Headlines

Go To Pro Hockey Rumors
Go To Hoops Rumors

Arbitration Breakdown: Cishek, Jansen, Holland, Frieri

By | at

Over the next few months, I will be discussing some of the higher profile upcoming arbitration cases. I will rely partly on my arbitration model developed exclusively for MLB Trade Rumors, but will also break out some interesting comparables and determine where the model might be wrong.

USATSI_7361164

The league is full of young closers nowadays, and they all seem to be entering their first year of arbitration at the same time. There are seven different pitchers with at least 16 saves in 2013 who are entering arbitration for the first time, nearly a quarter of the entire league’s closers. Craig Kimbrel has already been discussed in a previous article and his case is far stronger than any of the other pitchers. Aroldis Chapman has a pretty unique case, if not a better one, because he has been an elite closer for two years and will be opting out of a large contract to go through arbitration. Mark Melancon is different than the others as well, because he only really was a closer in the second half of this season, and only due to injury. However, there are a number of similarities between Ernesto Frieri, Steve Cishek, Greg Holland, and Kenley Jansen, and this article will be about the cases for each of them. The model only sees arbitration salaries of $3.4MM for Frieri and $3.2MM for Cishek, while it sees $4.9MM for Holland and $4.8MM For Jansen. In this article, I will explain why the model is making these predictions and discuss whether the actual salaries will diverge this much.

For relievers, the primary determinants of their arbitration salaries are the number of saves they had in their platform season, and the number of saves they had before their platform season, as well as the number of holds in their platform season and pre-platform season. To a lesser extent, platform-year ERA and pre-platform year ERA are important as well, and innings and strikeouts all play a key role too.

Holland has the most platform year saves of the group, with 47 this past year, on top of the 20 pre-platform saves he had. This number along with his 1.21 ERA explains why he had the largest salary projection of this group at $4.9MM. Although Jansen had fewer saves than the others with 28, his 1.88 ERA was better than Cishek’s 2.33 and far better than Frieri’s 3.80 this past season. Combining that with his 2.22 ERA pre-platform (better than the other three) and his 16 holds, and Jansen is projected nearly as high as Holland, with a $4.8MM estimate. Jansen’s 34 pre-platform saves were also the highest of the four, and his 21 pre-platform holds stood only behind Holland’s 27.

Frieri did have 37 saves in 2013 and 23 more beforehand, which is definitely a good case. Although his 3.80 ERA is high for a closer, his 98 strikeouts are way more than Cishek’s 74, but less than Holland’s 103 and Jansen’s 111. Cishek had 34 saves in 2013 with 18 pre-platform. Frieri is projected to get $3.4MM and Cishek is projected for $3.2MM.

The record for closers entering their first year of eligibility still belongs to Jonathan Papelbon at $6.25MM (until Kimbrel breaks this record). His 41 platform year saves and 72 pre-platform saves puts him well ahead of this group. Even Bobby Jenks’ 30 platform year saves were augmented by his 87 pre-platform year saves, putting him ahead of this group when he got a $5.6MM salary back in 2009.

Looking for pitchers who had similar pre-platform saves as well as platform saves is important, since anyone with three years of closing will have earned more than this group of four will. Holland’s 47 platform year save count and 20 pre-platform year save count are a pretty unique pairing, so it will tough to find a perfect comparable. Everyone with over 40 saves in recent memory during their platform years had more pre-platform year saves.

Brian Wilson’s 38 platform-year saves and 48 pre-platform year saves make for an interesting comparable. In 2010, he earned $4.46MM in his first year of arbitration eligibility. Of course, his 2.74 ERA is far worse than Holland’s 1.21, so there seems to be a good chance that Holland could top this salary. On the other hand, if pre-platform year saves becomes important, than perhaps J.J. Putz’s 2007 numbers of 36 platform-year saves and 10 pre-platform year saves could be a floor—but he only earned $2.7MM. Given how stale that number is at this point, I don’t see Putz’s name coming up in negotiations. I think that Holland will have a hard time arguing for anywhere over $5MM, which is what John Axford earned last year after accumulating 35 platform year saves and 71 pre-platform year saves, so I think that the $4.9MM estimate is probably about right for him.

For Jansen, his 28 pre-platform saves are on the low side, but his 16 holds, 1.88 ERA, and 111 strikeouts augment his case. He also 34 pre-platform year saves and his 2.22 ERA and 236 strikeouts before his platform year are a strength as well, in addition to the 21 holds he had already accumulated. Andrew Bailey’s 2012 arbitration salary of $3.9MM could come up as a comparable for him. He had 24 saves in his platform-year but 51 in his pre-platform year, so he could be argued to be a ceiling for Jansen based on the pre-platform save total. However, his 3.24 platform-year ERA is far behind Jansen’s 1.88 and Jansen’s holds could help make up for the gap in pre-platform saves. Especially given the fact that Bailey had only 41 strikeouts in his platform season, I could see $3.9MM being a floor for Jansen.

Another potential comparable could be Chad Cordero, who received $4.15MM back in 2007. Although this is a stale number at this point, the 29 saves that Cordero had in his platform year are similar to Jansen’s 28, and even though his 62 pre-platform year saves beat Jansen, his 3.19 ERA and 69 strikeouts fall short of him. Furthmore, Jansen’s holds are really unique for a guy who has mostly been a closer and give him a small leg up on other names that keep coming up. In the end, something in the $4.8MM neighborhood could be a good bet, though I could see him ending up with less than this if platform year saves become too large of a factor.

Looking for comparables for Frieri is tricky if the high ERA comes into play. Even though he accumulated 37 saves in 2013, the 3.80 ERA that went along with them is abnormally high for a closer. In recent years, few such pitchers have met their criteria. Axford had a 4.68 ERA going into last year’s negotiations, which yielded him $5MM, but given that he had 71 pre-platform saves, that would dwarf Frieri’s 23, despite the similar number of saves during their platform years. Chad Cordero’s name might make some sense as well, when he earned $4.15MM in 2007, but his 62 pre-platform year saves are also too many to make for a good comparable and an ERA of 3.19 isn’t so bad either.

Another name that could come up in the negotiations over Frieri’s salary is Juan Carlos Oviedo, who had a 4.06 ERA in 2009. He only had 26 saves though and no pre-platform saves. These factors got him only a $2MM salary, which probably is way below what Frieri will receive. Brian Wilson keeps coming up as a ceiling for Frieri. He had 38 platfrom year saves and 48 pre-platfrom year saves, so he has Frieri on the pre-platform year saves, and his 2.74 ERA is much better as well. His $4.46MM salary will almost definitely exceed Frieri’s.

It’s hard to pick anyone who makes sense in between these numbers so really anywhere from $2MM to 4.4MM seems possible for Frieri. Of course, I suspect he’ll be somewhere in the middle of these two extremes, so I think that the $3.4MM projection is about right.

Cishek had 34 saves last year, but with only 18 pre-platform saves, he probably has a weaker case than these other closers. Pre-platform year saves matter a lot for first-time eligible closers, so looking for his comparables will entail limiting this. Akinori Otsuka seems to line up in some ways, but his projection is very stale. Back in 2007, he earned $3MM after recording 32 saves and a 2.11 ERA, but he only had 3 saves prior to his platform year. Since Cishek’s ERA was 2.33, it could be that $3MM becomes a floor for Cishek. On the other hand, David Aardsma received $2.75MM in 2010 after recording 38 saves, but those were the first of his career. Given his 18 career holds are similar to Cishek’s 16, and his 2.52 ERA is also near Cishek’s, I could see the Marlins trying to hold down Cishek’s salary by suggesting this comparable.

Of course, if Cishek can downplay the importance of pre-platform saves, he may be able to sneak Brian Wilson’s $4.46MM salary into the argument. Wilson had 38 platform year saves, which is similar to Cishek’s 34, and his 2.74 ERA was higher than Cishek’s 2.33. However, I suspect the 48 pre-platform saves will make it hard to make this argument. Cishek coming in near $3.2MM as he is projected, just above Otsuka’s $3MM and Aardma’s $2.75MM seems likely.

Overall, despite the uncertainty and the difficulties in finding perfect comparables, it seems like the model is probably about right on all four of these guys. Although they each may be used as comparables for each other if one or two sign earlier than the others, drawing their salaries closer together based on the similarities between their platform year and pre-platform year saves, I suspect that the large gap in ERA and strikeouts ends up pushing them further apart, as well as Holland’s standout headline of 47 saves.

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images.

Arbitration Breakdown: Max Scherzer

By | at

Over the next few months, I will be discussing some of the higher profile upcoming arbitration cases. I will rely partly on my arbitration model developed exclusively for MLB Trade Rumors, but will also break out some interesting comparables and determine where the model might be wrong.

USATSI_7322890

The current record raise for an arbitration eligible starting pitcher with five years of service time is now seven years old. Carlos Zambrano received a shocking $5.9MM raise back in 2007 after finishing 16-7 with a 3.41 ERA in 214 innings with 210 strikeouts. No other pitcher has come close to this amount. In fairness, this raise was somewhat of an anomaly and still looks like a big outlier, but the raises have slowly inched closer to this amount. Cole Hamels received a $5.5MM raise in 2012 after a 14-9 campaign with a 2.79 ERA. This year, however, it looks like this record may be broken once and for all by Max Scherzer.

Scherzer is coming off a $6.725MM salary, and the model sees him getting $13.6MM in 2014. Although this would beat the record by $975K, it seems like a very reasonable estimate for Scherzer this coming season. This was the breakout season that I had suspected Scherzer had in him for a few years. Especially after leading the league in SIERA last year (which has a higher correlation with the following year’s ERA than ERA itself or other comparable statistics), it seemed like Scherzer had just been unlucky.

This year, he made that assessment look accurate. He posted a 2.90 ERA in 214 1/3 innings, while striking out 240 hitters. His SIERA even declined slightly since last year. However, Scherzer also had the good fortune of a large helping of run support this year, which helped him compile a 21-3 record. Wins and innings are by far the most important statistics for a starting pitcher in arbitration, and these clearly will give him a strong case going into arbitration.

There are very few statistics where other starting pitchers in the five years of service time group have topped him. In the last seven years, no one has come into arbitration with five years of service time after getting more than 16 wins, giving Scherzer a nice five win edge over any other comparable the Tigers try to present to the panel.

Scherzer also has among the most innings of eligible pitchers with similar service time in recent memory. Roy Oswalt had 220 2/3 innings back in 2007, but signed a multi-year deal instead of sticking with one-year agreements. Zambrano (214), Hamels (216), and Vargas (217 1/3) all fell in a similar range, and they received raises of $5.9MM, $5.5MM, and $3.65MM. Of course, all had fewer wins and only Hamels had an ERA under 3.00 like Scherzer does. In fact, Hamels is the only pitcher with an ERA under 3.00 among starting pitchers with similar service time to Scherzer in the last seven years with enough innings to qualify for an ERA title.

The floor for Scherzer really does seem to be Zambrano’s $5.9MM raise. Combine a superior set of platform year statistics, along with a probable Cy Young in his trophy case, and Scherzer seems likely to set a new record for starting pitchers. If the Tigers don’t sign him to a multi-year deal, I think that something in the $13.6MM range that the model projects is likely to be where he lands.

An interesting parallel case will be going on for Clayton Kershaw, who is also eligible for arbitration eligibility this offseason and also has five years of service time, and seems to be a better comparable for Scherzer than any of the pitchers mentioned above. Kershaw only went 16-9, which is much worse than Scherzer’s 21-3, but he had 236 innings pitched and a 1.83 ERA, so if he signs before Scherzer, you can bet their Scherzer’s team will be eager to use him as a comparable.  Check out my arbitration breakdown for Kershaw here.

One or both of these players may sign a long-term extension, so neither will necessarily set the record. But either way, both of them will be getting substantial raises in the neighborhood of $7MM more than they earned last season, and both will set the bar higher for arbitration eligible pitchers with five years of service time in future years.

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images.

Arbitration Breakdown: Chris Davis

By | at

Over the next few months, I will be discussing some of the higher profile upcoming arbitration cases. I will rely partly on my arbitration model developed exclusively for MLB Trade Rumors, but will also break out some interesting comparables and determine where the model might be wrong.

Chris Davis had a fantastic 2013 campaign, which will earn him a large raise on his $3.3MM salary. As a hitter reaching arbitration for the second time, the primary determinants of Davis’ 2014 salary will be his 2013 statistics, which will be used as a basis to determine his raise. Unlike first-year arbitration eligible players whose entire history is generally discussed, players who reach arbitration eligibility in subsequent years have their raises determined by their platform year statistics, and their previous salary serves as the only relevant summary of their historical performance.

This benefits Davis immensely, who had a career year in 2013. He led the American League in home runs (53) and runs batted in (138), while putting up a solid average of .286. Playing time is very important to arbitration panels too, which also will be an argument in favor of a big raise for Davis. He played in 160 games, coming to the plate 673 times last year.

Few other sluggers have matched this performance going into their second years of arbitration eligibility. In the last seven years, the largest raise went to Jacoby Ellsbury, who got a $5.65MM raise from $2.4MM to $8.05MM in 2012, after hitting .321 with 32 home runs and 105 runs batted in, while swiping 39 bags. Ellsbury also helped his case with 729 plate appearances that year.

In most other cases where an elite slugger reached arbitration eligibility for the second time, clubs have elected to sign multi-year deals. While we are able to use multi-year deals with adjustments to fill in the some of the gaps this leaves in our analysis, it makes it difficult to find precisely comparable players for teams and agents to use in negotiations. In some of these cases, we can look at the first year salary in the multi-year deal, but take it with a grain of salt. In some of these cases though, a more valuable piece of evidence is what the salary figures were when the player and team exchange numbers in advance of a potential hearing.

For instance, Ryan Howard is a decent comparable for Davis. Howard signed a three-year deal going into his second year of arbitration eligibility in 2009. He was coming off a $10MM salary, and hit .251 (much worse than Davis’ .286) but his 48 home runs and 146 RBI are the only thing remotely similar in recent memory (among second-year arbitration eligible players) to Davis’ 53 home runs and 138 RBI. Howard got a $5MM raise his second year as part of that deal, but this came after exchanging numbers with the Phillies. He had requested an $8MM raise and the Phillies proposed just a $4MM. Given that Davis had a much better average and five more home runs, plus the fact that Howard’s raise is five years old, Davis should easily clear $4MM.

Matt Holliday’s raise of $5.1MM in 2008 (including his pro-rated signing bonus) as part of a multi-year deal is also relatively comparable. While he only hit 36 home runs, he hit .340 and knocked in 137 runs, while stealing 11 bags. Again, the fact that six years has passed since this deal, plus the fact that it was a multi-year deal, suggest that this will not be a great comparison. However, given the similarity of Holliday’s and Howard’s effective raises, it stands to reason that adding a few years of inflation should get Davis a solid gain beyond this amount, especially since he hit more home runs (which is the most important stat in arbitration outside of playing time).

Somewhat more recently, Josh Hamilton hit .359 with 32 home runs and 100 runs batted in going into 2011, which earned him a $5.5MM raise as part of a multi-year deal. He had been offered a $5.45MM raise already and had countered with a request for a $8.75MM raise, even larger than Howard’s $8MM request two years earlier.

Putting all these together, it is pretty clear that Davis is in his own territory and seems very likely to break Ellsbury’s record Arb-2 raise of $5.65MM. The model actually predicts that Davis would get $10.8MM, but given the new limits of “The Kimbrel Rule,” we are only letting him break Ellsbury’s record by $1MM, giving him a $6.65MM raise to $9.95MM.

Arbitration Breakdown: Clayton Kershaw

By | at

Over the next few months, I will be discussing some of the higher profile upcoming arbitration cases. I will rely partly on my arbitration model developed exclusively for MLB Trade Rumors, but will also break out some interesting comparables and determine where the model might be wrong.

Until this past season, Greg Maddux and Lefty Grove were the only pitchers in major league history to lead the major leagues in ERA for three straight seasons. Clayton Kershaw completed that hat trick this year, and his timing is excellent to go to arbitration prior to his contract year. Kershaw signed a two-year deal in his first year of eligibility, which paid him $11.25MM for this past year. The model predicts that Kershaw would get a $19MM salary for 2014 given his 16-9 performance and 1.83 ERA in 236 innings, but this year we have introduced The Kimbrel Rule, which states that a pitcher cannot beat the previous record for his arbitration class by more than $1MM, so we have Kershaw down for $6.9MM raise to $18.15MM, edging out the $5.9MM raise that Carlos Zambrano got as an arbitration eligible pitcher with five-plus years of service time in 2007.

In my dataset that I use to develop the arbitration salary projections for MLB Trade Rumors, I have all players who reached arbitration eligibility during the previous seven years. In this dataset, there are three starting pitchers who have had the same number of wins as Kershaw, 16, but none of them had anywhere near as strong an ERA. Zambrano had a 16-7 record, but his ERA was 3.41 in his platform season. Phil Hughes got a $3.95MM raise after going 16-13 through arbitration last year, but his ERA (4.23) was more than twice as large as Kershaw’s. Jorge De La Rosa’s 4.38 ERA was even higher than that when he went 16-9 in 2009 and got a $3.6MM raise the following season.

Despite ERA’s importance in measuring pitcher performance, it is not actually as important in arbitration negotiations as wins or innings pitched. So, it is a strike against Kershaw that he did not get the run support to win more than 16 games. However, Kershaw was so good at getting hitters out that he was able to get 708 of them in 2013—which amounts to 236 innings pitched. There is nobody in my database with anywhere near that number of innings pitched, giving Kershaw a large leg up on the population and a very good chance to break Zambrano’s record for 5+ years of service time as a starting pitcher. The next most innings of anyone in my dataset was Roy Oswalt, who had 220 2/3 innings pitched back in 2006, but received a multi-year deal with just a $2MM raise built in for 2007 afterwards. Cole Hamels, Jason Vargas, and Tim Lincecum each had at least 216 innings, though. They got raises of $5.5MM, $4.25MM, and $3.65MM, respectively, though Lincecum’s raise was part of a two-year deal. Kershaw has as many wins as anyone in the database, but his innings clearly give him an advantage.

As I mentioned earlier, though, it is Kershaw’s ERA that is so mind-boggling. There were only three pitchers in my database who even had ERAs within a run of Kershaw’s 1.83 mark for 2013. Hamels had a 2.79 ERA, but just a 14-9 record and 216 innings back in 2011. Tim Lincecum had a 2.74 ERA, but a 13-14 record in 217 innings. And Ryan Vogelsong, who got a $2.59MM raise in 2012, was coming off a 13-7 performance with a 2.70 ERA, though he only had 179 2/3 innings pitched. Overall, Kershaw now has a second important stat (in addition to innings pitched) where he laps the comparables against which he will be judged.

Kershaw also laps the competition in a third important statistic that is used frequently in arbitration negotiations: strikeouts. His 232 strikeouts are more than anyone else in my database among his comparable group of pitchers. The previous record of strikeouts going into the third year of eligibility belonged to Erik Bedard who had 221 strikeouts in 2007, but had just a 13-5 record with a 3.16 ERA and only had 182 innings pitched. His $3.575MM raise is far short of where Kershaw will land. The next most belonged to Lincecum, who had 220 on the way to his $4.25MM raise.

Both Kershaw and Max Scherzer are in the same arbitration class and will be coming up for arbitration at the same time. Both of them seem very likely to break Zambrano’s $5.9MM record raise handily. Since you can use players who sign earlier in the offseason as comparables in arbitration negotiations, these two guys will probably be eager to hear what the other signs for. Scherzer had a 21-3 record this past season, but had 2.90 ERA. He at least had more wins than Kershaw, though obviously his ERA is far worse, and he also had fewer innings (214 1/3) and a similar number of strikeouts (240). This does make him probably the best comparable for Kershaw. At the same time, Scherzer’s team may hope that Kershaw agrees to a deal first so that they can use him as a comparable in their negotiations.

It seems quite possible that Kershaw will just sign a long-term extension instead, especially given the rumors of a gigantic offer during the season by the Dodgers. However, if not, look for Kershaw to handily break the record of what a third-time eligible starting pitcher earns.

Arbitration Breakdown: Craig Kimbrel

By | at

Over the next few months, I will be discussing some of the higher profile upcoming arbitration cases. I will rely partly on my arbitration model developed exclusively for MLB Trade Rumors, but will also break out some interesting comparables and determine where the model might be wrong.

In just over three years on the baseball diamond as a member of the Atlanta Braves, Craig Kimbrel has accomplished a wide variety of feats. He has led the National League in saves for three years in a row, with 139 saves in his young career. Kimbrel struck out a fantastic 381 hitters, which amounts to 43 percent of all hitters faced (more than twice the league average). He has also kept runs off the board like no one else, allowing a microscopic 1.39 ERA in his 227 1/3 innings pitched. Now, we can add one more trophy to his case here at MLB Trade Rumors: he is the namesake of the Kimbrel Rule, as well as the first player whose arbitration salary projection has ever been affected by it. Why do we need this Kimbrel Rule? Quite simply, Kimbrel broke my arbitration model.

The result that the model spit out was so outlandishly high that no panel would ever have awarded it to him. The model works by considering how panels and settling parties (teams and agents) have previously interpreted different statistics and factors into their decision, and provides a salary estimate based on these. This is often useful, for example, because we can see how many saves a closer would need to have to offset a higher ERA than a previous comparable. Similarly, for a hitter, we can see how much an MVP adds to salary and how many home runs a hitter would need to belt to make up the difference. However, there is no category in which Kimbrel failed to dominate the preceding closers who have reached their first year of arbitration.

Consider the following lists of maximum first-year salaries for closers in arbitration over the previous seven years:

Jonathan Papelbon ($6.25MM):

  • Platform year—41 SV, 2.34 ERA, 69 1/3 IP, 77 SO
  • Previous years—72 SV, 1.63 ERA, 160 2/3 IP, 193 SO

Bobby Jenks ($5.60MM):

  • Platform year—30 SV, 2.63 ERA, 61 2/3 IP, 38 SO
  • Previous years—87 SV, 3.26 ERA, 174 IP, 186 SO

John Axford ($5.00MM):

  • Platform year—35 SV, 4.68 ERA, 69 1/3 IP, 93 SO
  • Previous years—71 SV, 2.26 ERA, 139 1/3 IP, 171 SO

Brian Wilson ($4.46MM):

  • Platform year: 38 SV, 2.74 ERA, 72 1/3 IP, 83 SO
  • Previous years: 48 SV, 4.34 ERA, 116 IP, 108 SO

Now consider Kimbrel’s primary arbitration-relevant statistics:

Craig Kimbrel (unknown):

  • Platform year—50 SV, 1.21 ERA, 67 IP, 98 SO
  • Previous years—89 SV, 1.46 ERA, 160.1 IP, 283 SO

Now consider the records for each of these statistics by all closers (defined by having 15 platform-year saves or 50 pre-platform saves) put together before Kimbrel, which we will call Mutant Super-Closer:

Mutant Super-Closer:

  • Platform year—41 SV, 1.71 ERA, 78 1/3 IP, 93 SO
  • Previous years—87 SV, 1.63 ERA, 252 IP, 269 SO

Other than innings, Kimbrel actually beat the Mutant Super-Closer too. He beat every previous closer in every previous category.

Looking at the foursome of potential comparables above, it is clear that Papelbon is the only closer who even came close to achieving what Kimbrel ultimately has achieved, and he fell far short of Kimbrel’s accomplishments in every category.

Kimbrel had 50 saves in 2013, his platform season. The most any other pitcher has had going into his first year of arbitration in recent memory (which includes the last seven years, the data I have available) was Jonathan Papelbon, who had 41. No one had more career saves in recent memory than Bobby Jenks who had 117 going into arbitration for the first time, but Kimbrel has 139.

Kimbrel has a 1.39 career ERA, which is well ahead of any other closer reaching arbitration. The closest was Papelbon who had a 1.84 ERA going into his first year of arbitration in 2009, but his 2.34 platform year ERA fell far short of Kimbrel’s 1.21 mark for 2013.

Kimbrel also has all other closers beat on strikeouts too, tallying 381. The next highest for a closer going into his first year of arbitration was 362 strikeouts by Carlos Marmol leading into 2010, but Marmol’s 23 career saves at this point fall well short of Kimbrel’s 139.

In the end, there just weren’t any comparable pitchers for Kimbrel. There was no category where he fell short of another closer’s mark, and the accolades piled on to escalate his salary projection. This is why we invented “The Kimbrel Rule,” which is defined by limiting the maximum salary projection possible to exceed the previous record for his player type to $1MM (and similarly, the maximum raise for a non-first time eligible player is $1MM greater than the previous record raise as well). In this case, no one has ever earned more in their first year of arbitration as a closer than Jonathan Papelbon, when he earned $6.25MM in 2009, so Kimbrel is projected for $7.25MM despite the model itself predicting a salary well in excess of this amount.

This number was selected as a rough approximation of what teams, agents, and arbitration panels have historically decided on. In general, the model I use does a good job of approximating the end-result of their decision processes, but when faced with no historical precedent, there is often a settlement that avoids beating the previous record by too much. Therefore, we have made this specific rule a part of the model. It is not the first time that we have let the model “have eyes.” For players who do not play in a given season, we have observed that they so frequently get rewarded with their exact previous salary that this is now an explicit rule in the model. No player gets projected for a decrease in salary anymore because those that would have often received this floor anyway—their previous salary. Now, we have a rule for the ceiling for players.

We are eagerly awaiting the ultimate settlement in the Kimbrel case, because we have spent much of the last few months discussing the peculiar case of Mr. Craig M. Kimbrel. It is our suspicion that he will land much closer to the $7.25MM we have projected for him than the high number the model produced, which I might as well confess was actually $10.2MM. However, Kimbrel is not just the namesake of the rule; he is also the first test of the Kimbrel Rule. While a couple other players will have their salaries dampened by the Kimbrel Rule in 2014, the amount that it changed their salary projection was under $1MM in these cases, nothing that could shine a light on the theory. Going forward, this may be a clue about how to treat exceptional cases for us (and possibly, for the teams and players themselves). Of course, maybe the Braves will hurry up and settle with him before he breaks my computer.

Arbitration Breakdown: Jim Johnson

By | at

Over the next few weeks, I will be discussing some of the higher profile upcoming arbitration cases. I will rely partly on my arbitration model developed exclusively for MLB Trade Rumors (read more about it here), but will also break out some interesting comparables and determine where the model might be wrong.

After shuffling between different relief roles for a few years, Jim Johnson emerged in 2012 as the Orioles' full-time closer. He saved a league-best 51 games in just 54 chances as he helped the Orioles make the playoffs for the first time in the 21st century. The Orioles relied on him heavily, winning the AL Wild Card in large part due to their 29-9 record in one-run games, a feat in which Johnson played a large part. Johnson hurled 68 2/3 innings for the Orioles, keeping his ERA low at 2.49 to go along with his hefty save total.

The Orioles are about to be reminded that that type of performance doesn’t come for free, as the Moye Sports Associates client is likely to get a substantial raise on his $2.625MM salary from 2012. My arbitration model projects Johnson to get a $4.275MM raise in his third year of arbitration eligibility, all the way up to $6.9MM. This would be uncharted territory — other than first-year eligible players, no reliever has ever gotten a raise larger than $3.5MM. While I suspect that Johnson may fall a little bit short of the model’s estimated $6.9MM salary, I think he will probably break the $3.5MM record.

Projecting closers’ arbitration salaries is not as hard as for many other types of players. Pitchers with at least 20 saves in their second, third, or fourth year of arbitration got raises ranging from $1.375-3.5MM over the last six years (2007-12) and a good rule of thumb is that the more saves a closer has, the bigger his raise will be. Other statistics matter far less; arbitration cases are very much about whether you got your individual job done, and the closer’s role is seen as saving games. More opportunities means more money — avoiding blown saves (which Johnson happened to do) is not as important as racking up save totals when called upon.

Pitchers who had at least 20 but fewer than 35 saves received raises between $1.375-1.925MM, pitchers who had at least 35 but fewer than 40 saves receives raises between $2.0-3.1MM, and pitchers who had at least 40 saves received raises between $2.7-3.5MM. The relationship between saves totals and raises is clear — other statistics mattered far less. Considering that the maximum number of saves of any of these closers was 47, it makes perfect sense that Johnson should expect to break Heath Bell’s record raise of $3.5MM in 2011 in Johnson’s third year of eligibility and with four more saves than Bell.

There have been three pitchers in the last six years to have at least 40 saves and get one-year contracts in their third year of arbitration eligibility, and all three of them received similar raises and will be the presumed comparables for Johnson’s case. After saving 40 games in 2007, Francisco Rodriguez got a $2.95MM raise; after saving 44 games in 2008, Jose Valverde got a $3.3MM raise; and after saving 47 games in 2010, Heath Bell got a $3.5MM raise. All three of them had a similar number of innings as Johnson had in 2012, with Johnson pitching through 68 2/3, Rodriguez throwing 67 1/3, Valverde with 72, and Bell with 70. Johnson’s 2.49 ERA topped Rodriguez’s 2.81 and Valverde’s 3.38, but fell short of Bell’s 1.93.

Since both Valverde’s and Rodriguez’s raises are less recent, Bell seems like a much better comparable, and given that his case took place two years ago and his saves total was smaller than Johnson’s, it is hard to imagine that that Johnson will fail to top Bell’s $3.5MM raise. Adding in two extra years of salary inflation and four extra saves, I think that Johnson should expect a raise of about $4MM. While my model thinks this will go all the way up to $4.275MM raise (and hence a $6.9MM salary), I think it might be hard to push for $775K more than Bell got. Johnson should still safely end up with over $6.5MM in 2013.

Arbitration Breakdown: Matt Wieters

By | at

Over the next few weeks, I will be discussing some of the higher profile upcoming arbitration cases. I will rely partly on my arbitration model developed exclusively for MLB Trade Rumors (read more about it here), but will also break out some interesting comparables and determine where the model might be wrong.

After missing the “super two” cutoff of arbitration eligibility by just ten days in 2012, Matt Wieters has finally reached arbitration eligibility in 2013 with three years and 129 days of service time. My arbitration model projects the seasoned catcher to obtain a $4.6MM salary, a potential record for first-time eligible catchers. Due to his durability and his hefty experience for a first-time player, Wieters will probably get close to the model’s projection, though I suspect he will fall short of it.

There have been only 34 catchers who have reached arbitration eligibility for the first time in the last six years, and five them received multiyear deals which make them weak comparisons. Of the remaining 29, only five had at least 400 plate appearances in their platform seasons and only one had at least 470. Wieters had a whopping total of 593 plate appearances in 2012, topped only by Russell Martin’s 650 in 2009.

Wieters, a Boras Corporation client, hit only .249 this past season, but he did hit 23 home runs and he knocked in 83 RBI. Going into 2012, he had already accumulated a total of 1,438 plate appearances and had hit .264 to go along with 42 home runs and 166 RBI. Only a handful of catchers have entered arbitration with that kind of track record. Considering the importance of playing time to arbitration models, it will probably help his case considerably that Wieters is the only player other than Victor Martinez in the last six years to accumulate 2,000 plate appearances from behind the plate before his first year of arbitration eligibility — and Martinez was already playing on a multiyear deal by the time he would have been eligibile.

In fact, most of the catchers who had numbers like Wieters' before reaching arbitration received multiyear deals before they even became eligible. Martinez in 2007, Brian McCann in 2009, and Kurt Suzuki in 2011 would have been reasonable comparables for Wieters, except that all three received multiyear deals a full year or more before reaching eligibility. This makes it especially hard to find good comparables. Plus, catchers are generally isolated from other position players in arbitration.

Usually multiyear deals are not considered when looking for comparables, even players who signed multiyear deals while negotiating for one-year deals. However, if figures were exchanged, exceptions can be made. Due to the lack of comparables other than aforementioned Martin (who I will discuss more shortly), Joe Mauer could be a reasonable comparable for Wieters. He signed a multiyear deal which paid him $3.75MM in 2007, his first year of eligibility, but he had exchanged figures of $3.3MM and $4.5MM with the Twins before that deal was signed. Even though Wieters may not have the value that Mauer had at this time, his extra power would probably have made his arbitration case more compelling despite his batting average deficiencies. Wieters had 23 home runs and 83 RBI in his platform season, while Mauer only had 13 home runs and 84 RBI. Going into this season, Wieters had 42 home runs and 166 RBI, while Mauer had just 15 home runs and 72 RBI. Of course Wieters had just a .264 average going into his platform season in which he hit .249, and Mauer had a .297 average going in to his platform season and then hit .347. However, power matters more, and the fact that Wieters had 1,438 pre-platform plate appearances and Mauer only had 676 would make Wieters' case far stronger. While Mauer’s request of $4.5MM might not necessarily help Wieters, given that neither the Twins nor an arbitration panel gave him that sum, there is a case that Wieters should get well in excess of the $3.3MM that the Twins offered and probably more than the $3.75MM he ultimately received in his multiyear deal.

Other than Mauer, Russell Martin’s $3.9MM in 2009 stands alone as the best comparable. Martin did have 650 plate appearances, more than Wieters’ 593, and his .280 average exceeded Wieters’ .249. However, he only hit 13 home runs to Wieters’ 23. Martin also had fewer pre-platform plate appearances (1,088 vs. 1,438) since he was eligible as a super two, and he only had 29 home runs and 152 RBI before his platform years, which fall short of Wieters’ 42 home runs and 166 RBI. On the other hand, Martin had 49 career steals by the time he reached arbitration and Wieters has only four. Martin’s case is four years old and that he had less power than Wieters, so I expect Wieters should be able to argue for more than Martin’s $3.9MM and safely break $4MM.

Interestingly, there are almost no other cases that are even close to a match for Wieters. In fact, only Geovany Soto even topped $2.2MM and he only got $3MM after accumulating just 387 plate appearances in 2010. His weaker 17 home runs and 53 RBI (though with a superior .280 average) would make a weak comparable if the Orioles tried to argue to keep Wieters down in the in the $3MM range.

Overall, it’s hard to imagine Wieters getting much less than $4MM and he will probably get more. My projection of $4.6MM would set a new precedent by a considerable margin, so I think he will fall short. Even so, he will probably get relatively close to the projected amount.

Arbitration Breakdown: Mat Latos

By | at

Over the next few weeks, I will be discussing some of the higher profile upcoming arbitration cases. I will rely partly on my arbitration model developed exclusively for MLB Trade Rumors (read more about it here), but will also break out some interesting comparables and determine where the model might be wrong.

Mat Latos enters his first year of arbitration eligibility with a chance to break the record for first time eligible starting pitchers on one-year deals. My model expects that he will get about $4.6MM and I think this is probably an accurate prediction. It’s true that both Tim Lincecum and Clayton Kershaw earned more than this after reaching eligibility for the first time, but both did so by way of multiyear deals, and those are generally not used as comparisons in arbitration cases. Other than these two starters, the record first-year starting pitcher deal went to David Price, who matched Dontrelle Willis' $4.35MM mark last winter.

Latos, a Bledsoe Brothers client, had an excellent platform season last year with a 14-4 record and a 3.48 ERA in 209 1/3 innings. He also struck out 185 batters, good for a rate of 8.0 strikeouts per nine innings. While playing for San Diego before being traded to the Reds, Latos also put together an impressive track record with a 3.37 ERA in 429 2/3 innings and striking out 413 (8.7 K/9). While he went just 27-29, obviously under .500, wins matter more than losses in arbitration hearings and he is more likely to get credit for his 27 pre-platform wins and 14 platform season wins than debited for the losses earned with the Padres.

In an effort to find similar pitchers, I looked for pitchers who were close to Latos in as many categories as possible while loosening the restrictions enough that they fell short. I looked for hurlers with 11 wins, 180 innings, and an ERA of no worse than 3.90 in their platform season, and 20 wins, 320 innings, and ERAs under 4.00 before their platform season. Despite these lighter criteria, there were only six such starters and two of them were the aforementioned uncomparable Cy Young winners, Lincecum and Kershaw.

The remaining four are David Price in 2012 ($4.35MM), Jered Weaver in 2010 ($4.26MM), Chien-Ming Wang in 2008 ($4.00MM), and Scott Kazmir in 2008 ($3.79MM). Since Wang’s and Kazmir’s salaries are both five years old, it stands to reason that with inflation, they would fall in the same range as Weaver’s and Price’s salaries in the $4.3MM range. When compared with these four pitchers, Latos looks very similar and maybe a little better in most categories. I suspect that his case will center on these four players and that he will get a slight raise over the record right around the $4.6MM that I have projected him for.

The natural player to start with is the current first-time starting pitcher record holder, David Price. Price had a very similar ERA to Latos (3.49 vs. 3.48) but his 12-13 record was bested by Latos’ 14-4. However, Price had 224 1/3 innings, fifteen more than Latos, and he also struck out 33 more hitters. In their pre-platform seasons, the two pitchers also posted similar ERAs (3.31 for Price and 3.37 for Latos), but Price had a better record with fewer innings this time. Price had a 29-13 record with 351 innings, while Latos had a 27-29 record with 429 2/3 innings. Latos had more strikeouts cumulative (413 vs. 302) and on a per nine basis (8.7 vs. 7.7) than Price during their pre-platform years. The Bledsoe Brothers agency is likely going to try to argue for Latos to get a small raise over Price.

Jered Weaver’s case in 2010 is also very similar. His 3.75 ERA exceeded Latos’ 3.48 mark, but his 16-8 record will probably be viewed more favorably than Latos’ 14-4. They also pitched almost the exact same number of innings (211 for Weaver and 209 for Latos), while Latos had eleven more strikeouts. In his pre-platform years, however, Weaver’s 35-19 record exceeded Latos’ 27-29, but his 3.71 ERA was worse than Latos’ 3.37. They had similar pre-platform innings, 460 2/3 for Weaver and 429 2/3 for Latos. Weaver did strike out 41 more hitters, though. Like Price, Weaver will probably be used as a main comparable for Latos, and Latos will probably have a better case.

Chien-Ming Wang’s case is five years old but is similar in many ways. Although he had a 19-7 record in his platform season (better than Latos’ 14-4), his 3.70 ERA was worse than Latos’ 3.48. Wang also only had ten fewer innings than Latos but he is far from a strikeout pitcher, so Latos’ 185 are nearly double Wang’s 104. They had equal numbers of wins pre-platform (27) but Wang only lost 11 games. On the other hand, Wang had nearly 100 fewer innings and almost 300 fewer strikeouts. Wang is a unique pitcher and probably not a great comparable, but even if Weaver and Price are seen as better than Latos, Wang is probably a very reasonable floor at $4MM and Latos should get a raise with five years of salary inflation added on that.

Scott Kazmir is the other comparable player to Latos. He had only one less win in his platform season, only 2 2/3 fewer innings, and the same ERA. However, he did strike out 54 more hitters. Still, before his platform season Kazmir only won 22 games (while losing 20) and his 3.73 ERA in 364 innings falls behind Latos’ 3.37 in 429 2/3. Latos had a few more strikeouts but at a lower rate per nine innings. Kazmir’s $3.79MM is another obvious floor, though I think Wang’s case implies that $4MM was already the floor (unless Wang’s 19 wins matter a lot more than I expect).

Overall, Latos had more wins than two of these four players, a better ERA than two and a similar ERA to the other two, more strikeouts than two of these four in his platform year, and had more innings, a lower ERA, and more strikeouts than three of the four comparable pitchers before his platform year, while having more wins than just two of them. Together, this all implies he should just be a tiny bit ahead of them. Add in a little salary inflation, and Latos’ $4.6MM projection seems like a good estimate.

Arbitration Breakdown: Max Scherzer

By | at

Over the next few weeks, I will be discussing some of the higher profile upcoming arbitration cases. I will rely partly on my arbitration model developed exclusively for MLB Trade Rumors (read more about it here), but will also break out some interesting comparables and determine where the model might be wrong.

Whatever Max Scherzer gets in arbitration in his second year of eligibility this season, he is likely to be a bargain. My arbitration model has him slated for a $3.75MM raise to $7.5MM in 2013. Scherzer is a highly talented pitcher who has shown that he has the skills that portend improvement — namely, his strikeout rate. Thanks to 11.1 K/9, the Scott Boras client led the entire Major Leagues in SIERA in 2012. Though his sabermetric statistics suggest he was underrated in 2012 (his ERA was only 3.74, worse than his 2.99 SIERA), Scherzer’s best weapon in his arbitration case is his 16 wins, the least important major pitching statistic to sabermetricians.

Very few pitchers have entered their second year of arbitration with at least 15 wins. In fact, the only two pitchers in the last six years to have more wins than Scherzer were Justin Verlander and Felix Hernandez, both of whom signed multiyear extensions in lieu of one-year arbitration deals. Verlander went 19-9 with a 3.45 ERA and 269 strikeouts in 240 innings in 2010. Before reaching arbitration, Verlander asked for a $5.825MM raise and the Tigers countered with a $3.215MM proposed raise. His actual raise is difficult to ascertain due to his multiyear deal but it was about $3.5MM. Hernandez’s raise was approximately $4.4MM in his multiyear deal after going 19-5 with a 2.49 ERA and 217 strikeouts in 238 2/3 innings in 2010. Scherzer falls short of both of their numbers — he went 16-7 with a 3.74 ERA, and had 231 strikeouts in 187 2/3 innings. However, multiyear deals are not usually used in arbitration, and Scherzer is more likely to be compared with pitchers who signed one-year deals, even though they generally had fewer wins.

The other statistic that is particularly important for starting pitchers other than wins is innings pitched, and some of the other top pitchers who reached arbitration for the second time have bested Scherzer in this category. However, Scherzer has struck out hitters at a quicker rate than many of them in addition to having more wins.

One plausible comparable for Scherzer is Jered Weaver in 2011. Weaver got the largest raise (on a one-year deal) of any second-time eligible starting pitcher in recent years. Weaver had far more innings — 224 1/3 of them, but only went 13-12. He did have a comparable number of strikeouts to Scherzer (233 vs. 231) and a better ERA (3.01 vs. 3.74). His $3.105MM raise could be a number that the Tigers use to try to suggest Scherzer’s salary should be lower. Since Weaver’s 2010 was better than Scherzer’s 2012 in areas other than win total, they may suggest that Scherzer should not top $3.105MM.

It’s possible Boras could point to Scherzer’s postseason performance in an attempt to distinguish his platform season from Weaver’s. While Weaver didn’t pitch in the playoffs in 2010, Scherzer started three games in the 2012 postseason, posting a 2.07 ERA in 17 1/3 innings. Scherzer made a strong ALDS start, won the clinching game of the ALCS and turned in a solid World Series start. This experience won’t dramatically alter his case, but it could help him in a hearing.

There were three other pitchers who did win 15 games going into their second year of arbitration eligibility, and who did sign one-year deals: Matt Garza and John Danks in 2011, and Erik Bedard in 2007. Garza went 15-10 with a 3.91 ERA in 204 2/3 innings, and got a $2.6MM raise in arbitration. The mediocre ERA, combined with the favorable win total could make Garza another good comparable for Scherzer. However, his 150 strikeouts pale in comparison with Scherzer’s 231, and his 520 2/3 career innings before the season started are short of Scherzer’s 617. Previous innings do play a role in hearings, though other stats before the platform year generally do not. Danks got a $2.55MM raise in 2011, and had a similar season to Garza — he went 15-11 with a 3.72 ERA in 213 innings, with 162 strikeouts. Bedard got a $2.025MM raise in 2007 with another similar season — 15-11 with a 3.76 ERA and 171 strikeouts in 196 1/3 innings, but his numbers are pretty stale (deals that are six years old are infrequently used) and his 279 2/3 innings prior to his platform season do not make him a good comparison. Scherzer’s similar win totals and ERA combined with his better pre-platform year innings totals and far superior strikeout totals combine to suggest he should safely be able to argue for a superior raise than the largest of this trio, Garza’s $2.6MM.

If we try to look for pitchers with big strikeout totals, both Francisco Liriano and Jonathan Sanchez in 2011 got $2.7MM raises and could be seen as comparables. Liriano went 14-10 with a 3.62 ERA, while racking up 201 strikeouts in 191 2/3 innings, and Sanchez went 13-9 with a 3.07 ERA and 205 strikeouts in 193 1/3 innings. However, these two pitchers only had 358 1/3 and 413 1/3 previous innings, respectively, both less than Scherzer’s 617. This pair makes it clear that Scherzer should be able to top a $2.7MM raise.

It’s hard to see how much higher than this Scherzer could go. Weaver’s $3.105MM raise could be treated as a ceiling, which would mean Scherzer would get no more than $6.85MM rather than the $7.5MM I have projected him for. On the other hand, having three more wins than Weaver, Scherzer has a good chance of arguing for better than $7MM. If Hernandez’s and Verlander’s salaries amidst multiyear deals are used as ceilings, however, it might be harder for Scherzer to argue for much more than that. I would probably take the under on the model’s projection and guess somewhere around right around $7MM.

Arbitration Breakdown: Hunter Pence

By | at

Over the next few weeks, I will be discussing some of the higher profile upcoming arbitration cases. I will rely partly on my arbitration model developed exclusively for MLB Trade Rumors (read more about it here), but will also break out some interesting comparables and determine where the model might be wrong.

Hunter Pence enters his fourth year of arbitration with a good chance of getting a fourth consecutive raise of between $3MM and $4MM. My model projects him to add a $3.4MM raise, giving him a $13.8MM salary for 2013. Pence had a pretty disappointing performance in 2012, but his career-high 104 RBI should be enough to get him a good boost. After hitting .314 in 2011, Pence only hit .253 in 2012. However, he did hit 24 home runs and play in all but two games on his way to 688 plate appearances.

Very few players have entered arbitration four different times without signing multiyear deals or being non-tendered, so players who do so are often compared with each other and with players who are eligibile for only the third time. As it happens, this makes Pence a pretty good comparison for himself last year since he had 24 home runs and 104 RBI after having 22 home runs and 97 RBI. Of course, his batting average this season was worse, and Pence will probably not be compared to himself last year anyway.

Among players who did enter arbitration for the fourth time, Mike Napoli in 2012 could be a good comparable, but his .320 batting average and 30 home runs make him a poor match, even though he only had 476 plate appearances and just 75 RBI. He did get a $3.6MM raise, however. No other fourth-time eligible players who have signed one-year deals in recent years have even hit 20 home runs, so we will need to look beyond that to find good comparables for Pence.

Since Pence’s most compelling case for a large raise comes from breaking the 100 RBI barrier, it is useful to look at the list of players who were eligible for at least their third year of arbitration and who had 100 RBI, and also restrict to players who signed one-year deals. There are only two such players: Mark Teixeira, who hit .306 and had 30 home runs and 105 RBI with 575 plate appearances in 2008 (he got a $2.7MM raise), and Jorge Cantu, who hit .289 with 16 home runs and 100 RBIs in 643 plate appearances, and only got a $2.5MM raise. Since Teixeira’s raise is five years old and Cantu had far fewer home runs, neither of them makes for great cases.

If we try to look for players with players with similar home run totals, say at least 20 but no more than 30, while also restricting ourselves to players with batting averages below .270 and with at least 80 RBI, only two players come up (among those who got one-year deals): B.J. Upton in 2012 and Austin Kearns in 2007. Upton hit .243 with 23 home runs and 81 RBI, though he stole 36 bases. Kearns hit .264 with 24 home runs and 86 RBI, and got just a $1.65MM raise, but since that case is so old, I doubt his name would come up in Pence’s case. Since both Upton and Kearns had less appealing statistics to arbitration panels (RBI matter far more), Pence is likely to easily top them.

There are some other players with 20-29 home runs who either did not get 80 RBI or who hit better than .270. Xavier Nady in 2009 is one such player. He got a $3.2MM raise after hitting .305 with 25 home runs and 97 RBI, though he had only 607 plate appearances. Adam Jones is another similar player. He hit .280 in 2011 with 25 home runs, but just 83 RBI. He got a $2.9MM raise, and Pence should be able to top that despite the lower batting average, since RBI matter so much to panels. One other such player with medium-high home runs is Luke Scott, who got a $2.35MM raise in 2011, after hitting .284 with 27 home runs, but just 72 RBI in 517 plate appearances. Pence should top all three of these guys.

If we expanded to include players who hit a little more than 30 home runs but still had averages below .270 and at least 80 RBI, we would be able to include Prince Fielder, who got a $4MM raise in 2011. Fielder hit .261 with 32 home runs, but just 83 RBI amidst 714 plate appearances. He could be a useful comparison for Pence due to his large raise.

If we really let the RBI restrictions go, we might include Kelly Johnson in 2011. This would also involve ignoring position, but at this point, without ideal comparables, he might be in play. He hit .284 with 26 home runs in 671 plate appearances, but only got 71 RBI. He still got a $3.5MM raise, though. Just falling short of nearly all of the above criteria was Casey Blake in 2008 — he hit .270 with 18 home runs and 78 RBI, and got a $2.35MM raise.

Clearly almost no one is a good match for Pence this year. The plausible names we have suggested above include Mike Napoli, Mark Teixeira, Jorge Cantu, B.J. Upton, Xavier Nady, Adam Jones, Luke Scott, Prince Fielder, Kelly Johnson, and Casey Blake. None of them are very good comparables. Almost all of them are a little useful. Pence had more plate appearances than nine of the ten and more RBI than nine of the ten as well. He only higher a higher average than one of these ten, though, and only had more home runs than four of the ten. Three of these ten players had more steals than Pence, five had fewer steals, and two had the same number.

These ten hitters got raises ranging between $2.175MM and $4MM. The median raise in the group was $3.05MM. Since these deals tend to be around two to three years old on average and Pence had more plate appearances and RBI (the more important arbitration stats, along with home runs) than most of these guys, my best guess is that Pence should be in the same range but a little higher. That makes the $3.4MM projected raise seem pretty reasonable to me.

Pence is the kind of player for whom the arbitration model I have developed is the most useful. It can struggle to identify salaries of players who are anomalously good or who have had odd career trajectories, but for a player who is far better than his peers in some statistics and far worse than his peers in other areas, the model can split the difference and come up with a reasonable projection. I think Pence is highly likely to be close to the $13.8MM salary the model projects for him.

MLB Trade Rumors is not affiliated with Major League Baseball, MLB or MLB.com

hide arrows scroll to top