Making History: Panda and Hanley just had the 2nd and 3rd worst first seasons in free agency history

m0ckduck · Dec 11, 2015

Amazing not only how bad they were, but how much daylight there is, WAR-wise, between those two and the rest of the field.

Not that I expect it to mitigate the Panda/Hanley suck much, but it would be interesting to see this list as (actual WAR - expected WAR), where expected WAR = cost of marginal win / player salary, as a measure of how bad they were relative to contract.

WAR be damned, it feels like 2001 Mike Hampton should be on any list like this. His deal was the largest in sports history at the time he signed it (albeit soon eclipsed by ARod) and resulted in 5.41 ERA and 5.21 FIP in year one. On the strength of 203 innings pitched, this is good for 1.9 WAR, good enough to keep him off the list. But it's hard to think of a free agent experience more subjectively horrifying from the get-go.

EDIT: Fangraph WAR-- apologies for not specifying

jon abbey · Dec 11, 2015

Which WAR is being used here? BR has Hampton's two years in COL at 0.3 and -1.9 WAR respectively.

TheoShmeo · Dec 11, 2015

Those numbers are pretty staggering. Not that all of our eyes did not see how bad each of those guys looked last season, and not that we missed that the team played seemed to play better without them. But still, to see them at the top of the list and by a substantial margin puts a pretty fine point on it.

To me, that chart suggests, or really reiterates, that the Sox should:

- deal either or both now if they can do so without having to absorb a substantial amount of their contracts (I know, Captain Obvious with that one);

- give them both a shot at redemption at the start of this season (since in reality there will be little ability to trade either of them without absorbing a substantial portion of their contracts); and

- pick a cut off time between mid-May and mid-June by which they will be traded for virtually nothing back in return or, failing that, simply DFA'd if the assessment then, based on all the available evidence, is that Shaw or Marrero or whoever else might take their spots would contribute more to the team's success in 2016 and beyond.

I appreciate that absolutes such as the above are almost impossible to keep to given the many factors that are not known now that will be at play. Given that, I view the above plan as more of a guideline than anything that is hard and fast.

I'm tempted to say that they should just DFA them now if they can't trade them. But given the dollars involved and the possible upside in both of them, I would not do that in DD's shoes. At the same time, if they continue to perform in 2016 generally as they did in 2015, I would not suffer that over the course of the season. And I would have a much shorter fuse with Hanley if his defense at first is debilitating to the entire infield, which seems possible.

tims4wins · Dec 11, 2015

What does DFA'ing do though? No one will pick them up.

TheoShmeo · Dec 11, 2015

It allows the Sox to use other players in their stead and gets them off the active roster.

Buzzkill Pauley · Dec 11, 2015

It's amazing to see how much worse, by an objective measure, each of those guys was individually than either Crawford or Lugo.

On the same team, though? Woof.

It really is no surprise the team did so badly, since it was carrying not one, but two albatrosses by the neck.

tims4wins · Dec 11, 2015

So if the -3.8 WAR was 0, the Sox would have won 82 games, and if the -3.8 was actually a +3.8 - which still would have been under expectations - the Sox would have been right there for a wild card. Wow.

NJ_Sox_Fan · Dec 11, 2015

I am shocked that Crawford was only 15th on that list.

troparra · Dec 11, 2015

NJ_Sox_Fan said:
I am shocked that Crawford was only 15th on that list.

That's a clear indicator of just how bad Hanley and Panda were.

Red(s)HawksFan · Dec 11, 2015

TheoShmeo said:
It allows the Sox to use other players in their stead and gets them off the active roster.

And be forced to pay the remainder of their contracts up front and get zero in return for them. That is never going to happen.

TheoShmeo · Dec 11, 2015

Red(s)HawksFan said:
And be forced to pay the remainder of their contracts up front and get zero in return for them. That is never going to happen.

So you say. And your reaction is understandable. My proposal is clearly radical. But this extreme situation arguably demands extraordinary solutions.

If the Sox conclude that

(a) the sunk costs associated with Hanley and/or Pablo are just that, costs they will have to absorb regardless,

(b) no one will take them off their hands without the Sox absorbing almost all of the costs,

(c) they are likely to continue to have negative WAR numbers, and

(d) they have players in their system who they believe will give them materially more than Hanley and Pablo,

then aren't they better off absorbing the costs and putting players on the field who are more likely to contribute to winning? And isn't the question heightened if the remainder of the team is generally performing pretty well and these guys are weighing them down? And, further, if Hanley's defense at first is costing them outs at an unacceptable rate?

To me, the difference between DFA-ing them or trading them for only a very limited return (say the Sox absorb a substantial percentage of the cost and get back a mid level prospect) is not the point. Meaning that what I'm focusing on is more just effectively dumping them than I am an outright DFA. The latter is the more extreme, of course, but the gist for me is that if by a time certain (mid May to mid June) the assessment is that they would be more likely to win with X or Y players already in their system, then that they are on the hook for massive dollars should not carry the day. Take the hit and go with players who will help you win.

grimshaw · Dec 11, 2015

Some notes on each of the offensive players from that list.

Andruw Jones was a part timer in 2008 with only 232 PA. He bounced back somewhat and added another 4 WAR for the rest of his career - and stayed useful defensively

Derek Bell was in operation shutdown, and retired after that abysmal year (wRC+47)

Dave Collins was just an ok player before signing with the Yanks - career wRC+95 and so so defense. He went to the Jays after his one year stint with the Yanks (wRC+81) and traveled a bit during his 8 remaining seasons. That first year he had a big negative UZR blip which helped make that first season so poor.

Carlos Beltan was old and hurt in 2014 but still managed a wRC+ of 96, so most of his negative value was from being an injured statue in right field. He did bounce back to 1.6 last year, but he is getting to the end of the line.

Melvin Upton has bounced back to useful from his awful first season from w/RC+56 to 75, to 110 last year. Like Andruw Jones, he has remained a very useful defender and adds positive value on the bases. It was a bad contract, but not ill-advised since he had been twice the player he was last year going into free agency.

Lance Berkman was a part timer, got hurt and retired.

George Foster had a poor defensive outlier season, but had positive value the rest of his career - including a 3 WIN season.

Carl Crawford - hasn't yet hit 500 PA, but did accumulate 5.4 WAR over 2013 and 2014. His issue has been just about all health related, as he would be an above average player still when healthy.

Shin-Soo Choo bounced back to 3.5 WAR and wRC+127 but still an absolute butcher in the field. This is what I am praying to god we get from Hanley as both guys are still in their prime years and well paid forever.

Vernon Wells never bounced back and ended his career in 2013.

Julio Lugo never bounced back - but like Upton, had been a 3-4 win player in the recent past before his signing. I really can't fault them for signing him unless they knew about a potential PED issue.

Omar Infante has gotten worse, and is old and signed through 2017 - though only making about 7mill per.

Vince Coleman got his contract after a career year, and then never earned 1 WAR over a season after that - though his contract was hardly crippling.

James Loney got a lot worse last year (-1.3 WAR) and has one more year on his contract. Looks like the Rays rolled the dice on him that he'd give them cheap production as a bridge type player, and it just hasn't worked out.

Aaron Rowan bounced back to a 2.5 win season the following year, before being replacement level his final two seasons.

If Hanley Ramirez never set foot in the OF again, I can't imagine he'd ever be able to sniff negative value again unless he was far below average with the bat. This is what concerns me the most of Pablo.

Red(s)HawksFan · Dec 11, 2015

TheoShmeo said:
So you say. And your reaction is understandable. My proposal is clearly radical. But this extreme situation arguably demands extraordinary solutions.

If the Sox conclude that

(a) the sunk costs associated with Hanley and/or Pablo are just that, costs they will have to absorb regardless,

(b) no one will take them off their hands without the Sox absorbing almost all of the costs,

(c) they are likely to continue to have negative WAR numbers, and

(d) they have players in their system who they believe will give them materially more than Hanley and Pablo,

then aren't they better off absorbing the costs and putting players on the field who are more likely to contribute to winning? And isn't the question heightened if the remainder of the team is generally performing pretty well and these guys are weighing them down? And, further, if Hanley's defense at first is costing them outs at an unacceptable rate?

To me, the difference between DFA-ing them or trading them for only a very limited return (say the Sox absorb a substantial percentage of the cost and get back a mid level prospect) is not the point. Meaning that what I'm focusing on is more just effectively dumping them than I am an outright DFA. The latter is the more extreme, of course, but the gist for me is that if by a time certain (mid May to mid June) the assessment is that they would be more likely to win with X or Y players already in their system, then that they are on the hook for massive dollars should not carry the day. Take the hit and go with players who will help you win.

Thing is, I can't imagine they're going to conclude any of your four items after one year or even a portion of the way through year 2. If we were heading into or well into year 3 of each deal, those things become more likely if production is lacking.

TheoShmeo · Dec 11, 2015

Red(s)HawksFan said:
Thing is, I can't imagine they're going to conclude any of your four items after one year or even a portion of the way through year 2. If we were heading into or well into year 3 of each deal, those things become more likely if production is lacking.

We shall see. I hope they are ready to cut bait on demonstrably bad deals -- if that's the assessment -- some time in year 2. Year 1 was historically bad for each of them, the Sox have invested a lot in the 2016 team apart from them, and I don't see the reason or need to wait until year 3 if they are firm in their assessments during year 2. I'd rather they took the bad medicine with enough time to contend in year 2 rather than stayed the course out of deference to sunk dollars.

There are a lot of variables. If the team is a huge disappointment all around, then maybe they are better off giving these guys even more time to right themselves. Though maybe it goes the other way in that dumping them might be seen as a necessary first step in fixing whatever the problems are. And if the team seems headed in the right direction, then lopping off the biggest problems might be just what they need to really propel them to the next level.

There's more grey than I'm suggesting, of course. But my scenario is one where they are performing along the lines they did in 2015 and that performance is dragging down the rest of the team in a real way.

mauf · Dec 11, 2015

TheoShmeo said:
So you say. And your reaction is understandable. My proposal is clearly radical. But this extreme situation arguably demands extraordinary solutions.

If the Sox conclude that

(a) the sunk costs associated with Hanley and/or Pablo are just that, costs they will have to absorb regardless,

(b) no one will take them off their hands without the Sox absorbing almost all of the costs,

(c) they are likely to continue to have negative WAR numbers, and

(d) they have players in their system who they believe will give them materially more than Hanley and Pablo,

then aren't they better off absorbing the costs and putting players on the field who are more likely to contribute to winning? And isn't the question heightened if the remainder of the team is generally performing pretty well and these guys are weighing them down? And, further, if Hanley's defense at first is costing them outs at an unacceptable rate?

To me, the difference between DFA-ing them or trading them for only a very limited return (say the Sox absorb a substantial percentage of the cost and get back a mid level prospect) is not the point. Meaning that what I'm focusing on is more just effectively dumping them than I am an outright DFA. The latter is the more extreme, of course, but the gist for me is that if by a time certain (mid May to mid June) the assessment is that they would be more likely to win with X or Y players already in their system, then that they are on the hook for massive dollars should not carry the day. Take the hit and go with players who will help you win.

Let's not be hasty. Most of that negative WAR is driven by defensive metrics; we're likely to see some regression to the mean for Sandoval, and the FO has acknowledged that the Hanley-to-LF experiment failed. Sandoval had some bad BABIP luck too. I don't think we're likely to be happy about those two contracts, ever, but both players are likely to be better than replacement level, which is all they need to be to make DFAing them a poor decision.

TheoShmeo · Dec 11, 2015

maufman said:
Let's not be hasty. Most of that negative WAR is driven by defensive metrics; we're likely to see some regression to the mean for Sandoval, and the FO has acknowledged that the Hanley-to-LF experiment failed. Sandoval had some bad BABIP luck too. I don't think we're likely to be happy about those two contracts, ever, but both players are likely to be better than replacement level, which is all they need to be to make DFAing them a poor decision.

But I would only do that if their performance clearly sucked, i.e., it was demonstrably below replacement level. You're changing that variable and calling my suggestion hasty, but I would not suggest DFA-ing them or trading them for peanuts if they were performing at higher levels due to the factors you noted.

Maybe mid-May or mid-June isn't enough time to make that assessment, I concede.

benhogan · Dec 11, 2015

kazuneko, great work, thank you...

While you're at it, look-up all-time worst extensions of greater then $20MM/year and see where Rick Porcello ranks...just kidding

Buzzkill Pauley · Dec 11, 2015

maufman said:
Let's not be hasty. Most of that negative WAR is driven by defensive metrics; we're likely to see some regression to the mean for Sandoval, and the FO has acknowledged that the Hanley-to-LF experiment failed. Sandoval had some bad BABIP luck too. I don't think we're likely to be happy about those two contracts, ever, but both players are likely to be better than replacement level, which is all they need to be to make DFAing them a poor decision.

In 2015, Brock Holt put up a 96 OPS+ which translates to 2.6 bWAR in 509 PA, a year after putting up 2.1 WAR in 492. Travis Shaw put up a 115 OPS+ in his callup, which also featured credible defensive play. So let's not hold the standard these guys need to meet at a low-bar generic "replacement level" player.

There is a projectable opportunity cost to the team in starting Panda and Hanley even if they do bounce back to hit replacement level. Because the Sox then will be sitting guys on the MLB bench who project to better-than-replacement level. Hanley and Panda need to be better than Holt and Shaw, not better than 0.0 WAR.

Now I'm not saying cut the cord already, but the Sox DFA'ing either or both of them might not work out all that poorly, except for JH's wallet.

mauf · Dec 11, 2015

TheoShmeo said:
But I would only do that if their performance clearly sucked, i.e., it was demonstrably below replacement level. You're changing that variable and calling my suggestion hasty, but I would not suggest DFA-ing them or trading them for peanuts if they were performing at higher levels due to the factors you noted.

Maybe mid-May or mid-June isn't enough time to make that assessment, I concede.

I'm saying there's no particular reason to expect either of them to be below replacement-level in 2016. WAR makes their 2015 performances (particularly Panda's) look worse than they were, and there are good reasons to think 2016 will be better than 2015.

Yeah, if they fall off a cliff in 2016, then there might be a reason to DFA them down the road, but it seems premature even to discuss that possibility.

PrometheusWakefield · Dec 11, 2015

I think it's really, really important for the team to figure out whether Sandoval's -21.9 UZR/9 is going to repeat itself and be willing to act decisively if it is. At that level, Sandoval isn't a third baseman, he's a designated hitter playing out of position. And we have other people on the team who could play third, like Shaw or Holt or probably Swihart. We cannot put our team in a position where because of a contract obligation we are punishing our pitching staff with such a horrendous defensive player at such an important defensive position.

mauf · Dec 11, 2015

Buzzkill Pauley said:
In 2015, Brock Holt put up a 96 OPS+ which translates to 2.6 bWAR in 509 PA, a year after putting up 2.1 WAR in 492. Travis Shaw put up a 115 OPS+ in his callup, which also featured credible defensive play. So let's not hold the standard these guys need to meet at a low-bar generic "replacement level" player.

There is a projectable opportunity cost to the team in starting Panda and Hanley even if they do bounce back to hit replacement level. Because the Sox then will be sitting guys on the MLB bench who project to better-than-replacement level. Hanley and Panda need to be better than Holt and Shaw, not better than 0.0 WAR.

Now I'm not saying cut the cord already, but the Sox DFA'ing either or both of them might not work out all that poorly, except for JH's wallet.

With all the performance and injury risks we have littered around the diamond, Holt is going to get his 500 PAs somewhere.

Shaw isn't promising enough to forgo rolling the dice on a bounce-back season by Hanley -- he's unlikely to replicate that 119 OPS+ over a full season.

mauf · Dec 11, 2015

PrometheusWakefield said:
I think it's really, really important for the team to figure out whether Sandoval's -21.9 UZR/9 is going to repeat itself and be willing to act decisively if it is. At that level, Sandoval isn't a third baseman, he's a designated hitter playing out of position. And we have other people on the team who could play third, like Shaw or Holt or probably Swihart. We cannot put our team in a position where because of a contract obligation we are punishing our pitching staff with such a horrendous defensive player at such an important defensive position.

His UZR was off-the-charts bad during the first two months of last season, so I think there's already reason to believe he's a lot better defensively than those numbers suggest.

Lest anyone think that I'm defending Panda and Hanley, I thought we should've stapled Margot and the other prospects to one of their asses instead of trading for Kimbrel (though I like that deal a lot more now that Joakim Soria and his two TJ surgeries got 3/24).

smastroyin · Dec 11, 2015

If the Sox had Kris Bryant and Joey Gallo sitting in Pawtucket the discussion of releasing these guys to make the team better would make a lot more sense.

Is there a chance full-time Shaw is a better bet than these guys? Sure, but a) I wouldn't bet on it, and b) you probably get most of Shaw's value using him in his current role anyway.

If things go great and Devers, Moncada and Sam Travis are all looking like they need major league jobs in 2017 (or sooner) then sure, you can have a discussion about DFA and eat the salaries of these guys.

Savin Hillbilly · Dec 11, 2015

In terms of what their 2015 suck implies for the future, Hanley and Panda are really very distinct cases. There were pretty obvious reasons why Hanley was a worse player last year, and some of those reasons are reversible (and have been reversed). He was asked to play a new, less valuable position, and he turned out to be a really terrible fit for it. On top of that, he hurt himself and never really got comfortable at the plate again. There's no certainty he'll improve next year, but the path to that improvement is pretty straightforward: all he has to do is adapt well to first base and recover his batting stroke after a winter resting the shoulder.

In Panda's case, it's more of a mystery. Other than moving from the NL to the AL--which isn't going to change next year, unless we trade him--there isn't any obvious circumstantial explanation for the suck, and therefore no obvious path to a bounceback. And it's not like it was just a BABIP dip (though there certainly was one). He was a little worse at almost everything, which seems to suggest real decline.

TheoShmeo · Dec 11, 2015

maufman said:
I'm saying there's no particular reason to expect either of them to be below replacement-level in 2016. WAR makes their 2015 performances (particularly Panda's) look worse than they were, and there are good reasons to think 2016 will be better than 2015.

Yeah, if they fall off a cliff in 2016, then there might be a reason to DFA them down the road, but it seems premature even to discuss that possibility.

I'm not sure why it's premature. Or why we would not entertain a scenario that none of us hopes comes to pass.

Hanley's bat fell off a cliff over the second half of last season. Sure, there may be good answers to that, but his production was dismal. He might be adequate at first but it's not a huge leap to think that he will be well less than that given that it's another position change and what seems to be the case regarding his agility and work ethic. Pablo was pretty bad at third last year and his offensive numbers were not much better. I think it's reasonable to think that we will get more of the same out of him. I hope both of them make my negativity look way off base, of course.

There's, of course, the chance that one or both of these guys will bounce back but given what we saw last season, I think exploring what the Sox should do if their negative performance continues is not at all premature. With all the good moves DD is making, the two biggest elephants in the room remain Pablo and Hanley. Playing "what if" and engaging in first guesses is part of the fun of this.

Mighty Joe Young · Dec 11, 2015

Hanley and Pablo really are in separate situations.

- Hanley : Because Ortiz is retiring there's an obvious position for him next year. They only have to consider dumping him if his offense stays in the tank or he becomes a complete malcontent. Otherwise, they live through a year of below average defense at 1B - mitigated by Shaw's presence - and it's off to DH land in 2017

- Pablo : this is a more difficult case. As mentioned a thousand times on this board his performance had shown a steady - but not precipitous - decline before the contract was signed. But no one would have, or indeed could have predicted his first year's performance with the Red Sox. I really don't think its a good idea to just DFA him or trade him at 20 cents on the dollar. Mainly because there's no obvious replacement. Shaw didn't look terrible there but I don't think anyone is claiming he's a solution at 3B.

Despite the Price signing the payroll has limits - they can't just sign an expensive FA - Chris Davis for example. It would have to be dumpster diving.

So, given he has 76 million left on the contract -

- If you trade him : one assumes the best deal they could get for Pablo is twenty cents on the dollar - that's the baseline - or a sunk cost of about 60 million. Plus the cost of replacing his position. If you can't trade and just DFA him then the cost is 76 million

- if you keep him
- worst case - he continues to be awful - resulting in a subsequent DFA - resulting sunk cost of about 76 million - the gamble cost you ~16 million (or 0 million if the DFA scenario) plus 250 ABs of suck.

- best case - he recovers to be a 3.0 WAR player . He would easily be worth the contract for 1016 - and make it much easier to trade him for value - the gamble saves you ~ 60 million (or 76 million) .

So you are more or less betting 16 million at odds of 4:1 on Pablo's recovery - I like this bet

shaggydog2000 · Dec 11, 2015

grimshaw said:
Derek Bell was in operation shutdown, and retired after that abysmal year (wRC+47)

.

I would like to note that Derek Bell was actually trying that year. Or at least not publicly stating he was not trying. It wasn't until they made him compete for a spot in the following spring training that he commenced "Operation Shutdown" and was cut before the season started. He also played 46 games that year, so his WAR would have conceivably been much worse if they actually had to play him.

Bowlerman9 · Dec 11, 2015

Let's just hope they can beat Lackey's -1.9 bWAR in Year 2!

Bleedred · Dec 11, 2015

Jason Bay's first year with the mets?

Buzzkill Pauley · Dec 11, 2015

Bleedred said:
Jason Bay's first year with the mets?

Per Fangraphs WAR, Jason Bay was worth 3 extra wins to the Mets in 2010, over Ramirez last season.

No contest.

Rovin Romine · Dec 11, 2015

I know this thread began by measuring first year free agent performance by WAR, but it would be interesting to see a similar list for the largest negative swing in WAR from the FA season to the first year of the new contract. Then maybe another chart accounting for the remainder of the contract.

FWIW, Bay dropped something like 3 WAR, while Hampton looks closer to 4 (B-Ref). Andruw Jones was 4.5, Hanley's around 4, and Sandoval is 2.5. Again all B-Ref stats.

C4CRVT · Dec 11, 2015

Hanley is older but has a pretty well established career as a well above average hitter when healthy and had the shoulder injury. I'm a lot less worried about him than I am for Sandoval. We've all seen players have good and bad years.

This article studied bounceback seasons with an eye to whether or not Sandoval might bounce back based on other players' experiences with having bad seasons and bouncing back:
http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/the-change-v-mart-pablo-bounceback-leaderboards/

TheYaz67 · Dec 11, 2015

No love for free agent Stephen Drew's -1.0 WAR in 2014? That immediately jumped to mind for me....

Bowlerman9 · Dec 11, 2015

TheYaz67 said:
No love for free agent Stephen Drew's -1.0 WAR in 2014? That immediately jumped to mind for me....

It was a (relatively) low money one-year deal and the Sox only had to endure -0.2 of that.

timlinin8th · Dec 11, 2015

m0ckduck said:
Not that I expect it to mitigate the Panda/Hanley suck much, but it would be interesting to see this list as (actual WAR - expected WAR), where expected WAR = cost of marginal win / player salary, as a measure of how bad they were relative to contract.

This was the first question I had as well, since a lot of these contracts were signed in different FA economies, how much did these players miss the mark vs the contracts given? Another, possibly easier thing to research, would be to find the difference in WAR from the season prior to signing the contract and that first season just after and determining who had the highest delta (this makes the assumption that a team paying the contract expected similar performance in year one as what they had just witnessed prior to handing the contract out).

Yelling At Clouds · Dec 11, 2015

Fangraphs has Kendrys Morales in 2014 as -1.8 WAR in 98 games after signing with the Twins. This year he was a solid DH for the World Champ Royals. If you really want to cling to optimism, he might be your best case.

timlinin8th · Dec 11, 2015

So, I just did a few quick using the method I suggested... According to fangraphs, the delta between both Hanley and Sandoval's 2014 and 2015 was 5.1 WAR a piece. Hampton's was only 2.7.

Here's where Crawford really shines: he was a 7.7 WAR player in 2010, and put up a -0.1 in 2011... Woof

tims4wins · Dec 11, 2015

timlinin8th said:
So, I just did a few quick using the method I suggested... According to fangraphs, the delta between both Hanley and Sandoval's 2014 and 2015 was 5.1 WAR a piece. Hampton's was only 2.7.

Here's where Crawford really shines: he was a 7.7 WAR player in 2010, and put up a -0.1 in 2011... Woof

So they were -4 combined and the Sox finished with 78 wins... if they finished 10 wins better than that they would have edged both the NYY and the Astros for a WC spot

snowmanny · Dec 11, 2015

The opening post really underscores that these signings were indeed fireable mistakes. A GM can make a bunch of decent transactions and can make moves that are defensible on paper but ultimately in pro sports it always comes down to actual performance and you can't make decisions with historically bad outcomes - whether it's trading Jeff Bagwell or drafting Rick Robey - without it staining your resume. Signing Hanley to a position that it wasn't clear he could play and signing Sandoval at all were dangerous choices. Of course Ben does have that trophy on his resume and that counts too so I expect he'll get another shot.

pockmeister · Dec 11, 2015

Savin Hillbilly said:
In Panda's case, it's more of a mystery. Other than moving from the NL to the AL--which isn't going to change next year, unless we trade him--there isn't any obvious circumstantial explanation for the suck, and therefore no obvious path to a bounceback. And it's not like it was just a BABIP dip (though there certainly was one). He was a little worse at almost everything, which seems to suggest real decline.

I would counter that there is no mystery and very obvious circumstantial evidence for Panda's suck. He showed up to Spring Training in poor shape, failed to get into any sort of baseball condition, and continued to get fatter throughout the season. And he found out that being out of condition and flabby at 29 is very different to being that way when 25 - that's just the way the human body deteriorates. Unless he begins to improve his diet, condition his body and behave like a professional athlete, his very real decline will simply continue.

There's probably a variety of analytics that can be applied to Pablo (as OTM have done here) , but they're secondary to him being overweight and in no fit shape to field his position, swing a bat or run the bases. Clearly $100m in the bank takes away any need to be embarrassed about his professionalism

TheYaz67 · Dec 11, 2015

Unfortunately the answer to your question is no, at worst, they had the 2nd and 3rd worst first year's of a significant free agent signing.

The worst would be Adam Dunn's -2.9 WAR (fangraphs) in 2011 during the first year of a 4 year, $56 million free agent deal, so you can change the thread title now.....

Darnell's Son · Dec 11, 2015

So I was looking for reasons to be somewhat optimistic about Sandoval so I did a little digging into his numbers, inspired by this article by Cuzittt on how the Sox handled injuries last year.

From the article:

Pablo Sandoval was also a victim of injury, taking a pitch off the knee on May 19th. At the time of the injury, Sandoval was batting .270/.342/.416 in the first month and a half. He would pinch hit two days later, would pinch hit again three days after that and then come back into the regular lineup. In the eleven games he played that would have corresponded to a fifteen day DL stint, Sandoval batted .143/.189/.143.

So I took the two stretches before and after that proposed DL stint and weighted the OPS to get .689 had he not played during that stretch.

He also gave up hitting from the right side of the plate and hit .621 in 82 plate appearances as a lefty against a lefty. As a righty vs. a righty he hit .285 in 73 plate appearances.

Now you can take this with as big a grain of salt as you want, but if we go on the assumption that he would have hit .621 in those 73 plate appearances instead of .285, then he would have hit .706 instead of the .658 he did hit. The .706 would have him tied with Brett Lawrie for 19th in MLB. Still a poor outcome but not worst of all time bad.

FFCI · Dec 11, 2015

In an attempt to look at Hanley Ramirez from a different perspective...

April 2015 Line: .293/.341/.659 10 HR (91AB)

It certainly looked like an awesome signing through one month - certainly didn't look like the pressure of Boston, or anythings was getting to him.

Now, at the end of April, he battled the flu or something, then left a game on May 4th after running into the wall. At that point he was .283/.340/.609 10 HR with 103 AB.

Ramirez avoided the DL and returned to playing on May 9 - but, it seems like the injury lingered - as there was little power shown during the month. He went through the rest of May (88 AB) with only 4 doubles and 2 HR .239/.280/.352

(He also left a game early on 5/19 with a leg injury; then was hit by a pitch in the hand on 5/22)

From June 1 through the All-Star Break - he played in 30 games, 112 AB getting 7 HR hitting .295/.333/.518

He also had an X-ray on his leg after falling a ball off his knee on 6/9; missed a game with a sore back on 6/16.

On 6/24 – he was hit by a Bogaerts line drive on the wrist and had to leave the game – again he avoided the DL but was not able to return to play until July 1.

Post All-Star Break –

The nightmare of a season continued...7/31 – Injured Shin – missed next game...8/8 – Missed game after fouling a ball off his foot – did not return to lineup until 8/17

During that stretch, the team fell way out of contention and auditions for 2016 were well underway. Discovering there may be something to the young outfield, he was never back in a regular rhythm and played his last game on 8/26.

In those final 109 AB (post all-star break), he had 0 HR, .183/.211/.239

Obviously we all remember what we saw last – and that was horrible. However, writing off him as a player seems premature. He has a history of being a very solid, and potential MVP bat. Perhaps the shoulder injuries, leg, wrist and hand injuries piled up and were the main factors in his declining production in 2015.

There’s a real possibility that after a long off-season, his body will have healed and he can return to the production expected of him.

His last 3 years line .288/.351/.490 is pretty favorable with some top FA available today:

.274/.353/.415

Jason Heyward

.252/.347/.544

Chris Davis

Now, defense and durability may be issues – but maybe he isn’t the black hole Carl Crawford was…

Rasputin · Dec 11, 2015

snowmanny said:
The opening post really underscores that these signings were indeed fireable mistakes. A GM can make a bunch of decent transactions and can make moves that are defensible on paper but ultimately in pro sports it always comes down to actual performance and you can't make decisions with historically bad outcomes - whether it's trading Jeff Bagwell or drafting Rick Robey - without it staining your resume. Signing Hanley to a position that it wasn't clear he could play and signing Sandoval at all were dangerous choices. Of course Ben does have that trophy on his resume and that counts too so I expect he'll get another shot.

It does no such thing. It rather strongly suggests that nobody could have predicted the extent to which they would suck.

snowmanny · Dec 11, 2015

Rasputin said:
It does no such thing. It rather strongly suggests that nobody could have predicted the extent to which they would suck.

They put Hanley in LF, and while perhaps you or I couldn't have predicted how badly he would suck, that's their job. They signed a fat declining attitudinal third-baseman who could only hit from one side of the plate, and while perhaps you or I couldn't have predicted he'd fall completely off a cliff, that's their job.

drbretto · Dec 11, 2015

snowmanny said:
They put Hanley in LF, and while perhaps you or I couldn't have predicted how badly he would suck, that's their job. They signed a fat declining attitudinal third-baseman who could only hit from one side of the plate, and while perhaps you or I couldn't have predicted he'd fall completely off a cliff, that's their job.

No one, no matter how good you are at analyzing baseball players, could possibly have predicted that both of them would be running for the title of worst first year of a new contract in baseball history. Why would you fire someone for not being omniscient? To me, it's just evidence that last year was a fluke.

Red(s)HawksFan · Dec 11, 2015

snowmanny said:
They put Hanley in LF, and while perhaps you or I couldn't have predicted how badly he would suck, that's their job. They signed a fat declining attitudinal third-baseman who could only hit from one side of the plate, and while perhaps you or I couldn't have predicted he'd fall completely off a cliff, that's their job.

It's their job to be Nostra-fucking-damus? There's only so much even the best projections can predict. As far as Sandoval goes, there were at least two other teams in on him at similar years and dollars, so it's not like Cherington was out on an island thinking he was going to be worth paying that contract. The team that had the guy in their organization for 11 years was willing to give him a similar contract and who would know him better than them?

Making History: Panda and Hanley just had the 2nd and 3rd worst first seasons in free agency history

Member

Member

Shanghai Warrior

Skrub's sympathy case

PN23's replacement

Skrub's sympathy case

Member

PN23's replacement

Member

Member

Member

Skrub's sympathy case

Member

Member

Skrub's sympathy case

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers

Skrub's sympathy case

Granite Truther

Member

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers

Member

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers

simpering whimperer

loves the secret sauce

Skrub's sympathy case

The North remembers

Member

bitchslapped by Keith Law

Member

Member

Johnny Rico

Member

Attachments

Member

bitchslapped by Keith Law

Member

Post-darwinian

Member

PN23's replacement

Member

Member

Member

He's a machine.

Member

Member

Will outlive SeanBerry

Member

Member

Member

Member