Archives for May 2020

Owners Finalize Proposal For Resumption Of Play

By Steve Adams | May 11, 2020 at 1:07pm CDT

1:07pm: Owners approved the proposal for the union, Rosenthal tweets. The league and union are expected to sit down to discuss the proposal tomorrow. Sherman tweets that the MLBPA considers the league’s revenue sharing proposition a “nonstarter,” further underscoring that substantial hurdles need to be navigated.

11:50am: The league is preparing to present the Players Association with a proposal for the resumption of play in 2020, and the team’s 30 owners will vote on the final iteration later today, per USA Today’s Bob Nightengale. Once finalized, the proposal will be presented to the union.

Many elements of the proposal have already been leaked to various media outlets. The Athletic’s Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich reported over the weekend that a revenue-sharing plan with players was being “floated,” and Nightengale adds that such a plan is indeed on the table today. The proposal would see owners share “at least 48 percent” of revenue with the MLBPA in 2020. Similar setups exist in the NBA and the NFL. Owners will also vote on a universal DH for 2020, as Joel Sherman suggested over the weekend.

A couple of previously reported elements have already been agreed upon, per Nightengale: the expansion from 10 to 14 postseason teams in 2020 and a limited travel schedule wherein teams play only division rivals and the five teams in the opposite league’s corresponding division (e.g. the Padres play only the other four NL West clubs and the five AL West clubs during the regular season). A mid-June reboot for spring (summer?) training and an early July return to regular-season play remain the hope and best-case scenario, though scheduling is still dependent on input from government officials and public health experts.

The owners and commissioner’s office are also hopeful that teams will be able to host training camp and regular-season games (sans fans in attendance) at their home parks. Nightengale does make mention of a possible facility share between close-proximity rivals in the event that one team’s state government regulations render play at its home stadium not feasible. Such clubs could also look into moving games to their spring site, per the report, though in some cases, that would seemingly run counter to the more stringent travel restrictions this proposal seeks to establish.

There’s still no word on what sort of plan is in place in the event of a positive test or tests among active players and coaches — or of a larger outbreak within a tightly packed clubhouse. To that end, Rosenthal spoke with a number of players with underlying medical conditions in order to get their feelings on a return to play (subscription required). David Dahl, Scott Alexander, Adam Duvall, Jordan Hicks, Carlos Carrasco, Kenley Jansen, Anthony Rizzo and Jon Lester all spoke with Rosenthal about their intentions to play despite some current or previous health concerns. Dahl, who had his spleen removed in 2015, acknowledged that it’s “definitely scary” and said his immune system is “pretty bad.” Still, he expressed trust in Rockies medical officials and the broader expertise of public health experts in voicing his willingness to return to the field.

That said, Rosenthal also notes that there are numerous players with underlying medical conditions which are not public knowledge, and there are plenty more with higher-risk immediate family members that are the source of concern. It’s a complicated scenario for players in those circumstances — one that has reportedly led some to inquire with the union about what would happen should they opt not to play in 2020 (via last week’s report from Jeff Passan of ESPN.com). It’s also a reminder that ownership approval of a proposal today is just one of many steps that need to be taken before play actually resumes.

Poll: Universal DH In 2020?

By Steve Adams | May 11, 2020 at 9:36am CDT

When MLB commissioner Rob Manfred spoke back in 2018 about the possibility of adding a designated hitter to the National League, revealing that the dialogue “probably moved a little bit,” MLBTR readers responded in what was probably the most evenly-split poll we’ve ever conducted here; among 13,118 respondents, there was a 50.07 to 49.93 percent result ever so slightly favoring the status quo and keeping the DH to the American League only.

Circumstances have changed in 2020, to say the least. Over the weekend, Joel Sherman of the New York Post reported that the proposal the league is preparing to present to the Players Association includes a designated hitter in both leagues for the 2020 season — a measure aimed at keeping pitchers healthier during a shortened schedule that could include an abnormally brief ramp-up period, increased doubleheaders and/or fewer off-days.

If such measures are put in place this year, that will surely serve as a litmus test of sorts for a more permanent implementation of the rule. Adding a DH in the NL has been a hotly debated and oft-discussed topic for years now, as NL purists lament the potential loss of strategy while those in favor of the DH point to the general futility of pitchers at the plate.

The primary reason the league would favor the change, in the long term, would be to increase the regularity of balls in play. Pitchers batted a combined .128/.160/.162 last season in 5173 plate appearances (a negative-18 wRC+) — and that was their best offensive showing in the past five years. But that was also due in part to a BABIP spike, it seems, as pitchers struck out at a woeful 43.5 percent clip — their worst mark ever. Conversely, the league-average non-pitcher hit .256/.327/.443 with a 22.4 percent strikeout rate. Dropping pitchers for even league-average bats in those DH spots would have resulted in about 1100 fewer strikeouts over the course of the season (plus another 606 bunts).

On the other side of the coin, fewer double-switches would occur, and managers would be spared the occasional decision of whether to let a hot pitcher hit with runners aboard in a close or scoreless game. Those decisions are among the most cherished strategic elements of the game for many fans — particularly those who grew up up in NL cities or prior to the implementation of the DH entirely. We just passed the four-year anniversary of Bartolo Colon’s iconic home run, and there’s nary a more universally rejoiced oddity than watching Big Sexy’s home run trot against the audio backdrop of an elated Gary Cohen roaring, “Bartolo has done it! The impossible has happened!” Highlights of that nature are rare, but it’s that very scarcity that makes them such instant classics and treasured memories.

With all that in mind, and recognizing the unprecedented circumstances under which the league and union are working to put together some semblance of a season, let’s check in on some thoughts regarding the addition of a DH to the senior circuit. I know many in the anti-DH crowd would vote to remove the DH in the American League. However, it doesn’t seem that either the union or league would have cause to prefer that route, so I opted not to include it as an option — but feel free to voice it in the comments (link to poll for Trade Rumors mobile app users).

Quick Hits: Judge, Team Finances, Tsutsugo

By Mark Polishuk | May 10, 2020 at 10:27pm CDT

Should the Yankees sign Aaron Judge to a long-term extension? Joel Sherman of the New York Post isn’t sure, noting that Judge already has a significant injury history, is already under team control through his age-30 season, and how the Yankees’ financial situation will be impacted in the post-coronavirus baseball world. There’s also the fact that the Yankees have generally shied away from contract extensions since Hal Steinbrenner took over the team, and the two players whose deals were most recently extended (Aaron Hicks and Luis Severino) have battled injuries since inking those new contracts. Judge is in the first of his three arbitration-eligible seasons, and back in January agreed to an $8.5MM deal for the 2020 season.

Details On MLBPA’s Position Heading Into League’s Season Proposal

By Mark Polishuk | May 10, 2020 at 9:24pm CDT

Major League Baseball is expected to soon present the MLB Players Association with a proposed format for a shortened 2020 season, with the proposal coming perhaps as early as Tuesday. Though the owners’ reported desire to ask for a further reduction in player salaries is expected to be the major negotiation point (or roadblock) in any proposal, we have also heard that health and safety are naturally the largest concerns on the players’ minds given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The Cardinals’ Andrew Miller and the Yankees’ Chris Iannetta (both members of the MLBPA executive board) recently went into further detail about these concerns in a chat with ESPN.com’s Jesse Rogers. As Miller put it, “I don’t think anything can be done” until a concrete plan is put forth about how players, coaches, clubhouse members, and others can be protected from the threat of coronavirus infection.

“We want to put a good product on the field, but that’s totally secondary to the health of the players,” Miller said. “We are generally younger and healthier, but that doesn’t mean our staff is, that doesn’t mean the umpires are going to be in the clear. It’s not hard to get one degree of separation away from players who have kids who may have conditions, or other family members that live with them.”

The health question ties into the revenue question. The owners’ reported argument for a further reduction in player salaries is that teams are facing a massive revenue shortfall by playing games without any fans in attendance at ballparks. However, Iannetta argues that players, coaches, and staffers face “an intrinsic risk” by coming together to play games, “and we should get fairly compensated for taking that risk for the betterment of the game and the betterment of the owners who stand to make a huge profit off the game.”

It should be noted that players have already agreed to give up a substantial portion of their 2020 salaries. Under the terms of the original agreement made in March between the league and the players’ union, players received a $170MM lump sum to be paid out over April and May, with different amount going to players based on service time and contract status. The most any player could have received is roughly $300K, the total going to players on guaranteed MLB contracts or players who had become eligible for salary arbitration.

The $170MM would be the only money received by players if the 2020 is canceled, though if games are played, the $170MM would then become an advance on players’ actual salaries, which would then be prorated based on the number of games played. To use Miller himself as an example, if an 81-game schedule takes place, he would receive roughly half of his $11.5MM salary for the 2020 season. So if owners push for an even larger salary reduction, Miller would lose even more than the $6.25MM he has already lost to the coronavirus shutdown.

The MLBPA’s stance is that the March agreement settled the matter of 2020 salaries, which the league disputes due to clause in the agreement that (depending on your interpretation) may or may not open the door to further negotiation based on the likelihood that games will be played without fans. While teams will undoubtedly take a major hit from the loss of ticket sales, concession sales, parking, and other revenue tied to having fans attend ballgames in person, there will still be revenue coming to the league and the 30 individual teams via TV and broadcast contracts. Miller also made the point that player salaries “are not tied to revenue in any way. If the owners hit a home run [with a new revenue stream] and make more money, we don’t go back and ask for more on our end.”

It remains to be seen how this issue will be resolved, or if it will necessarily be as big of a stumbling block as it appears to be at this juncture. As Joel Sherman of the New York Post points out, the general public won’t look kindly on the possibility of a financial argument scuttling a possible 2020 season. Sherman also suggested a potential answer to the salary question, which is simply to defer owed salaries into future seasons. This is similar to how the league will pay out bonuses to prospects taken in this year’s amateur draft, though obviously we’re talking a much higher overall dollar figure when it comes to big league contracts.

Latest On MLB’s 2020 Schedule Proposal

By George Miller and TC Zencka | May 10, 2020 at 8:32pm CDT

TODAY: The league’s proposal will include use of a designated hitter for both NL and AL lineups, according to Joel Sherman of the New York Post. Earlier this week, The Athletic’s Jim Bowden wrote that the universal DH concept was “at least being discussed and considered” by league officials.

SATURDAY: Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic has the details on MLB’s newest proposal for a 2020 season. Rosenthal notes that nothing he describes is set in stone and could very well change upon scrutinization from the Players’ Union or medical professionals. Read his full write-up for all the details.

That said, the bones of the proposal are as follows: MLB would look to play a 78- or 82-game season beginning in early July, where teams would compete only with opponents in their geographic region (i.e., AL West teams would play only division rivals and NL West teams). Ideally, those games would take place in clubs’ normal home parks, but teams in cities where that isn’t feasible could temporarily relocate to their spring training cites or other MLB parks.

A 14-team postseason structure continues to be floated as part of this newest proposal. As previously described, each league would send 7 teams into the playoffs instead of the current 5. The best record in each league would hold a premium place in the postseason as the only team to get a bye for the first round. Of course, until we hear differently, any and all news of a playing schedule should be taken with a grain of salt.

Player pay continues to be a key question with any proposal (beyond health concerns and logistics, of course). There is no timetable for when fans would be allowed to return to stadiums, making it likely that players would be asked to accept a further reduction in pay. As Rosenthal lays out, however, they would potentially be compensated through a single-season revenue-sharing agreement.

The ramifications of this schedule proposal spread far and wide, though the priority remains on figuring out the safest and best way to return to baseball. Still, a season half the length of normal could result in suped-up playoff races.

Beyond the ramifications on the 2020 season, a wonky schedule could add another wrinkle to upcoming drafts. A short season means less margin for error and more room for potential cinderella runs or surprising collapses. Limiting the draft to just 5 rounds, meanwhile, means that a great number of potentially very good major league players will go unselected. It also likely means a stronger draft class in 2021 and beyond, as players with remaining eligibility will be inclined to return to school for another go-round. Factoring in a short season that could send some very competitive clubs to the top of the draft order, and MLB is facing a very particular couple of (draft) seasons in the short term. From a financial standpoint, clubs will have the opportunity to sign some very high-potential undrafted players for a mere $20K signing bonus. The competition and eventual distribution of those players will be an interesting case study to track over the next 10+ years.

Of course, the first step remains the approval of the proposed structure. If the owners approve of the deal on their scheduled call with the league office, Rosenthal suggests that the proposal could be sent to the Players’ Union for approval as early as Tuesday.

MLBTR Chat Transcript: Rangers, Indians, Mets, Shortened Season

By Mark Polishuk | May 10, 2020 at 7:56pm CDT

Click here to read the transcript of tonight’s live baseball chat, moderated by MLBTR’s Mark Polishuk

Stanford Study Shows Low Prevalence Of COVID-19 Among MLB Employees

By George Miller | May 10, 2020 at 4:36pm CDT

A University of Stanford study of 5,603 MLB employees showed that 0.7% tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies, reports Susan Slusser of the San Francisco Chronicle. 60 people tested positive, but that number was adjusted to account for the possibility of false positives/negatives. There have been no deaths among that group.

The study, conducted in mid-April, distributed testing kits to employees of 27 MLB teams. 5,754 were completed, and 5,603 respondents filled out an accompanying survey. It’s important to mention that roughly 70% of those who tested positive displayed no symptoms, which suggests that the true incidence of the virus across the country is considerably higher than one might assume.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of the University of Stanford, the lead researcher in the study, said that he was surprised to discover such a small number, but warns that those numbers could simply indicate that we are still in the early stages of the epidemic.

For what it’s worth, the Angels, Mets, and Yankees displayed the highest rates of infection, though it’s notable that even those rates were lower than their respective counties.

Drawing conclusions from these results will be tricky, especially considering that the body of test subjects consisted of primarily white collar employees—obviously, it’s not a sample that’s representative of nationwide demographics, and that could partially explain the low prevalence rate.

According to Molly Knight of The Athletic, an MLB spokesperson stated that the league wouldn’t consider the results of this study in deliberating if and when to begin play for the 2020 season. So while we’re quick to make assumptions about what these results tell us, there’s no reason to believe that this development brings us any closer to, or further from, the return of baseball.

Of course, the purpose of the study wasn’t the league’s readiness to resume play; rather, Bhattacharya and company hoped to examine where exactly we stand in the timeline of the infection, giving consideration to several different metropolitan areas across the country.

The Extension That Kept The Future World Series MVP In D.C.

By Anthony Franco | May 10, 2020 at 11:21am CDT

Four years ago today, the Nationals made a franchise-altering decision. The club and Stephen Strasburg agreed on a seven-year, $175MM extension (with deferrals that lowered its present value) on May 10, 2016. The deal kept the then-27-year-old from hitting free agency that winter, where he’d have profiled as the top player on the market in the eyes of MLBTR’s Tim Dierkes. It registered as a surprise given how close the former #1 overall pick was to the open market, made a bit more eye-opening by his status as a Scott Boras client.

Clearly, though, Strasburg was comfortable with the only organization he’d ever known. And the deal didn’t commit him to Washington for the full seven years; it came with opt-out clauses after 2019 and 2020. He’d have a chance to (and ultimately did) pitch his way to greater earnings in the future.

For the Nationals, the risk-reward calculus was apparent. The extension looked to be a discount relative to Strasburg’s overall earning potential, considering the $200MM+ guarantees secured by Max Scherzer and David Price the two prior offseasons. Still, committing well over nine figures to any pitcher, particularly one with a Tommy John Surgery under his belt, comes with potential pitfalls.

Over the first few seasons, the deal played as a fine one for the club, but it wasn’t any sort of massive bargain. Strasburg was very productive when healthy, combining for a 3.27 ERA/3.13 FIP in 404 innings from the time of signing through the end of 2018. Various injuries kept him just outside the game’s top tier of pitchers, though. In that two and a half year stretch, the right-hander hit the injured list five separate times with back, shoulder, elbow and neck maladies. None had ultimately proven serious, but he had assembled a somewhat ominous laundry list of health problems.

Entering 2019, it didn’t look as if Strasburg was on track to exercise the first of those opt-outs. Then, at age 30, he ripped off a career year. In the regular season, he tossed 209 innings (his first 200-inning season since 2014) of 3.32 ERA ball with stellar strikeout (29.8%), walk (6.7%) and ground-ball (51.1%) rates. That alone would’ve made his season a resounding success, but it was Strasburg’s October work that cemented his place in Nationals’ lore.

He kicked off the 2019 postseason with three scoreless relief innings behind Scherzer in the NL Wild Card game, allowing the Nats to rally late and knock off the Brewers. That was only the beginning. Strasburg would go on to start five playoff games thereafter. He tossed quality starts in all of them, and Washington would go on to win each one. He played a key role in three elimination game victories, including an 8.1 inning gem in Game 6 of the World Series in Houston. All told, he finished the postseason with a 1.98 ERA and an absurd 47:4 strikeout-to-walk ratio in 36.1 innings. He picked up a deserved World Series MVP award for his efforts in bringing the franchise’s first title to D.C.

Strasburg’s again back in the fold long-term. After opting out, he re-signed last winter on another seven-year deal for a $245MM guarantee. Regardless of how his next deal plays out, Strasburg will always have a spot in the heart of the Nationals’ faithful. That’s in large part thanks to the agreement the sides were able to put together four years ago.

The A’s Draft Gamble That Paid Off

By Anthony Franco | May 10, 2020 at 9:34am CDT

The A’s have built a pair of reigning playoff teams, a much-welcome return to relevancy after three consecutive last place finishes from 2015-17. Recently, they’ve been anchored by a perhaps still-underrated superstar. Over the past two seasons, Matt Chapman has hit .263/.348/.507 (131 wRC+) with 60 home runs in 1286 plate appearances. More notably, he’s proven himself a wizard at third base, racking up an absurd 68 defensive runs saved. With his achievements on both sides of the ball, Chapman has been worth 12.8 fWAR/16.6 bWAR in the last two seasons alone. Baseball Reference’s value metric places him as the third-most valuable position player in that time (behind only Mike Trout and Mookie Betts). Fangraphs slots him sixth, with Alex Bregman, Christian Yelich and Anthony Rendon joining Trout and Betts in the top five.

Regardless of where specifically one would slot Chapman among the game’s best players, it’s apparent he’s at least in the conversation. Given the player he’s become, it’d be easy to assume he was seen as a ’can’t-miss’ talent dating back to his amateur days. That’s not really the case. He was the A’s first-round pick back in 2014, 25th overall. At the time, though, that pick could’ve been considered a bit of a reach, at least in comparison to public rankings.

Neither Baseball America nor MLB Pipeline had Chapman in their top 50 prospects pre-draft (BA slotted him 64th, while Pipeline placed him 82nd). Nor did he crack the top 30 of then-ESPN analysts Keith Law and Christopher Crawford the fall prior. That’s not meant to be a criticism of draft prognosticators. Despite his frame, Chapman never showed much power in games as an amateur. He hit a cumulative 13 home runs over his three years at Cal State Fullerton. It’s hardly surprising evaluators didn’t see a future 36-homer bat in the big leagues.

Questions about Chapman’s hitting prowess were prevalent enough that both Baseball America and MLB Pipeline pointed to pitching as a potential fallback. The elite arm strength he now shows off at the hot corner in Oakland helped him touch 98 MPH on the mound in college. While the consensus was that Chapman should be a given a shot in pro ball at third, where reviews on him defensively were always positive, it wasn’t hard to imagine him flaming out and moving to the mound someday.

To the A’s credit, they never seemed to budge on their evaluation of him as a hitter. Asked about a potential mound conversion for Chapman after the draft, A’s scouting director Eric Kubota shot down the idea to Jimmy Durkin of the Bay Area News Group. “He’s got a chance to be an elite defender at third base,” Kubota told Durkin. “He can really throw. We think his bat is ever-improving. We think there’s untapped power there. We think this is a guy who is going to develop into a power hitter.”

Kubota’s words look awfully prescient in hindsight. Obviously, the organization’s belief in Chapman wasn’t shared throughout the league. There’s no chance he’d have fallen to pick 25 if it were. If teams were to redraft the 2014 class today, Chapman would no doubt be at the top of most teams’ boards. His emergence is a credit to the A’s scouting and player development staffs (and a testament to Chapman himself), an example of the ideal progression teams dream of when they bring a talented player into the system. It’s also a reminder that teams’ evaluations of draft prospects can vary, sometimes to their immense success.

The Pitcher To Receive The Most Extra Strikes In 2019 Was…

By TC Zencka | May 9, 2020 at 9:42pm CDT

In a recent bout of strike zone curiosity, I started looking into umpire accuracy metrics to try to visualize the baseball world at our doorstep: a world in which balls and strikes are called by robot umpires. While referring to an electronic strike zone as “robot umpires” no doubt adds an unnecessary measure of Asimovian flourish, the reality of baseball’s future is bearing down on us. Electronic strike zones are coming to baseball.

Then again, COVID-19 threw a wrench into all pockets of predicting baseball’s future, and there’s no longer any certainty in, well, just about anything. So there will be no more crystal ball voyeurism from me today, no more speculation, only a cold, hard look at the past.

Of course, the issue of umpire accuracy is hardly reserved for the future. Until electronic strike zones are implemented, the human models making the calls behind the plate remain incapable of ridding themselves entirely of human error – try as they might. Sometimes a ball misses the plate, and they call it a strike. Sometimes it crosses the dish, and the arm stays at the umpire’s side. The question for today is this: which pitcher got the most extra strikes in 2019?

With my previous look into Statcast pitch data, I looked for clusters of pitchers that would illuminate certain things about how umpires called balls and strikes. Today is about passing along some of the trivia. Statcast data, after all, holds a ton of information, including whether or not each ball or strike was correctly called. Using machine learning, we can pretty cleanly find those pitchers who benefited the most from gifted strikes, as well as those who were hurt the most by stolen strikes.

And that brings us to Adam Warren of the San Diego Padres (frequently and presently a member of the New York Yankees). Of the pitchers who threw as many as 200 pitches in the majors in 2019, it wasn’t close: Warren benefited more than any other pitcher in 2019 from umpires gifting extra strikes.

To be perfectly clear, a gifted strike here is a pitch that lands outside the strike zone that the umpire calls a strike. This alone does not make Warren the luckiest pitcher in baseball. Nor does it make him the umpires’ favorite (though it probably gets him a look). In a vacuum, that Warren led the league in percentage of called strikes that were gifted means only this: no pitcher had a higher percentage of their called strikes come from pitches that missed the zone.

This was important for Warren because, even with the added help, only 31.4% of his pitches landed in the zone (league average was 39.4%). And while batters swung and missed at a relatively average rate when Warren was throwing strikes, batter O-Contract% – the percentage of times a batter makes contact when swinging at a ball outside the zone – was just 61.9%, much lower than the 67.3% average. So the more Warren got batters to chase, the more effective he became (surprise, surprise). Still, he only registered 7.85 K/9 versus 3.77 BB/9.

For context, MLB pitchers – on average – had ~16% of their called strikes come on pitches outside the zone. Warren, by contrast, received a gifted strike on almost 42% of his strike calls. This was an extreme outlier. The second-place finisher for highest percentage of gifted strikes was Michel Baez at ~30% – interestingly, also of the Padres (and the conspiracy is on!). Not for nothing, but Warren also fits the profile of the type of pitcher more prone to getting extra calls. He averaged just 86.4 mph this season (fastball clocking at 91.4 mph), he’s right-handed, and both his fastball and curve register in the bottom quartile for spin rate.

If he were a starter, he’d fit the mold exactly. Of course, sample size is likely a culprit here in Warren’s numbers being so far outside the norm. Warren wasn’t exactly a spotlight pitcher in 2019. He threw 555 pitches for the Padres across 25 games, 28 2/3 innings. He ended the year 4-1 with a 5.34 ERA/6.91 FIP making his season worth -0.2 bWAR/-0.8 fWAR. This is not to say he will be a total disaster if he suits up for the Yankees sometime this season, nor is it to say he’ll receive the same measure of umpire error if he does. Though Warren has been received favorably by umpires in the past, his overall average percentage of gifted strikes over the past 5 seasons is just under 28%. That still puts him two standard deviations above the mean, but nowhere near the outlier of his 2019.

« Previous Page

Load More Posts

Headlines

Archives for May 2020

Navigation

MLBTR INFO

Connect