SB Nation - Login for mobile commenting

Lookout Landing

What Does a Playoff Team Look Like? Part One: American League

This post is a larger build off of a comment I made over on USS Mariner. A commenter there said that he’s sick of solid players and wants Seattle to put more “superstars” on the field that can change a game with one swing or one pitch. This got me thinking about the way successful teams are constructed, so I’m now going to go through every playoff team from last year and quantify their players in 5 categories: Superstars, Surprise Players, Solid Players, Replacement Players and Crap Players. We’ll get to my definition for each category in a second, first my hypothesis as to what I’ll find:

I believe that the playoff teams will end up having only a couple of Superstars; the rest of the team will be rounded out with mostly Solid Players and a couple Surprise Players. It doesn’t take Superstars to make the playoffs, it takes a well rounded team with a smattering of big time players, whether they come in the form of expensive Superstars or inexpensive Surprise Players.

My definitions:

Superstars – players with a track record of at least 3 years putting up 4+ WAR seasons, I tried to be entirely mathematical, but there is some fudging here and there because the word “superstar” also tends to be a lot of public perception and name recognition

Surprise Players – Players putting up a 4+ WAR season who either bounced back from age, injury, had a career year, or a breakout rookie season. Basically any player that outperformed anyone’s expectations going into the season would be included here.

Solid Players – Any player putting up a 2-3.9 WAR season

Replacement Players – Any player putting up a 0-1.9 WAR season

Crap Players – Any player with a negative WAR

I’ll now be analyzing every playoff team and then take a look at how the 2011 Mariners fared in each category as well as the two most famously successful Mariner teams (1995 and 2001). I’m cutting off eligible players at 300 PA, will be using the five starters on every team that made the most starts and at the end will just calculate the total WAR contributed by the bullpen.

I’m about halfway through writing this and have realized this is going to take up a lot of space, so to make it a bit smaller I’m going to separate it into three posts. We’ll start with the American League playoff teams and based on the reception of the post in general I’ll continue with the NL and finally how the Mariners look.

Star-divide

New York Yankees - $207 million payroll, 97-65 record

Superstars:

CC Sabathia – 7.1

Robinson Cano – 5.6

Alex Rodriguez – 4.2

Mark Teixeira – 4.2

Surprise Players:

Curtis Granderson – 7.0

Brett Gardner – 5.1

Solid Players:

Nick Swisher 3.8

Russell Martin – 3.1

Ivan Nova – 2.7

Bartolo Colon – 2.6

Derek Jeter – 2.3

Freddy Garcia – 2.2

Replacement Players:

A.J. Burnett – 1.5

Crap Players:

Jorge Posada - -.4

Eduardo Nunez - -.6

Bullpen – 7.1

The Yankees have a lot of expensive Superstars, but with their payroll that’s to be expected, as only 1 of them was home grown. Granderson and Gardner both had huge years, Gardner may be on his way towards Superstar status with a few more big years under his belt. Lots of solid players round out the roster, Colon and Garcia could maybe be Surprise Players, as who would have expected them to be above Replacement? The Yankees also feature a lockdown bullpen with most of the value coming from Mariano Rivera and David Robertson

Texas Rangers - $92.1 million payroll, 96-66 record

Superstars:

Ian Kinsler – 7.7

CJ Wilson – 5.9 (fudged because he was a 2 win pitcher in the bullpen and has been excellent since moving to the rotation)

Adrian Beltre – 5.7

Josh Hamilton – 4.2

Surprise Players:

Mike Napoli – 5.6

Elvis Andrus – 4.5

Matt Harrison – 4.2

Solid Players:

Michael Young – 3.8

Derek Holland – 3.6

Alexi Ogando – 3.6

Colby Lewis – 2.3

Replacement Players:

Nelson Cruz – 1.6

David Murphy – 1.1

Yorvit Torrealba – 1.1

Mich Moreland - .4

Bullpen – 1.9

Damn the Rangers are good. Only 5 regular players below 3.6 WAR and nobody dipping into the negative territory. The Rangers used a 5 man rotation for all but 5 games in the season and got exceptional years from the top to the bottom, especially when you consider the park factors. I don’t really know what to say about these guys that the numbers don’t already to say, this team is scary good. With full seasons from Mike Adams and Koji Uehara the bullpen should improve as well.

Detroit Tigers – $106.9 million payroll, 95-67 record

Superstars:

Miguel Cabrera – 7.3

Justin Verlander – 7.0

Surprise Players:

Alex Avila – 5.5

Jhonny Peralta – 5.2

Doug Fister – 2.4 (While Fister made the 6th most starts on the team I included him because I feel he was a huge part of the team’s success in the playoff run. Fister went nuts in Detroit striking out over 7 per 9 and walking less than 1. Putting up 2.4 WAR in 10 starts was definitely not what anyone expected of Fister and he was a huge asset.)

Solid Players:

Victor Martinez – 2.9

Austin Jackson – 2.8

Max Scherzer – 2.7

Rick Porcello – 2.7

Phil Coke – 2.0

Replacement Players:

Brennan Boesch – 1.7

Ryan Raburn – 1.2

Brad Penny - .8

Crap Players:

Brandon Inge - -.4

Magglio Ordonez - -1.0

Bullpen – 3.3

The Tigers are the epitome of what I’m expecting to see. They put together an overall good team and without the breakouts of Peralta and Avila wouldn’t have won the division by such a large margin. They also did this well with only 2 true Superstars.

Tampa Bay Rays - $42.1 million payroll, 91-71 record

Superstars:

Ben Zobrist – 6.6

Evan Longoria – 6.1

BJ Upton – 4.1

Surprise Players:

James Shields 4.9 (could maybe be a superstar, but had a couple disappointing seasons the last 2 years)

David Price – 4.7

Solid Players:

Matt Joyce – 3.8

Casey Kotchman – 2.8

Sean Rodriguez – 2.3

Replacement Players:

Sam Fuld – 1.9

Johnny Damon – 1.5

Jeff Niemann – 1.5

Jeremy Hellickson – 1.4

Wade Davis - .9

Bullpen - .7

The Rays so far are the only to contradict my theory, as most of their team was either in the 4+ range or a replacement player. Their bullpen was essentially a nonfactor in their success. They used their depth a lot more than other teams as Kelly Shoppach, Desmond Jennings, John Jaso, and Elliot Johnson all played a large share of games, but all fell below my 300 PA cutoff. If I had to guess I’d say that the Rays success came from smart managing, playing platoons to their highest ability and generally taking advantage of every opportunity they could find.

Conclusions:

So far I’m seeing what I’ve expected. 2-4 Superstars, a couple Surprise Players and the rest of the teams don’t have any gaping black holes. If you change all the Surprise Players back to “solid” performances each division winner is looking at about 90 wins with the Rays in the high 80’s. None of these teams won by surrounding lots of replacement players with superstars and based on what I’ve seen so far I don’t see why some Seattle fans think that that method will work by injecting Fielder into a team full of replacements. Maybe things will look different in the NL, but at this point I’d rather see the Mariners full of 2-3 win players than 0-2 win players and one 5 win player. My bullpen analysis is probably rather lame, but it appears that as long as the bullpen isn’t in the negative it doesn’t seem to matter whether they are amazing or not.

I’m probably not saying much that most people here don’t already know or at least suspect, but I’m finding it interesting that as long as a team knows what to do then the payroll restrictions don’t seem to matter, different paths to the same outcome. If you guys are curious as to how the rest of the teams play out I’ll post the next of the series in a day or so.

12 recs  |  20 comments

Comments

Yes, more of this.
Did something similar a while ago, wish I could find my notes...

…maybe it was in a USSM comment… anyway, I looked at the WAR for last year’s playoff teams, and generally found that while they varied a bit as far as number of players greater than 4 WAR, or players from 2 to 4 WAR, all 8 of these teams had no one below -1 WAR (with the exception of Ryan Franklin at -1.6). So yeah, where you’re going makes sense – no matter how you get there, you don’t need a Murderers’ Row or a Rotation For The Ages; just don’t suck, and have 2 or 3 solid guys of 4 or 5 WAR or more.

Summary

Stars: 2-4 players
Surprise: 2-3 players
Solid: 3-5 players
Replacement: 2-3 players

6 stars, 5 solid, 3 replacement would be 14/15 players.

Here’s the thing – everyone outside of Felix is off the books before 2014. That gives us $70M~ to spend after min. salaries, which should buy us at least 3 stars.

Look at our star prospect pile: Pineda, Ackley, Hultzen, Paxton, Smoak, Franklin, Walker

That’s 7 players. Once we count Felix, we need 5 stars. If we can buy 3 (Fielder, and 2 others), we just need 2 of these 7 prospects to become stars (say Ackley and Pineda), and we have a championship core.

What about the 5 solids and 3 replacements? Well, remember the star prospect pile? The 5 prospects who don’t become stars, should end up at least solid. If we assume 4 of them become solid, we just need one more solid player and a couple replacement level guys.

Solid/Replacement pile: Beavan, Furbush, Carp, Wells, Gutierrez, Ichiro, Jaso, Catricala, Seager, Liddi, Martinez

That’s 11 guys. We just need one solid, and 3-4 replacement guys from this pile.

All of these players should be up and figured out within 1-2 years, right before 2014 where all the money comes off the books (Ichiro/Guti/Figgins). They’ll be ridiculously cheap, and if we can get a re-negotiated TV contract in 2015, we should be able to afford arbitration with it.

This is why Fielder makes sense, and why “build the 2-3 WAR guys first, then the 4-5 WAR guys” doesn’t work for us. We have the 2-3 WAR base in place already. They’re just in the minors. We need stars, now, so when the minors guys come up we’ll have the star core in place to make contention runs ASAP instead of waiting years to acquire the star pieces.

You basically said, "the team will have money in the future, so it makes the most sense to spend it now"

This line of thinking is what made so many Americans poor and homeless. There will be superstars to buy in 3 years, the team doesn’t NEED Fielder right now. Also this team is and will never be in a position to buy 3 superstars in free agency, that’s just absurd. Say they do spend all $70 million on 3 superstars, what happens when Pineda, Ackley, Smoak, etc… start hitting arbitration? If the team is on the hook for 3 players at $20 million a year then you’d best believe that as soon as the young players the Mariners developed started getting even slightly expensive they’re going to be shipped out. This path has the Mariners contending for the playoffs for 2 maybe 3 years, maybe that’s what you want, but I want to see a team competing every year for a long time.

Buying 5 win players on the market is the most economically unsound way of acquiring high end talent.

Show me one example of a bad team buying a bunch of superstars, waiting a few years for their farm system to supply 2-3 win players and then winning. I’ll help you, you won’t find one because successful teams aren’t built that way.

The Nationals

Bought Werth last year when they were a 70 win team, Strasburg + Zimmerman + Harper on the way and trade for Gio this year. If they had money for Fielder you know they’d basically be a contender. Unlike the Nats though we can spend $100M yearly and not skip a beat. (add Strasburg + Gio, healthy Zimmerman, Fielder, potentially Harper, and bounce back Werth to an 80 win team = playoffs). Couple mercenary stars (Fielder, Werth), home grown star (Zimmerman), and 3-4 “surprise” types (Zimmerman, Stasburg, Gio, Harper). Championship core right there.

And arbitration won’t really start until after 2015 (that’s when Ackley’s starts), which is when our TV deal can be renegotiated. The goal is to get a new TV deal that can help you afford arbitration, along with contention increasing payroll. We can afford it, it’s stupid to think we can’t afford it. Remember we have a $110-120M playoff payroll. Add a new TV deal (+$20-30M if we’re good) and $130-150M payroll is more than enough to afford everyone.

Which is another point – salary inflation. With all these teams finding new revenue sources, salaries are going to increase. We should lock up young stars if we can before that happens. Otherwise in 3-4 years when everyone has a new TV deal adding $20M, that same 5 WAR star is going to cost $25-30M.

You really have to trust the farm system though, and expect it to fill in all the 2-3 WAR holes in a year or two. If you don’t believe our farm can produce 2 stars and 5 solids in 1-2 years with the 7 + 11 guys I listed, then we’re screwed anyway.

And show me one example of a perennial contender not buying stars. Oh wait, the only perennial contenders are the Red Sox and Yankees, and they’re built on buying stars and strong farms. Imagine that.

Buying 5 win players is the most economically sound way of acquiring high end talent. It’s because they’re the most rare, yet they somehow cost the same per win.

You can wait 3 years before adding any stars. Just keep in mind Felix is gone in 3 years, we have nothing on the books in 2 years except Felix. So if you really believe spending $80M in the 2015 off-season after Felix leaves is the best course of action keep making references to how getting Fielder is akin to mortgage fraud, where people bought things without any money. Because, you know, that’s the same thing.

a .500 team wins the NL east or NL wild card? really?
add Strasburg + Gio, healthy Zimmerman, Fielder, potentially Harper, and bounce back Werth to an 80 win team = playoffs

Sorry, not following you. An 80 win team is going to beat the Phillies or Braves for the NL East, or be better than 11 other teams in the NL?

You really have to trust the farm system though, and expect it to fill in all the 2-3 WAR holes in a year or two. If you don’t believe our farm can produce 2 stars and 5 solids in 1-2 years with the 7 + 11 guys I listed, then we’re screwed anyway.

Let me take another angle with that point, as I agree on principle with this one bit specifically, but don’t quite see it in action. The general wisdom seems to be that the major holes on the ML roster right now are LF, 3b and DH. With C running not too far behind, CF a tummyache away, and RF a question mark after this season.

Do you believe that in the next couple years, the M’s ML, AAA or AA system has people capable of producing 2 – 3 WAR, at more than one or two of LF, CF, RF, 3b, DH or C?

I go back and forth day to day on whether “we’re screwed anyway”, but I wouldn’t be making large investments in a single player assuming that the supporting cast is straightforward, incoming and predictable.

a .500 team...

that didn’t have Strasburg/Gio/Harper or healthy Zimmerman/Werth.

Strasburg, Gio add probably +8 WAR. Healthy Zimmerman/Werth add another +5.

If they had money for Fielder for another +5 WAR, you’re saying a .500 team that could add +18 WAR in a single off-season isn’t a contender?

Ironically in the WSH model, they buy 2 stars, develop 1, and have 3-4 surprises.

In the model I’m talking about, we buy 3 stars, develop 1, and have 2-7 surprises.

For the holes: remember we just need 2-3 WAR guys

LF – Wells, Carp, Catricala – so yes, I think someone will work out here
CF – Gutierrez, Wells – probably position to upgrade. Tons of FAs in the next 1-2 years here though.
RF – Wells, Robinson, Ichiro – I have a feeling Ichiro will still be here, but he should still be good for 1-2 WAR, maybe more
3B – Seager, Liddi, Martinez, Catricala – probably need an FA here, Wright in 2 years is the only option for FA, but Seager has a decent shot of being 2-3 WAR anyway.
C – Jaso – we need something here,but the next 2 years will see guys like Molina, McCann, Napoli, Montero, Hanigan, Soto, and more hitting FA.
DH – Fielder/Smoak obviously

Remember the model 6 star + 5 solid + 3 replacement + 1 trash = 15 starters. That means even if we run 4 replacement level players (0-2 WAR) we could still contend as long as we have 6 stars and 5 solids. We can run out 0-2 WAR players at RF, CF, C, and 3B and still contend.

Even with Fielder, we have around $40M after min. salaries to spend in 2013-2014. $60M if we bump payroll up for contention/inflation. If you assume DH and LF are taken care of, and you give RF to Ichiro for 3k hits, the only “holes” are 3B, CF, and C. You don’t think we could fix 3 holes with $40-60M? We could afford Ellsbury + Molina + Wright, all who are likely to hit FA in 1-2 years. Maybe even add an elite closer to it.

The hardest part of the plan is actually signing these guys. Why would Molina come here instead of one of the many contenders that need a C? Why would Ellsbury leave Boston? Why would Wright go to another pitcher’s park?

Well, get Fielder, and show you’re willing to spend to win for one. Let the farm you spend 3+ years developing show off their talent. Throw money at them. Make Seattle as attractive as possible, because if you want to be the next Boston, you have to be attractive.

Even if 1B and SS bust, you’ll still be at the 4 replacement player limit, with 1B, SS, and RF. if you can get the stars at CF/C/3B.

Even if you can’t, the point is we can afford to have 3-4 replacement levels and still contend. As long as you have stars and solids everywhere else. And since we have 6 A/A- prospects, and a B+ prospect up/coming up in 1-2 years there’s a good chance we’ll have enough solids (hell we could have more stars than solids, that’s even better). We just need a couple more stars at our worst positions (C, CF, DH, 3B), and with $80M not tied up for 2014…we should be able to get them. But we have to start now.

Ah, ok.

The 80 win team thing was just confusing because I had a hard time with your sentence structure there. I see what you’re trying to say there.

We’re far enough off into theoretical-land that yeah, it’s plausible the farm will produce the amount of 2.0 – 3.0 WAR players you’re guessing at, and that the rest can be found in free agency or trade. I certainly hope so, or else, as rightly pointed out above, the M’s are a lot further off than we all hope. The young’un’s have to start producing soon. I’m just hoping that the ‘busts’ you describe above are of the “we wanted 2 WAR and they ended up being 0 WAR, AAAA types”, and not Figgins-level flaming wreckage.

The rest of your argument seems tied to “Make Seattle as attractive as possible” – you do that by having the money to throw at people. The bit about having stars attracting other stars has been disproven elsewhere. Having the money to throw at people relies on getting large contracts off the books (which you’re accounting for) and knowing the payroll (which no one does or can).

Stars attracting stars hasn't been disproven

The NBA sees it all the time. It happens in the NFL too. Beltre literally said after we got Lee, he wanted to resign here but couldn’t because of Figgins.

Having a guy like Fielder will make us more attractive. It won’t make or break anything, but it’ll make a difference when we’re trying to sign guys like Molina, Wright, and/or Ellsbury.

The thing is, the farm HAS to produce those 2-3 WAR players if we have any chance before Felix’s FA. If those five or so 2-3 WAR players don’t exist out of our 6-7 A/A- prospects, we need to trade Felix. If those five 2-3 WAR players exist, we should sign Fielder, a star, over solids, since we’ll have enough of those.

You hang out on LL and USSM, but you don't actually read them. Okay.
The Nationals are not an example of what I said. Maybe in a year if they make the playoffs you could use it as an argument, but as of right now, this very instant they have not been in the playoffs using this route.

And again, you’re speculating with money that doesn’t exist. The Mariners budget has been around the $90-$100 million mark for the last 7 years, I don’t care what sort of TV deal the Mariners get, to assume they will up their budget by %50 in 3 years is absurd.

What is a “playoff payroll”? Where are you getting these numbers? The highest the Mariners have ever spent was $117 million in 2008 when they lost 101 games. I don’t know what you mean by playoff payroll, but last time they made the playoffs they had a $74.7 million payroll.

The only teams with payrolls higher than $130 million last year were the Mets ($142.8), Phillies ($166), Cubs ($134), Angels ($141.7), Red Sox ($163.8), and Yankees ($207). If you think the Mariners can go play with those guys then you’re nuts.

I’m assuming you’re the same Valencia that on USS Mariner said that trades are the worst way to acquire talent and that buying 5 win players in free agency was way better, if that’s the case I’ll also assume it’s pointless to continue to try and convince you otherwise.

What on earth is a "playoff payroll"?

The Mariners, like all teams, have a single payroll. Not one for the regular season and an enhanced one for the playoffs – one payroll.

The Brewers had a 2011 Opening Day payroll of $83 million. The Diamondbacks had a 2011 Opening Day payroll of $56 million. Tampa’s Opening Day payroll? $42 million.

And show me one example of a perennial contender not buying stars

Tampa is rapidly becoming exactly this. Whether it will last as long as NY/BOS, nobody knows, but still – throwing money at players is far from the only way to regularly make the postseason.

The Twins did it for a long time as well.
Oakland?

It’s certainly possible, it just requires time. After Bavasi molested the farm in every way he could, Zduriencik has, in a scant few years, acquired some pretty incredible young talent through either trades or the draft.

I think we’ll be just fine, Prince or no Prince; superstars or no superstars. We just need to stay the same course we’ve been on since Zduriencik assumed the GM duties.

"The highest the Mariners have ever spent was $117 million in 2008"

That’s the playoff payroll. Teams spend more when they’re near contention – look at the Braves, Philies, Rangers, Brewers, and how they spent more as they got closer to contention. Teams aren’t stupid, they raise payroll when they know they’re near a run. Hell did you know Arizona ran a $100M+ payroll in 2001? They also won the WS.

And trades ARE the worst way to add talent. If you think trading Pineda for Votto is better than just buying Fielder out right be my guest, but you would be 1000000% wrong on that.

Anyways anyone listing the Rays or Oakland as examples clearly has an agenda to spend as cheaply as possible. I have nothing against the Rays model, but we’re not the Rays, we can’t spend twice the amount they can. I want to build like the Rays (cheaply everywhere) while adding as many stars as our payroll can afford. Holy crap, it’s like the simplest idea ever.

You do realize “stay the course” would mean we have $80M freed up after 2 seasons right? What do you plan on doing with the money? That’s the question we’re asking here – do you spend it on 3-4 stars, or do you spend it on stop gaps and stop gaps and stop gaps until your amazing core is playoff ready? Maybe you just buy eight $10M, 2-3 WAR players and try to contend with a bunch of average guys?

If this amazing core is playoff ready in 2 years, don’t you think it’d be better to just add stars to it and make it better, instead of adding stop gaps everywhere? It’s like everyone’s so fixated on being the Rays, they don’t realize we can be Rays and spend like we’re the Yankees at the same time. Or maybe not the Yankees, but at least the Rangers.

That's not the playoff payroll, that's the payroll

Once again, there is no such thing as a “playoff payroll”. That $117 million that you call a “playoff payroll” got the M’s 101 losses, so calling it a “playoff payroll” is, at the very least, inaccurate – unless there’s a special round of playoffs for 100 loss teams that I’m not aware of.

Anyways anyone listing the Rays or Oakland as examples clearly has an agenda to spend as cheaply as possible.

You know what the Rays have that the Mariners don’t? Three playoff appearances in the last four years. If the Mariners can do that on the cheap, hell yes I want that. Why wouldn’t you?

we’re not the Rays, we can’t spend twice the amount they can

What? Yes they can. The Rays spent $54 million last year. By your own reckoning, and in your own words:

we have a $110-120M playoff payroll

Leaving aside the “playoff payroll” thing for a second, as the original post mentioned, the Rays spent $42 million last season. I was an English major in college, and I was in college 20 years ago, but I think that your $110 million figure is in fact more than twice what the Rays spent last year. Hell, the Mariners spent $94 million this past season – also more than twice the Rays’ payroll. Either they can spend it or they can’t, but you gotta pick one, man.

See, I told you I was not a math guy

Hell, the Mariners spent $94 million this past season – also more than twice the Rays’ payroll

Meant to say “almost twice”. My mistake.

Wow I'm bad at this

OP said $42 million, I somehow read that as $54 million. At $42 mill, I’m back to “hey the M’s spent more than twice that”.

I’ll stop now.

But you had the right idea, and that's what counts!
A for effort!

You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.