2009 10:32 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I know the Phillies will still be the team to beat in the NL in 2010, but it warms my heart that they will willingly have Juan Castro and Danys Baez on their roster next year.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 10:53 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Even better
It’s a two-year deal for Baez!
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 11:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Juan Castro did pretty well for us last year
I wouldn’t have minded having him again as bench player. He subbed defensively for both Furcal and Hudson quite acceptably, and even got a few hits and contributed to a few rallies. I’m sure that there are quite a number of equivalent replacements around, and let’s hope that Jamey Carroll is one and is used to his best advantage. But the Dodgers aure have had a lot worse bench players than last year’s group – I’m thinking 2007 here. Sometimes it makes sense to stick to the devil you know.
by berkowit28 on Dec 31, 2009 11:01 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
When someone’s career year, at age 37 mind you, consists of a .311 OBP and a .339 SLG, especially when that was preceded by never having an OBP above .290 (save for one 5 PA season), I would rather he not come back.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 11:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
started out on fire in spring training and greatly to start off the season.. but then fell back to old juan castro
by matthewmafa on Dec 31, 2009 11:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
Like Hudson and Pierre, he stopped hitting once May was over. Castro only had 73 PA from June 1 to the end of the season, but he hit a paltry .229/.239/.257 over that span.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 11:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s always better superficially to start off hot, because you get the benefit of good seasonal stats for most or all of the year. If you have two guys who end up at roughly the same stats at the end of the year, the guy who started out hot will always get the benefit of the doubt as having the better year, even if he sucked for four months.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 11:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I take back the career year comment…Castro had a 76 OPS+, which was second to his 79 OPS+ of 2003.
Even if we go back to 2003, to include Castro’s best year, there have been 54 shortstops to play 200 games at SS from 2003-2009. Castro ranks…
50th in OPS+ (64)
47th in BA (.243)
52nd in OBP (.276)
41st in SLG (.354)
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 11:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll pass on the devil you know
when that devil is Juan Castro.
by meercatjohn on Dec 31, 2009 11:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
June 2010 schedule
BRUTALLY tough. There’s a stretch where we face Boston, the Angels and Yankees, and then probably get Lincecum in SF. Oh yeah, three games against St. Louis that month, too.
Wow.
by silverwidow on Dec 31, 2009 11:39 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Bearface is way ahead of you! :)
(But you will always have the Brett Wallace prediction!)
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 11:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree with this quote from Buster Olney today, discussing the Dodgers’ rotation:
They need at least two starting pitchers to solidify the rotation
I’m good with a low cost single starting pitcher, thank you very much. And given the options and price tags remaining, the “stand pat” option is looking more and more attractive every day.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 11:45 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
If Rich Aurilia didn't have such a shitty season
This Ultimate Ned Guy would be on our bench right now.
by silverwidow on Dec 31, 2009 12:50 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think you'd be hard pressed
to find any pattern to the players Ned prefers other then veteran status and then he broke that pattern by acquiring four minor league prospects this off season either via rule 5 or the Pierre deal.
by meercatjohn on Dec 31, 2009 1:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s actually very easy for me to identify who he likes. The context clues are everywhere.
by silverwidow on Dec 31, 2009 1:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You keep saying that, prove it based
on his acquisitions during his reign. Shouldn’t take much to refute your argument.
by meercatjohn on Dec 31, 2009 1:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The thing is, acquisitions do not tell the whole story due to contractual commitments and/or financial constraints. There are tons of players who fit his wish list who simply were not available during his GM reign.
by silverwidow on Dec 31, 2009 1:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s one thing to pick on actual acquisitions as “Ned Guys” as if there is some exclusivity he has on moves or player types; that’s all in good fun. But I draw the line at arguing/complaining about guys who haven’t even been remotely linked to the Dodgers.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 1:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Eric, this stuff that I’m posting is light hearted. Please don’t misconstrue it as anything else. I’m just trying to pass the time :)
by silverwidow on Dec 31, 2009 1:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I hear ya. I’m just winding down the work year, so I might be a little grumpy that I’m in the office. :)
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 1:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Im stuck at work till 5
I figured it would be a short day :(
by Ivdown on Dec 31, 2009 2:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sucks here
1/2 day for everyone else but I have to wait until the books are closed. Was as least hoping to make the 03:00 3 D Imax Avatar showing but looks like I’ll miss by 15 bloody minutes.
by meercatjohn on Dec 31, 2009 2:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Had a big lunch
at Emma Jean’s Holland Burger in Victorville, which was featured in Diners, Drive Ins, and Dives. Place has 11 barstools and four tables in the whole place. It was built forever ago.
Today is the last hurrah before starting the very cliched but much needed diet beginning tomorrow.
I had an awesome cheeseburger with grilled chiles.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 1:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
If you watch the video, I had the “Brian Burger”
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 1:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
From Henry Schulman of the SF Chronicle:
Phillies will not re-sign Chan Ho Park. He could be a good fit for the Howry role, and his name has come up in the Giants’ front office
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 1:59 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Joe Sheehan is leaving Baseball Prospectus. I usually enjoy his writing. He’ll find a gig somewhere I’m sure.
His final column.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 2:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I always love Jayson Stark’s “strange but true” columns. Here is his look back on 2009. I love this nugget:
Nothing in baseball makes for more spectacular megaweirdness than the old suspended-game trick. Fortunately for us Strange But True addicts, the Astros and Nationals pulled that one on us in 2009.
They started the game May 5 in Washington. They finished it July 9 in Houston. And because the baseball historians will insist that even the stuff that happened in July in Houston actually occurred in Washington in May, this game produced all of this distinctive madness
…
The history books will tell us forever that Nyjer Morgan somehow scored the winning run for the Nationals on the same day he got a hit for the Pirates.
Morgan was traded to Washington in the middle of the season, but because his run in the continuation counted for May 5, his gamelog on Baseball-Reference.com is unique.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 2:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
At least they're trying
From Ken Gurnick:
The Dodgers have opened discussions on a multi-year contract with Matt Kemp, but his agent said Kemp might prefer to go year to year
Kemp’s agent is Dave Stewart, BTW
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 3:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Ok, if not Kemp, then give the money to Kershaw and be done with it. Something like 8 years/$48M.
by silverwidow on Dec 31, 2009 3:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That would be giving up an awful lot potentially for Kershaw
I can see maybe seven years / $48m, but it would have to be more for eight years IMO.
Let’s look at Dan Haren, who has had two of the club-friendliest contracts ever. After his first full season as a starter (2005), he had about a month more of service time than Kershaw does now, and Haren’s impending Super Two complicates things a bit but we can adjust.
Haren through age 24: 335.2 IP, 20-22, 104 ERA+, one full season of 117 ERA+ & 217 IP
Kershaw through age 21: 278.2 IP, 13-13, 120 ERA+, one full season of 141 ERA+ in 171 IP
Haren’s 2 contracts (which included a restructuring of 1st deal):
$200k bonus
yr 2: $500k
arb 1 (super two): $2.2m
arb 2: $4m
arb 3: $7.5m
arb 4: $8.25m (option that was picked up)
FA 1: $12.75m
FA 2: $12.75m
FA 3: $15.5m ($3m buyout)
Total value: $51.15m over 7 years with the potential for 8 / $63.15m
To adjust for Kershaw, who won’t be a Super Two, just make that $2.2m something like $750k, but maybe up the bonus to $1m, and the total Kershaw deal is 7/$50.5m with potential for 8/$62.5m. Plus Kershaw could still be a free agent heading into his age 29 or 30 season.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 4:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I am interested in a “Longoria” contract for Kershaw. If all of his options are picked uphe’s guaranteed something like that over 9 years.
by silverwidow on Dec 31, 2009 4:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Longoria contract was a rare breed, since it was signed so early.
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 4:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just spitballing here, but Kemp is likely to make in the $3.5m range this year in arbitration (I’ll have arb stuff next week), plus he has two years of arbitration left. A multi-year deal would have to buyout a FA year or two for the Dodgers to want to do it, so it might be something like this:
$1m signing bonus
2010: $3m
2011: $6m
2012: $9m
2013: $13m
2014: $14m option ($2m buyout)
That’s 4/$34 with a potential of 5/$46. Thoughts?
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 3:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like that offer. Kemp has lots of upside yet. But “Kemp might prefer to go year to year” is what I’d expect to hear early on in the negotiations. Clearly we presently live in the McCourts’ financial haze but I see no reason right now that we won’t be able to keep Kemp, Kershaw and Ethier in the future. Am I too optimistic?
by runningwiththedevil on Dec 31, 2009 4:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nick Markakis’s deal with the Orioles, signed last season, was 6/$66m. He also had 3 years of service time. First 5 years was $49m, so I guess you have to start there with Kemp, and go up.
Markakis:
$2.1m bonus
arb 1: $3m
arb 2: $6.75m
arb 3: $10.25m
FA 1: $12m
FA 2: $15m
FA 3: $15m
FA 4: $17.5m option ($2m buyout)
That starts with 4/$34.1m or 5/$49.1m
by Eric Stephen on Dec 31, 2009 4:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I miss the Reggie Smith days. And Jimmy Wynn reminds me of the first baseball annual I ever saw when I was 8 years old. I still love the Dodgers and hope that Ethier and Kemp continue to progress and are around for a long, long time.
by runningwiththedevil on Dec 31, 2009 3:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
If Matt Wieters is supposed to be
Joe Mauer with power, then what’s Joe Mauer? :)
by silverwidow on Dec 31, 2009 4:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
joe mauer had no power...
till this year
by matthewmafa on Jan 1, 2010 2:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/12/dodgers-matt-kemp-talk-multiyear-deal.html#comment-form
Kemp Dodgers, talking long term deal!
by lakersdodgersyankees4life on Dec 31, 2009 4:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Hey, Phil !
I remember you saying you watched the baseball movie “Sugar” a couple of months ago and said it was a good movie. Bill Simmons touched on it in his new column:
One of the 20 or 25 best sports movies ever. Deeply affecting. Brilliantly executed. Brought me into a world I never knew. Made me rethink every notion I had about professional baseball and especially the experiences of Dominican players to the degree that I am still re-evaluating my feelings about every Latino player who cheated during the steroids era. Went in a direction I never expected it to go. Left me breathless when it was over. I loved it.
by Julio Nievas on Dec 31, 2009 6:00 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Not an ending I expected
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
by Phil Gurnee on Dec 31, 2009 6:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Separate but equal?
Mota must be relieved! His feelings as regards steroid use are ethnically based?
by Bob Hendley on Jan 1, 2010 9:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Spring Snapshot: A's crossing fingers for comprehensive health
- Answer Man: Troy Tulowitzki talks brackets, dirtbags and mullets
- Toyota sign proposal in Wrigley Field's bleachers in need of recall
- Andrew Bailey doesn't play tennis, but he does have tennis elbow
- Quick Q&A: Matt Vasgersian of MLB Network talks '30 in 30'
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
