THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Is that a cross between Strasburg and Stephon Starbury?  You might have to offer him extra money since he could always choose the NBA.

I don’t get your comment??? I’d give Verlander the most at about $22MM per season, then Cole Hamels at around $19MM, Strasburg at $16MM, Jurrjens at $13-15MM and Wang at $10-12MM

Good catch.  The two letters are diagonal to each other on the keyboard, though it is highly possible that Stephon Marbury’s name might have influenced me.

To those who missed it, I originall wrote Strasbury instead of Strasburg.  I also corrected his birth year to 1988 (I originally was going to do Bryce Harper, b 1992).

Hamels 18
Verlander 18
Strasburg 15
Jurrjens 13
Wang 9

With Wang I’m not over-reacting to his horrible 2009 start, but just very uneasy about giving a 6 year deal to a pitcher who will be 30 next year.  Make it a 1-3 year deal and I’d give him about 12.

With the others I’m not as concerned by age, injury possibility is somewhat balanced with the chance these guys could still improve.

Ari, Rally, and what about Question #2, where you go back in time one year, and erase your memory of what has happened.

I’m mixing up my projections a bit here, looking at my own for preseason and ZIPS for 2009 updates.  But there isn’t a huge difference in projections.

Looking back I’ll guess:
Hamels 19
Verlander 15
Strasburg ???
Jurrjens 11
Wang 10

Looking at Strasburg’s sophomore stats, they are about as good as his junior year (though not quite as many K) so I’ll guess 13 million for him.

Thanks Rally, Ari.  I have put up a poll here:
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/poll_strasburg_or_jurggens/

I’d go

Jair Jurggens 18
Cole Hamels 17
Justin Verlander 17
Stephen Strasburg 12
Chien-Ming Wang 10

Jair is very young, good, and seems to be durable for now.  Hamels and Verlander are a little older, which one would think increases the probability that they flame out.  Strasburg would be like buying something just because it is shinny and new, does not mean that it is any good.  Wang’s age and decreasing FB velocity scare me.

If this were a year ago

Hamels 17
Verlander 14
Jair 14
Wang 11
Strasburg 10

Verlander was in the midst of an awful season in which his FB was dead.  Jair was in the middle of his first good season.  Wang is still old and showing signs of age, but a little less so.  in the middle of 2008, Strasburg is worth even less than he is now.

Interesting.

I think you guys are being way tough on Wang, circa Jun 2008.  In his career through to Jun 14, 2008, he had 94 starts (96 games, 624 IP), a 3.82 ERA, and a 53-20 record.

I don’t think it’s fair to call him a roughly slightly above league average pitcher at that time. 

http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/PitcherInfo.py?StartDate=04/30/2005&EndDate=06/14/2008&GameType=all&PlayedFor=0&PlayedVs=0&Park=0&PlayerID=2074

I assume you’re asking “what is he worth”, or “how high would you go and still feel like you’re turning a profit?”

2 numbers, first is a year ago, 2nd is today (all numbers are per-year for a 6-year deal).

Cole Hamels (b. 1983) - $18M, $16M
Jair Jurrjens (b. 1986) - $6M, $13M
Stephen Strasburg (b. 1988) - $3M, $14M (tough one, as I can’t remember how much was known about him at the time)
Justin Verlander (b. 1983) - $10M, $16M
Chien-Ming Wang (b. 1980) - $12M, $4M

6 years seems too long for any of these guys. They’ve all got significant downsides (either a spotty track record or a too small one). There’s just too much downside risk in a 6 year deal for my taste.

If I was a GM I’d be much more willing to pay more per year for a 3 year deal.

As far as I know, strikeouts as predictor of career length is still valid.  If we’re talking 6 year deal, an eternity for a pitcher, I’ve got to put my money on Hamels and Verlander (and soon Strasburg).  If you said a one year deal I might look at them a bit differently - though mostly on Wang.

I’m very hesitant to give Jair any points as a “durable pitcher”.  He’s been in the rotation for a year and a half and is only 23.  Reminds me of my definition of a durable pitcher:

Durable pitcher: Noun.  A pitcher who has not yet been injured.

Wang has put up good numbers in the past, but he has been declining in skill since the season he joined the league

Yr.  GB% LD% FBv K/9 BB/9
2005 63.9 14.1 92.0 3.64 2.48
2006 62.8 16.9 93.1 3.14 2.15
2007 58.4 18.3 92.7 4.70 2.66
2008 55.0 22.1 91.8 5.12 3.32
2009 46.4 26.2 91.7 7.17 5.06

It appears that Wang has been attempting to become a strike out pitcher and either chooses not to or can no longer induce the ground balls at the rate he does.  This seems to be the case with a lot of GB pitchers, the team wants to see them increase their K rate.  Wang has increased his K/9 to a level that is about average (6.8), but he has walked more and given up more LD at the cost of GB. 

The only number trending in a good direction is the K/9, and I would gladly give it up for numbers from his 2005 & 2006 season.

In the spirit of the original question, here are my answers. Prices are very low considering my reluctance to go with a 6 year deal. 2008/2009 per year. I would pay considerably more for a 3 year deal.

Hamels $14/$12
Jurrjens $4/$11
Strasburg $4/$7
Verlander $9/$12
Wang $9/$5

The rise in Wang’s strikeout rate is not as dramatic when you look at strikeouts per batter faced instead of innings.

His K/9 rate is inflated because everything put into play against him has been a hit.  If that were literally true, the only outs a pitcher would ever get would be on strikeouts, and every pitcher would havea k/9 of 27.0

And there is NO evidence that “trends” mean anything for pitchers or batters, other than how they affect a Marcel-type weighted average.  If I am wrong about that, I invite Steve or anyone else to enlighten me.

IOW, a pitcher with a K per 9 (for convenience sake, as opposed to K per PA), over the last 4 years, of:

7.0
6.0
5.0
4.5

should have roughly the same K/9 projection as someone with:

3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0

Wow MGL, I didn’t know that to be the case at all.  I always assumed trends at least had some indication of future performance.

Could you point me to an article where this is shown?

The thing is, Strasburg has crazy upside and Jurrjens has pretty much proven himself at the MLB level as a young star with stud potential.  Jurrjens is durable and still very young.  I would be more likely to give him more money over a smaller amount of time.  Strasbur(g/y), on the other hand has so much potential and such good stuff, but hasn’t yet proven anything at the Major League level, therefore I’d be willing to give him a longer contract but less money annually.  Meaning, I’d give Jurrjens a 5yr $80MM deal and Strasburg the same amount($80MM) but over 7 years.