In “Hardball Retrospective: Evaluating Scouting and Development Outcomes for the Modern-Era Franchises”, I placed every ballplayer in the modern era (from 1901-present) on their original team. I calculated revised standings for every season based entirely on the performance of each team’s “original” players. I discuss every team’s “original” players and seasons at length along with organizational performance with respect to the Amateur Draft (or First-Year Player Draft), amateur free agent signings and other methods of player acquisition.  Season standings, WAR and Win Shares totals for the “original” teams are compared against the “actual” team results to assess each franchise’s scouting, development and general management skills.

Expanding on my research for the book, the following series of articles will reveal the teams with the biggest single-season difference in the WAR and Win Shares for the “Original” vs. “Actual” rosters for every Major League organization. “Hardball Retrospective” is available in digital format on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, GooglePlay, iTunes and KoboBooks. The paperback edition is available on Amazon, Barnes and Noble and CreateSpace. Supplemental Statistics, Charts and Graphs along with a discussion forum are offered at TuataraSoftware.com.

Don Daglow (Intellivision World Series Major League Baseball, Earl Weaver Baseball, Tony LaRussa Baseball) contributed the foreword for Hardball Retrospective. The foreword and preview of my book are accessible here.

Terminology

OWAR – Wins Above Replacement for players on “original” teams

OWS – Win Shares for players on “original” teams

OPW% – Pythagorean Won-Loss record for the “original” teams

AWAR – Wins Above Replacement for players on “actual” teams

AWS – Win Shares for players on “actual” teams

APW% – Pythagorean Won-Loss record for the “actual” teams

Assessment

The 1979 New York Mets 

OWAR: 50.7     OWS: 262     OPW%: .479     (78-84)

AWAR: 24.8      AWS: 188     APW%: .389     (63-99)

WARdiff: 25.9                        WSdiff: 74  

The “Original” 1979 Mets ended the season in the cellar, yet the club outpaced the “Actuals” by fifteen victories! Ken Singleton earned runner-up status in the MVP balloting on the strength of a .295 BA with 35 circuit clouts and 111 ribbies. Lee “Maz” Mazzilli (.303/15/79) nabbed 34 bags and merited his lone All-Star appearance. Tim Foli set personal-bests in batting average (.288), base hits, runs and RBI. John “The Hammer” Milner contributed a .276 BA with 16 jacks while splitting time between left field and first base. “Actuals” right fielder Joel Youngblood posted a .275 BA and raked 37 doubles. Richie “The Gravedigger” Hebner added 25 two-base knocks and drove in 79 baserunners.

Tom Seaver and Nolan Ryan rated sixth and twenty-fourth, respectively, among pitchers in the “The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract” top 100 player rankings. “Original” Mets teammates registered in the “NBJHBA” top 100 ratings include Ken Singleton (18th-RF) Paul Blair (66th-CF) and Bud Harrelson (88th-SS). “Actuals” third baseman Richie Hebner ranked fifty-sixth while center fielder Jose Cardenal placed seventh-sixth.

  Original 1979 Mets                                  Actual 1979 Mets

Jerry Koosman reached the 20-win plateau for the second time in his career. Tom “The Franchise” Seaver (16-6, 3.14) led the National League with 5 shutouts and finished fourth in the Cy Young Award balloting. Nino Espinosa delivered 14 victories with a 3.65 ERA. Nolan Ryan aka the “Ryan Express” tallied 16 victories and struck out 223 batsmen. Craig Swan augmented the “Originals” and “Actuals” rotation with 14 wins and a 3.29 ERA after securing the National League ERA title during the previous campaign.

  Original 1979 Mets                                  Actual 1979 Mets 

 Notable Transactions

Ken Singleton 

April 5, 1972: Traded by the New York Mets with Tim Foli and Mike Jorgensen to the Montreal Expos for Rusty Staub.

December 4, 1974: Traded by the Montreal Expos with Mike Torrez to the Baltimore Orioles for Bill Kirkpatrick (minors), Rich Coggins and Dave McNally. 

Jerry Koosman 

December 8, 1978: Traded by the New York Mets to the Minnesota Twins for a player to be named later and Greg Field (minors). The Minnesota Twins sent Jesse Orosco (February 7, 1979) to the New York Mets to complete the trade. 

Tom Seaver

June 15, 1977: Traded by the New York Mets to the Cincinnati Reds for Doug Flynn, Steve Henderson, Dan Norman and Pat Zachry.

Nino Espinosa

March 27, 1979: Traded by the New York Mets to the Philadelphia Phillies for Richie Hebner and Jose Moreno.

Nolan Ryan

December 10, 1971: Traded by the New York Mets with Frank Estrada, Don Rose and Leroy Stanton to the California Angels for Jim Fregosi.

Honorable Mention

The 2012 New York Mets 

OWAR: 27.7     OWS: 262     OPW%: .492     (80-82)

AWAR: 24.1       AWS: 221      APW%: .457    (74-88)

WARdiff: 3.6                        WSdiff: 41

The “Original” 2012 Mets placed third, fourteen games in arrears to the Nationals. David “Captain America” Wright (.306/21/93) raked 41 two-base hits and received his sixth All-Star invite. Angel “Crazy Horse” Pagan topped the circuit with 15 triples and set career-highs with 38 two-baggers and 95 runs scored. Jose B. Reyes swiped 40 bags and rapped 37 doubles while double-play partner Daniel Murphy contributed a .291 BA with 40 two-base knocks. Nelson R. Cruz nailed 45 doubles and jacked 24 round-trippers. First-sacker Ike B. Davis established personal-bests with 32 taters and 90 ribbies. A.J. Burnett paced the starting staff with 16 victories along with a 3.51 ERA and 180 strikeouts.

On Deck

What Might Have Been – The “Original” 2013 Marlins

References and Resources

Baseball America – Executive Database

Baseball-Reference

James, Bill. The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract. New York, NY.: The Free Press, 2001. Print.

James, Bill, with Jim Henzler. Win Shares. Morton Grove, Ill.: STATS, 2002. Print.

Retrosheet – Transactions Database

The information used here was obtained free of charge from and is copyrighted by Retrosheet. Interested parties may contact Retrosheet at “www.retrosheet.org”.

Seamheads – Baseball Gauge

Sean Lahman Baseball Archive

The best relief pitcher in baseball is not who you think he is. Most of you probably would not even include him in the top 10. If I were to take a poll on who is the best relief pitcher in baseball, the top voted would likely be Zach Britton, Dellin Betances, Aroldis Chapman, Kenley Jansen, and Andrew Miller. I will say that it is none of them. To illustrate my point, I will compare this mystery pitcher’s numbers to all of their numbers. Nothing too scary, just xFIP, K/9, and ERA. I also will not just tell you which pitcher produced which numbers. Where would be the fun in that? I will compare the numbers of all six pitchers and walk you, the reader, through determining which one is the best.

Pitcher A: 1.18 xFIP; 14.89 K/9; 1.45 ERA
Pitcher B: 1.92; 13.97; 1.55
Pitcher C: 1.17; 16.84; 1.16
Pitcher D: 1.75; 15.53; 3.08
Pitcher E: 2.41; 13.63; 1.83
Pitcher F: 2.09; 9.94; 0.54

At first glance, Pitcher F’s ERA of 0.54 is likely what stands out most. Alas, even calling him only by a letter cannot mask Britton. He has the lowest K/9 by far and the second-highest xFIP, so Britton is effectively taken out of consideration.

Pitcher D has an ERA over a run higher than any of the others. His K/9 and xFIP fit in the range but do not stand out. Thus, Dellin Betances is out as well.

Of the remaining four, Pitcher E rates the worst in each of the three categories. Goodbye, Kenley Jansen.

That leaves us with Pitcher A, Pitcher B, and Pitcher C. In this group, B is the worst across the board. Aroldis Chapman leaves the conversation.

Pitcher C is better than Pitcher A in all three statistics. Andrew Miller bows and exits.

Carter Capps stands victorious.

Yes, I know Capps did not pitch in 2016. I used his 2015 numbers. They stack up just as well against the elite relievers from that year as well. It is true that Capps pitched only 31 innings in 2015, but the stats I used are rates. Maybe a larger sample would have dragged him into mediocrity, but I doubt it. Capps was ahead of the field by such a large margin that even with regression in his 2017 return he would be #1.

I am crazy for saying Carter Capps is the best relief pitcher in baseball. Or am I, really? If Capps pitches as well in 2017 as he did in 2015, just over a larger sample, I believe many of you will agree with me. Some of you may even agree with me after reading this.

So, let me be the first to say it: Carter Capps is the real best relief pitcher in baseball.

This is a question that intuitively would seem to be answered by: Sure, why not?  The assumption was recently made in the comments section of this article by an FG writer:

Think about it — if you are Rougned Odor and you are on first base and, say, Joey Gallo is at the plate, there’s a good chance he’s going to cool down the stadium with some high-powered fanning.  He’s not exactly known as a high-contact guy.  There’s a roughly one-in-three chance that his at-bat is going to end in a backwards K sign being held up by someone in the stands.  So ‘Ned might decide this is a good time to steal because the ball isn’t likely to be put into play in the air, where, if caught, he would have to double back to tag.  Maybe he’s also thinking that, like Brad Johnson alluded, the break-even point for a steal (famously ~75% success rate as calculated by Bill James in Moneyball, ~66% in this more recent FG article) is lower if the guy at the plate is likely to cause an out, specifically a strikeout which normally doesn’t allow a runner to advance like a bunt, grounder or long fly might.

On the other hand, maybe Odor doesn’t have such a cynical view of Gallo, and doesn’t change his mindset on the basepaths.  Maybe he doesn’t try to assume what Gallo might do, so he doesn’t go for any more risky of a steal than he otherwise might.  So maybe he isn’t stealing at a higher rate than normal if the guy at the plate is a K machine.  Heck, maybe Joey Gallo is a specifically bad example here, because, though he does whiff a lot, he also hits a lot of home runs, which might cause a runner to take fewer risks when waiting on the outcome of his plate appearance.

So, let’s looks at what the numbers have to say.  I ran a simple correlation analysis between team stolen-base totals and team K%.  Here’s what I got:

So, no real correlation to be seen here.  But perhaps that shows that it could be a market inefficiency.  In 2016, the Brew Crew led the league in both K% and stolen bases.  Even without John Villar’s big SB season, they are a top-five SB team.  Below is a chart from last year — in yellow are the top five teams in both total SBs and K%.

Perhaps the Rays should have been trying to steal some more?  Though some of these anomalies could just simply be explained by personnel issues — maybe teams like the Orioles just have no one who can steal on the entire squad?

Here’s the same chart, for 2015, just for sugar and giggles:

For the Astros, this is starting to look like a trend — Orioles too.  I think my final answer to the question posited by this post is — Hmm, not sure exactly.  But maybe?

As Cubs fans and non-Cubs fans alike celebrate the end of the 108-year drought, we have overlooked the fact that in winning, the Cubs also bucked two trends in major league baseball:

1. 100+ win teams struggle in the postseason and rarely win the World Series, especially since the wild-card era began in 1995
2. Losers of the ALCS and NLCS (Cubs lost 2015 NLCS) historically decline the following season, both in win total and playoff appearance/outcome

Below is a table to quantify a team’s performance in the playoffs:

*The LCS was a best-of-five-game series from 1969 through 1984

It is important to acknowledge how close a team comes to winning a particular round. Based on a 0 to 4 scale, with 0 indicating the team missed the playoffs and 4 indicating the team won the World Series, the table credits fractions of a whole point for each playoff win. For example, in a best-of-seven-game series, each win (four wins needed to clinch) is worth 0.25. In a best-of-five-game series, each win (three wins needed to clinch) is worth 0.333 (1/3). Any mention of playoff result or average playoff result in this article is derived from this table.

THE STRUGGLE OF 100+ WIN TEAMS IN THE POST-SEASON

Playoff baseball, due to its small sample size and annual flair for the dramatic, historically has not treated exceptional regular season teams well. Jayson Stark recently wrote an article for ESPN titled, “Why superteams don’t win the World Series.” He noted that only twice in the first 21 seasons of the wild-card era had a team with the best record in baseball won the World Series (1998 and 2009 Yankees). Those two Yankee teams are also the only two 100-win ball clubs in the wild-card era to win the World Series. Research in this article will span the years 1969 to 2015, with 1969 being the first year of the league championship series (LCS).

Entering the 2016 season there had been 47 100+ win teams since the start of the 1969 season. Of those, 10 (21.3%) won the World Series. Other than those 10 World Series winners, how did 100+ win teams fare in the post-season?

Below are the average playoff results for 100+ win teams in each period of the major league baseball playoff structure from 1969 to 2015. The playoff structures were as follows:

1969-1984: LCS (best of 5 games) + World Series (best of 7 games)

1985-1993: LCS (best of 7 games) + World Series (best of 7 games)

1995-present: LDS (best of 5 games) + LCS (best of 7 games) + World Series (best of 7 games)

The wild-card game (2012-present) is omitted because a 100+ win team has yet to play in that game, although it certainly would be rare if we ever see a 100+ win team playing in the wild-card game.

As the data shows, 100+ win teams during the 1969-1984 period on average made a World Series appearance. This could be partly due to the fact there was only one round of playoffs (the LCS) ahead of the World Series, with the LCS being a best of five games. It was certainly a much easier path to the World Series once a team made the playoffs, yet on average 100+ win teams were finishing with a World Series sweep.

Changing the LCS from a best-of-five-game series to a best-of-seven-game series had a negative impact on team post-season performance, as 100+ win teams during the 1985-1993 span on average lost a deciding Game Seven in the LCS.

When the league added the wild card and LDS in 1995, it expanded the opportunity to make the playoffs but made the path to a World Series title more difficult, for a team now had to win 11 games to hoist the trophy. In the wild-card era, 100+ win teams are on average losing 4-1 in the LCS. This period also has the lowest percentage of 100+ win teams winning the World Series.

Using average playoff result standard deviation and a normal distribution, we can also see that the likelihood of a 100+ win team to win the World Series has had a significant decrease over the past several decades, left at under 7% during the wild-card era. The longevity of 100+ win teams in the playoffs has been trending downward over the past several decades. Despite being on the verge of a World Series defeat, the Cubs were able to successfully break through and buck a trend that had haunted outstanding regular-season teams for decades, especially since the wild-card era began in 1995.

THE CURSE OF THE LCS DEFEAT

The 2015 Cubs lost to the Mets in the NLCS yet bounced back in 2016 to have an even better regular season and win the World Series. This, however, was a rare feat. Teams that lose in the LCS historically win fewer regular-season games and perform worse on average in the post-season (if they make it) the following year. Below are two charts (1969-2015 and 1995-2015) that display average win differential, average playoff result, likelihood win differential is greater than +5 (2016 Cubs were +6), and the likelihood of winning the World Series.

Due to the 1981 and 1994 strikes, a few data points for win differential and playoff result are not included in the calculation. The data set includes 82 LCS losers for win differential and 88 LCS losers for average playoff result. The 1980-81, 1981-82, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96 win differentials are not included for LCS losers in both leagues. The 1994 and 1995 playoff results are not included for LCS losers in both leagues because there was no post-season in 1994, hence no LCS loser. Regardless, there is a notable trend among LCS losers to perform worse the following season.

The 2016 Cubs not only won six more regular-season games than in 2015, but they became only the seventh team in history to lose the LCS one season and win the World Series the following season (1971 Pirates, 1972 Athletics, 1985 Royals, 1992 Blue Jays, 2004 Red Sox, 2006 Cardinals). Two of the previous six teams repeated as champions: 1973 Athletics and 1993 Blue Jays. Most recently, the 2005 Red Sox lost 3-0 in the ALDS and the 2007 Cardinals failed to make the playoffs.

LOOKING FORWARD

The Cubs have already been pegged favorites to win the 2017 World Series, which isn’t surprising given the fact nearly every key player is under team control. Is history on their side? Winning back-to-back titles is difficult in today’s competitive league, as new baseball thinking has somewhat evened the playing field and the small sample size of post-season baseball has the ability to lend unexpected results.

The 10 100+ win teams who have won the World Series since 1969 historically have not been successful in their attempts for back-to-back titles. Below are the average win differentials and average playoff result for these teams in the season following their championship:

Only three of these 10 teams (1975-76 Reds, 1977-78 Yankees, 1998-99 Yankees) have repeated as champions. Can the 2017 Cubs be the fourth? No matter the numbers, the 2017 Cubs still have to perform on the field. They were on the brink of losing the World Series in 2016, so we must not take anything for granted. But despite this, there’s no doubt the 2017 Cubs will be in a good position for a repeat. The Cubs are expected to be MLB’s best regular season team in 2017, according to FanGraphs and Jeff Sullivan’s analysis in his November 11, 2016 article. Only time will tell.

The case for never letting pitchers bat in the NL has just gotten a whole lot better. I now estimate that if a NL team were to always pinch-hit for their pitchers they would expect to pick up a whopping 7.2 wins per year. And that, my friends, is a game-changer.

In my initial post two weeks ago I laid out a strategy in which a National League manager pinch-hits for his pitchers every time their turns come up in the batting order. I called it the “Pitchers Never Bat” strategy. The manager would keep a pitching staff of 11 “relievers” and no “starters.” The major benefit of doing this, I estimated, would be an improvement in the team’s offense.

I addressed what I considered the two major “components” of the analysis and estimated that the impact of this strategy was worth an extra 3.6 wins per year if the team was the only team in the National League to implement it. I also identified four other components of the analysis that could possibly add to, or take away from, my initial estimate of 3.6 wins per year.

In this follow-up post I will do two things. First, I will make some improvements by estimating the impact of two of the four components that I previously left unaddressed. And second, I will address some concerns raised by some members of the FanGraphs community via their thoughtful comments on my initial post.

Here is where I left off at the end of my original post:

Estimated Change in Wins Per Year by Component –

Component #1:   +3.6

Change in Runs due to pinch hitters batting for all pitchers

Component #2:   +0.0

Change in Runs Allowed due to using pitching staff in a new way

Component #3: Not Evaluated

Change in Runs Allowed due to added flexibility in selecting pitchers based on how they are warming up prior to or during a game

Component #4: Not evaluated

Change in Runs Allowed due to opponents’ inability to “stack the lineup” to take advantage of the starting pitchers “handedness” (i.e., lefty or righty)

Component #5: Not evaluated

Change due to reducing size of pitching staff by 1-2 men

Component #6: Not evaluated

Change in Runs Allowed due to the “times through the order” effect

TOTAL:                +3.6 Wins per Year

IMPROVEMENTS

So now, let’s make some improvements to the prior analysis. Here, I’m going to add estimates for the impacts of Components #4 and #6:

Component #4 – Handedness

In my “Pitchers Never Bat” strategy, the starting pitcher leaves the game when his turn in the batting order comes up, as a pinch-hitter takes his place. In this approach the starting pitcher will typically throw 1-3 innings, averaging two innings per start. Compare this to the conventional starting pitcher who will throw six innings, on average. If the opposing manager were to “stack” (or “tilt”) his batting order to have more lefties (LHB) to face a righty starting pitcher (RHB), or more RHB to face a LHP, as they do now, the value of his tilt would only be in effect for two innings, not six. The manager of the team using the “Pitchers Never Bat” strategy would most likely bring in the next two relievers with the opposite hand of his starter. Example: A lefty starter goes two innings, and is replaced by two consecutive right-handed relievers who would pitch two innings each.

After reviewing league averages for wOBAs for each of the four “handedness combinations” (i.e., LHP/LHB, LHP/RHB, RHP/LHB, and PHP/RHB) as well as how much managers “tilt” their line-ups to take advantage of the starting pitcher’s hand, I estimate that the opponent would lose his current handedness advantage for, on average, four PAs per game, with each of these PAs reducing his batters’ expected wOBA by 18 points for these PAs. Over 162 games, that amounts to 648 PAs per year. Using the rule of thumb that a decrease of 20 wOBA points decreases team run production by 10 runs per every 600 PAs, I estimate that the opponents will lose 9.8 runs/year (that is 18/20 * 10 * 648/600). And since every 10 runs is worth a win, on average, that’s a positive impact to the team implementing the “Pitchers Never Bat” strategy of about 1.0 wins/year (= 9.8/10).

But, since opponents will quickly catch on to the new strategy that they are facing, they should immediately stop trying to “stack” or “tilt” their line-ups. If the opposing manager puts up a line-up that is set up with absolutely no regard to lefty or righty pitching, he can reduce the negative impact to his offense by about 25%, down to a loss of 7.3 runs/year, or a loss of 0.7 wins/year. Since I assume that the opponents will take this less damaging approach, I will use +0.7 wins/year as a conservative estimate for Component #4.

Component #6 – Times Through the Order

Times Through the Order (TTO) refers to differences in pitcher performance due to how many times pitchers have faced the opposing lineup. I recently read an excellent piece on this topic by Mitchel Lichtman, published on Baseball Prospectus on 11/5/13, entitled “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About the Times Through the Order Penalty.” I will draw on one of his many key findings to estimate the impact of TTO on the “Pitchers Never Bat” strategy.

Lichtman presents data (drawn from 2000-2012) which shows that starting pitchers are, on average, at their best the first time through the line-up, are worse the second time through, and even worse the third time through. Using “wOBA against” statistics (adjusted appropriately for batter quality), he shows that pitchers suffer a decay of about 10 points in wOBA against when going from the first TTO to the second TTO, and then decay another 10 points when going from the second TTO to the third TTO. He also estimated the wOBA against statistic for the second TTO is equal to the pitchers’ overall wOBA against. So, in other words, starting pitchers are about 10 points better than average for the first TTO, about average for the second TTO, and about 10 points worse than average for the third TTO.

In the “Pitchers Never Bat” strategy, starters will occasionally work into the beginning of the second TTO, so I’ll assume that 80% of the batters they face will be in the starter’s first TTO, and 20% will be in the second TTO. This means that their wOBA against should be about eight points better (=10 points * 80%) than they would see if they were used in the conventional six-plus inning approach. This advantage will be repeated again by the relievers who replace the starter and pitch through the sixth inning, or until the time that the starter would typically be pulled when using a conventional pitching staff. Think of it this way – instead of a starter throwing a wOBA against of .320 for the first six innings, you get a starter plus two relievers each throwing a wOBA against of .312 for the first six innings. And this benefit is strictly due to the TTO effect.

Improving your wOBA against statistic by eight points for the first six innings of every game means that these pitchers will face about 4,374 batters per year (= 27 PA per game X 162 games.)  Again, using the rule of thumb of 20 woBA points equates to 10 runs per 600 PA, I estimate the impact of this improvement to be a decrease in Runs Allowed of 29.2 runs per year (=8/20 * 10 * 4,374/600.) And using the rule of thumb that 10 runs per year equates to one additional win per year, I can finally estimate that the positive impact of the TTO effect to be 2.9 additional wins per year (=29.2/10).

Now, let’s revisit where we stand with our six components:

Estimated Change in Wins Per Year by Component –

Component #1:   +3.6

Change in Runs due to pinch hitters batting for all pitchers

Component #2:   +0.0

Change in Runs Allowed due to using pitching staff in a new way

Component #3: Not Evaluated

Change in Runs Allowed due to added flexibility in selecting pitchers based on how they are warming up prior to or during a game

Component #4:   +0.7

Change in Runs Allowed due to opponents’ inability to “stack the lineup” to take advantage of the starting pitchers “handedness” (i.e., lefty or righty)

Component #5: Not evaluated

Change due to reducing size of pitching staff by 1-2 men

Component #6:   +2.9

Change in Runs Allowed due to the “times through the order” effect

TOTAL:                 +7.2 Wins per Year

CONCERNS FROM COMMENTERS

Commenters to my original post raised no objections with my estimated value of +3.6 wins per year due to Component #1, which is the expected change in runs due to pinch-hitters batting for all pitchers. Their two primary concerns were regarding Component #2, which is the change in runs allowed due to using the pitching staff in a new way. Commenters were concerned that my proposed staff of 11 pitchers, averaging 130 innings pitched (IP) per year each, would not be able to handle that large a workload, and therefore the pitchers’ performances would be worse than they would be as part of a traditional pitching staff.

On the issue of workload I see it as follows: Say half of the new staff comes from current relievers who are used to throwing 50-80 IP per year. The new strategy would ask them to average 100-130 IP per year. And let’s say that the other half of the new staff comes from current starters who are used to throwing 160-200 IP per year. The new strategy would ask them to throw 130-160 IP year. So, yes, one would expect that the old relievers would probably pitch worse if they were asked to throw an extra 50 IP per year. But, by similar logic, the old starters would be expected to pitch better if they were asked to reduce their workload by 30 or 40 IP per year. Do these two effects offset each other? Does one dominate the other? I don’t know. Even if Component #2 resulted in a negative net effect, how big could it be? Could it be large enough to outweigh the +7.2 wins estimated from Components #1, #4, and #6? I don’t think so.

And what if, instead, the GM hired 11 guys for the staff that were all starters previously? Would that lead to a net gain to the staff’s performance due to reduced workloads per person? Potentially. Also, note that the impact we are talking about here is solely due to workload and has nothing to do with Handedness (Component #4) or Times Through the Order (Component #6).

For those still concerned that an average of 130 IP for each of 11 pitchers is still a big negative, here are three ways to reduce the average workload:

First, due to call-ups from the minors, visits to the DL, and expanded rosters in September, team workloads are actually shared by far more than the current 12-13 pitchers on the roster at any one point in time. In 2016 the median number of pitchers used by NL teams was 27. If you ranked each team’s staffs at year-end by IP, and then added up the IP thrown by their top 12, you’d find the top 12 typically account for about 80% of their team’s total IP. So you could safely reduce my 130 IP per person that I required for the “Pitchers Never Bat” strategy by 10% to adjust for that. That brings the average workload required down to 117 IP (= 130 * 90%).

Second, some commenters suggested I keep a 12-man staff, not 11 as I proposed. Doing this would decrease the average workload per pitcher by another 8%, or about 9 IP. That would bring down the average workload from 117 IP to 108 IP. (Of course, this would require that the number of position players be reduced by one, and there would be some negative impact because of that.)

Third, as I mentioned in my first post, a team could keep an ace starter that is allowed to bat for himself. He would be used exactly as an ace is used now, pitching 6+ innings every fifth day. In this variation, the “Pitchers Never Bat” strategy would only be used on the four days that the ace is resting. So, here the ace would pitch about 180 innings, reducing the workload for each of the other pitchers by another six innings per year, bringing their average workload down to about 102 IP. (By the way, I roughly estimate that the ace would need to have an expected WHIP of 1.05 or lower to justify allowing him to bat. At a WHIP of 1.05, the added benefit of letting him pitch 6+ innings would just offset the benefits from Components #1, 2, 4, and 6.)

So, to recap, with all three of these changes incorporated, the staff would consist of an ace throwing 180 IP, plus 11 others averaging about 102 IP, and another 15 or so pitchers that come and go throughout the season to support the 12 “primary” guys by sucking up the remaining 20% of the entire team’s IP. This should alleviate the concerns about pitcher workload.

I’m still not totally comfortable quantifying the impact of Component #2 yet, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say that if the staff was developed from 11 guys who were previously starters throwing 180 IP, the smaller workload should improve their average performance. My hunch is that the impact might be slightly positive, whereas the commenters thought it was negative. At this point I’m still going to leave the impact of Component #2 at 0.0, or no change, pending further evaluation.

CONCLUSION

By adding estimates for the impacts of “Handedness” (Component #4) and “Times Through the Order” (Component #6) my total estimated value of the “Pitchers Never Bat” strategy has jumped dramatically from +3.6 wins (in my initial post) to +7.2 wins per year. If this were to hold up, this would be an astounding gain to any NL team that implemented the strategy. At the going rate of $8 million per year that teams currently pay per win, this equates to about $58 million per year. I look forward to hearing your comments regarding this analysis.

Oh, and by the way, if any NL team would like to discuss additional analysis and/or implementation of this strategy please feel free to contact me at howardsrubin@gmail.com.

Now that the World Series is over and the offseason upon us, our view of baseball begins to shift. For the last six months we have been laser-focused on the outcomes on the field. Now we begin to focus on the process of team-building and the chase to taste October Glory.

This exercise is an attempt to figure out how close teams may be and what they need to add in in the offseason to reach the playoffs. To do this, I looked at the latest FanGraphs depth charts, and the WAR landscape looks something like this:

Team 2017 Projected WAR

Cubs 50.1
Dodgers 48.7
Nationals 45.3
Indians 43.2
Red Sox 42.5
Giants 41.1
Astros 40.2
Cardinals 39.1
Angels 38.3
Mets 37.5
Mariners 37.2
Yankees 36.9
Pirates 36.6
Tigers 34.2
Rays 33.8
Rangers 33.5
Blue Jays 32.5
Marlins 32
Orioles 31.9
White Sox 31.1
Royals 30.7
Athletics 30.7
Diamondbacks 30.3
Rockies 27.7
Twins 27.7
Reds 26.5
Phillies 26.1
Padres 23
Braves 22.9
Brewers 21.6

To the surprise of no one, the Cubs lead in projected WAR due to the excellent core in place, with the Dodgers and Nationals taking second and third, respectively. The Indians and Red Sox rank fourth and fifth on this list and represent the top of the American League.

Now, to get a feel for what it is likely going to take to make the playoffs in 2017, I approximated how much team WAR will be needed to make the 2017 playoffs by averaging the WARs of playoff qualifiers going back to 2012 and came up with this:

AL WAR Target: 42.0
NL WAR Target: 44.6

American League teams, when assessing whether they are a realistic playoff contender, should project for a team WAR of 42, and National League teams thinking the same should project for closer to 45. Next, I took the projected WAR from each team and subtracted it from the respective league’s WAR target to determine how close teams may or may not be:

Team Target WAR +/-

Cubs 5.5
Dodgers 4.1
Indians 1.2
Nationals 0.7
Red Sox 0.5
Astros -1.8
Giants -3.5
Angels -3.7
Mariners -4.8
Yankees -5.1
Cardinals -5.5
Mets -7.1
Tigers -7.8
Pirates -8.0
Rays -8.2
Rangers -8.5
Blue Jays -9.5
Orioles -10.1
White Sox -10.9
Royals -11.3
Athletics -11.3
Marlins -12.6
Diamondbacks -14.3
Twins -14.3
Rockies -16.9
Reds -18.1
Phillies -18.5
Padres -21.6
Braves -21.7
Brewers -23.0

We see that only five teams exceed the arbitrary threshold of projecting above an average playoff contender. For a team like the Astros and Giants the decision to go for it is obvious. The Giants and Astros have payroll available and solid player development. Interestingly enough, the Angels are closer than one might initially think, but that has more to do with Mike Trout than the cast around him.

Moving toward the middle of the graph is where things begin to get intriguing. With the cost of 1 WAR on the open market approximately $8 million and the trade market expected to be active and expensive, teams need to be realistic with how much they are willing to spend, in cash or prospects, in order to reach the projected WAR threshold. Fringe contenders like the Pirates, Blue Jays and White Sox need to look in the mirror and recognize the uphill battle they have. The Blue Jays are losing key pieces to free agency and they could potentially cripple their flexibility with ill-advised moves. The Pirates are staring up at the Cubs dynasty in the making and you wonder if it is time to shop Andrew McCutchen and other short-term pieces. Lastly, the White Sox have Chris Sale, Jose Quintana, Todd Frazier and other quality pieces around the diamond. Given the AL Central, the Sox could blow it up and return to contention sooner rather than later, with the Royals and Tigers’ windows closing and the Indians representing the class of the division.

As we know, it rarely plays out this cleanly on the field, but from a pure projections standpoint, this serves as a gauge to where teams currently are. Some teams have very easy decisions and the choice to contend or rebuild is obvious. For other teams, the decision is less clear, and failure to capitalize could leave them stirring in mediocrity. The Cubs and Indians will fortify their rosters to chase down another pennant. For teams like the Pirates and White Sox, it just might be time to hit the red button.

In “Hardball Retrospective: Evaluating Scouting and Development Outcomes for the Modern-Era Franchises”, I placed every ballplayer in the modern era (from 1901-present) on their original team. I calculated revised standings for every season based entirely on the performance of each team’s “original” players. I discuss every team’s “original” players and seasons at length along with organizational performance with respect to the Amateur Draft (or First-Year Player Draft), amateur free agent signings and other methods of player acquisition.  Season standings, WAR and Win Shares totals for the “original” teams are compared against the “actual” team results to assess each franchise’s scouting, development and general management skills.

Expanding on my research for the book, the following series of articles will reveal the teams with the biggest single-season difference in the WAR and Win Shares for the “Original” vs. “Actual” rosters for every Major League organization. “Hardball Retrospective” is available in digital format on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, GooglePlay, iTunes and KoboBooks. The paperback edition is available on Amazon, Barnes and Noble and CreateSpace. Supplemental Statistics, Charts and Graphs along with a discussion forum are offered at TuataraSoftware.com.

Don Daglow (Intellivision World Series Major League Baseball, Earl Weaver Baseball, Tony LaRussa Baseball) contributed the foreword for Hardball Retrospective. The foreword and preview of my book are accessible here.

Terminology

OWAR – Wins Above Replacement for players on “original” teams

OWS – Win Shares for players on “original” teams

OPW% – Pythagorean Won-Loss record for the “original” teams

AWAR – Wins Above Replacement for players on “actual” teams

AWS – Win Shares for players on “actual” teams

APW% – Pythagorean Won-Loss record for the “actual” teams

Assessment

The 1921 Detroit Tigers 

OWAR: 49.3     OWS: 289     OPW%: .553     (85-69)

AWAR: 40.4      AWS: 212     APW%: .464     (71-82)

WARdiff: 8.9                        WSdiff: 77  

The “Original” 1921 Tigers paced the Junior Circuit in OWAR and OWS. Detroit finished third in the American League, ten games in arrears to the Red Sox. Harry “Slug” Heilmann (.394/19/139) collected his first batting title, smashed 43 two-baggers and topped the leader boards with 237 safeties. Ty Cobb (.389/12/101) continued to mash opposition offerings. “The Georgia Peach” tallied 197 base knocks, 124 runs, 37 doubles and 16 triples while recording an OBP of .452 and a .596 SLG. Baby Doll Jacobson (.352/5/90) contributed 211 base hits, 38 doubles and 14 triples to Detroit’s powerful lineup. Ray “Rabbit” Powell (.306/12/74) legged out 18 three-base hits to lead the League and scored 114 runs. Powell and outfield mate Bobby Veach (.338/16/128) established personal-bests in almost every major offensive category. Lu Blue supplied a .308 BA with 103 runs scored and 33 two-baggers in his inaugural campaign while fellow first-sacker Wally Pipp (.296/8/103) drilled 35 doubles.

Ty Cobb placed runner-up to Willie Mays among center fielders in the “The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract” top 100 player rankings. “Original” Tigers teammates registered in the “NBJHBA” top 100 ratings include Harry Heilmann (16^th-RF), Bobby Veach (33^rd-LF), Carl Mays (38^th-P), Donie Bush (51^st-SS), Lu Blue (77^th-1B), George H. Burns (79^th-1B), Wally Pipp (83^rd-1B) and Baby Doll Jacobson (85^th-CF).

“Actuals” backstop Johnny Bassler rated forty-seventh.

  Original 1921 Tigers                                Actual 1921 Tigers

Carl “Sub” Mays (27-9, 3.05) topped the American League in victories, games (49), saves (7) and innings pitched (336.2). Clarence Mitchell fashioned a 2.89 ERA and notched 11 wins while splitting time among the bullpen and starting rotation. Dutch H. Leonard contributed a 3.75 ERA with an 11-13 record for the “Actuals”.

  Original 1921 Tigers                                Actual 1921 Tigers 

Notable Transactions

Carl Mays 

Before 1914 Season: Returned to Providence (International) by the Detroit Tigers after expiration of minor league working agreement.

Before 1914 Season: Obtained by the Boston Red Sox from Providence (International) as part of a minor league working agreement.

July 30, 1919: the Boston Red Sox sent Carl Mays to the New York Yankees to complete an earlier deal made on July 29, 1919. July 29, 1919: The Boston Red Sox sent a player to be named later to the New York Yankees for Bob McGraw, Allen Russell and $40,000. 

Baby Doll Jacobson 

Before 1915 Season: Purchased by the Detroit Tigers from Chattanooga (Southern Association).

August 18, 1915: Traded by the Detroit Tigers with $15,000 to the St. Louis Browns for Bill James. 

Ray Powell 

July 10, 1917: Purchased with Wally Rehg by the Boston Braves from Providence (International).

Clarence Mitchell

October 16, 1917: Selected off waivers by the Brooklyn Robins from the Cincinnati Reds.

Wally Pipp

August, 1912: Purchased by the Detroit Tigers from Kalamazoo (Southern Michigan). (Date given is approximate. Exact date is uncertain.)

February 4, 1915: Purchased with Hugh High by the New York Yankees from the Detroit Tigers.

Honorable Mention

The 2003 Detroit Tigers 

OWAR: 14.8     OWS: 195     OPW%: .400     (65-97)

AWAR: 7.1       AWS: 129      APW%: .265    (43-119)

WARdiff: 7.7                        WSdiff: 66

The “Original” 2003 Tigers finished last in the AL Central, 17 games behind the White Sox. However the “Actuals” finished 47 games off the pace with a ghastly 43-119 record.

Juan Encarnacion (.270/19/94) established career-highs in RBI and doubles (37). Frank Catalanotto contributed a .299 BA with 34 two-base knocks. Robert Fick registered a personal-best with 80 ribbies and Dave R. Roberts pilfered 40 bags. The bullpen featured John Smoltz (1.12, 45 SV) and Francisco Cordero (2.94, 15 SV).

On Deck

What Might Have Been – The “Original” 1979 Mets

References and Resources

Baseball America – Executive Database

Baseball-Reference

James, Bill. The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract. New York, NY.: The Free Press, 2001. Print.

James, Bill, with Jim Henzler. Win Shares. Morton Grove, Ill.: STATS, 2002. Print.

Retrosheet – Transactions Database

The information used here was obtained free of charge from and is copyrighted by Retrosheet. Interested parties may contact Retrosheet at “www.retrosheet.org”.

Seamheads – Baseball Gauge

Sean Lahman Baseball Archive

As a Yankees fan (albeit one that has only witnessed their 2009 World Series), I have never been more excited about the team’s present and future. With the MLB roster slowly filling with good, young talent, and with even more stirring circumstances in the minors, the Yankees have the potential to be another powerhouse team.

The Team

Right now, the Yankees are in the midst of a revolution. Out with the old (A-Rod and Teixeira) and in with the new (Sanchez, Judge and Austin). Despite missing out on the playoffs, they will feature a well-rounded lineup at the start of next year.

It’s safe to say that Gary Sanchez won’t enjoy quite the success he did in the last two months of this season. Actually, he won’t come close. This isn’t to say he will play poorly, it’s just that he played so well that he can’t come back to those levels. However, Sanchez will no doubt still be one of the better-hitting catchers in the MLB with average to plus defense behind the dish, so they will already be better in that position in 2017 than they were in 2016.

The Yankees infield is the most likely to change the least with only Greg Bird slotting in at first base. Didi Gregorious, Starlin Castro and Chase Headley are each under team control until at least 2018, and there isn’t anyone challenging them for their spots at the moment. At first base, though, I say it is most likely that Bird gets the spot because it is possible that Tyler Austin beats him out in spring training. Austin is more likely to be used as a quasi-utility player as he can play at first, in right field and DH.

In the outfield everything could remain the same as the end of the season with Hicks or Judge in right, Ellsbury in center and Gardner in left. It could also see some changes. Gardner and Ellsbury both have the potential to be traded over the offseason with Gardner the more likely of the two. There are options to fill those gaps if trades do happen. Mason Williams could fill in until Clint Frazier is (hopefully) ready later in the season. Hicks, Austin and Judge could also fill the holes if needed.

The Yankees pitching is the most worrisome issue. The starting pitching, that is. Masahiro Tanaka performed well in 2016, so there is no reason to think otherwise for the next year. Beyond that, though, are question marks. Nate Eovaldi will probably be a non-tender after his Tommy John surgery. Pineda had his usual ups and downs. Sabathia is still getting older. Then there are numerous options in Luis Severino, Chad Green, Luis Cessa and Bryan Mitchell. Severino will be given the longest look because of his end to the 2015 season, but it’s a toss-up from there.

The bullpen in New York is still a quality one despite trading away Aroldis Chapman and Andrew Miller. Dellin Betances is one of the best in the game, so that’s a good start. Tyler Clippard, Adam Warren and whoever misses out on the rotation gig will presumably fill in the rest with a lefty thrown in.

The Minors

Now comes the most exciting part of the Yankees. With a system that starts with four top-30 prospects despite Sanchez already graduating, the Bombers are on their way to a good future. Frazier is in AAA and still needs to put up good at-bats before he gets the call to the majors, but that time will come soon enough. Gleyber Torres and Jorge Mateo will likely start the year in AA, so they won’t be seen until 2018 most likely, especially with the likes of Gregorious and Castro blocking them. Beyond their top three guys, the Yankees still have plenty of players who could make a major-league impact once it’s their time. Simply, there is a lot to be excited about when it comes to the team’s future.

The Yankees will have the 17th overall pick in next year’s draft, so they will be in familiar position after having the 16th and 18th picks in the two previous years. Their first-round picks in recent years have both been ones that I personally like, but who wouldn’t? James Kaprielian is shining in the Arizona Fall League and Blake Rutherford looks like a steal at the 18th pick, especially after his hot start to his pro career. This year will hopefully prove to be another that produces some good picks.

The Offseason

With the Yankees pretty much set with position players, there’s no reason to add any pricey free agents. It also wouldn’t be wise to block some of their young players out to prove themselves or ones that are close to ready in the minors. Pitching is another story.

As I stated before, their starting pitching has question marks when it comes to Sabathia’s age, Pineda’s consistency and Severino bouncing back. There also aren’t many pitchers on the free-agent market that stand out. Overpaying for Rich Hill would be contradictory to what the Yankees are trying to do in becoming younger, but his dominance when healthy is something that can’t be questioned. It wouldn’t be a bad move to sign him, but it would add yet another question mark to their rotation due to his injury history. Signing him also wouldn’t help any towards getting under the luxury tax, which Steinbrenner would like to do.

The only free-agent acquisition that I would like to see is a top-notch reliever, which means one of Chapman, Kenley Jansen or Mark Melancon. Jansen is likely going back to the Dodgers and Melancon would be yet another righty for the bullpen. A reunion with Chapman would be the best move. Pairing him with Betances again would put the bullpen in great shape. It’s just that it will cost a lot.

In terms of trading, I am one that is all for trading Gardner, Ellsbury and/or Brian McCann. Ellsbury’s contract probably means he’s staying, but Gardner will be easy to move if Brian Cashman can get the right return. Some reports have said that a swap of him for a middle-of-the-rotation pitcher could work, and that would be just what the Yankees need. McCann will have high demand this offseason with multiple teams needing catchers and not enough free agents to go around. The Yankees will have to eat a good chunk of his contract to get anything of value in return, but it shouldn’t be a problem as they’d be shedding a good portion of his $17-million-per-year contract. It would also give younger players like Bird, Austin and Judge a chance to DH.

The Braves have been said to want a reunion with McCann but won’t trade Mike Foltynewicz for him. The Yankees will do well if they can eat about half of his contract and get a couple middling prospects with some upside.

With such a deep farm, the Yankees also have the ability to trade for a front-of-the-rotation starter. Landing one of the top guys on the trade market probably isn’t in their best interests, though. To get one of Chris Sale, Chris Archer or Sonny Gray will cost a good portion of what the Yankees were able to get for Chapman and Miller. Instead, they should look to trade from depth for a guy that is a step down from the others. With Torres looking like the better middle-infield prospect, trading Mateo as the headliner of a package for a starter would be a good move and won’t impact the team’s future too much.

In Summary

In an ideal scenario, the Yankees will sign one of the top relievers to pair with Betances, stand pat on other free agents and see how Cashman can work the trade market for a third straight offseason. The Yankees likely aren’t a top contender next season, but the potential is there. If things break right with Judge, Bird, Sanchez and the rotation, they could find themselves at the top of the A.L. East. Right now, though, they should look to continue development of their top-three farm system and look at 2018 as the year to really contend.

In Part I, one of the major observations was that a group of smaller-statured players seemed to be using backspin as a distance tool. I was curious how the increase in home runs would look when broken down by physical size. In addition to using Statcast data from Baseball Savant, I downloaded player heights and weights from MLB rosters and created size quintiles. While I expected to see significant contribution from smaller-sized players, the magnitude of what is occurring was quite surprising:

Note: Size based on height * weight. Since pitchers skewed the quintiles due to their above-average size, they were excluded in making the quintile groups; however, their HRs are included in order to tie back to HR totals.

Now that is democratization of power! While interesting, the obvious question is: How are the smaller players hitting all the additional home runs? Is it more distance through exit velocity (EV) and/or launch angle (LA), more pulled balls, more fly balls, or just better-hit fly balls? Let’s take a look:

Distance, EV and LA

Note: Balls hit at Coors Field excluded

Although the data above would support a slight increase in homers overall, there is no smoking gun as to what might be happening within the smaller player groups. If smaller players are not hitting the ball that much harder or further, maybe it could be that they are hitting more homers to the pull side.

Pulled HR and Hits

Although the location mix of homers did not change significantly from the prior year, smaller players in both years hit a much higher percentage of their homers to the pull side than average. The more important metric to consider with respect with the pull factor is what is happening to the mix of well-hit fly balls.

Again, more data supporting a slight overall increase in homers – More well-hit fly balls hit to the pull side and more of those balls going for homers. No real support here for what might be happening with the smaller players. What about well-hit fly balls in general:

Now we’re getting somewhere! Smaller players experienced a significant increase in well-hit fly balls in 2016. What about fly balls in general, not just those of the well-hit variety:

The last two charts kind of sum it up – smaller players are hitting more fly balls in general as well as more well-hit fly balls that are going for homers. Before closing, I’d like to show two other tables which I believe are meaningful for both the home-run question as well as hitting in general. In a certain respect, it appears hitters are making better contact. The following chart shows the volatility (via standard deviation) for EV, LA, and Distance.

Since EV is up in terms of MPH but down in terms of volatility, this would indicate players in general are making better contact. The same is true for distance – higher average distance but lower volatility. However, the increase in volatility of launch angle would seem to indicate quite the opposite – that players are using a lower ball-contact point in order to achieve the higher number of fly balls. Take a look at pop-ups over the past two seasons:

While not up across the board, it is very interesting that there is a significant increase in pop-ups in the group responsible for the largest increase in homers.

After considering the data above, I was curious how the homers looked broken down by age. The increase in homers of the younger players was equally surprising:

I checked for the obvious relationship between size and age; however, the 24-26 age group was reasonably well distributed in terms of size so there is likely something additional going on with the younger players. Whether it is a power focus earlier in their development, a selection bias through the draft or some other factor I’m not sure. Maybe I’ll get into that another time.

Summary

This is a very interesting issue to consider and while I’m sure there will be much more written on the topic, it certainly takes some possibilities such as a juiced ball completely out of consideration. Now that would be a conspiracy! That umpires are throwing out juiced balls for the little guys! Except that the balls would have to be so stealthy that they don’t get hit significantly harder or further – they just hit bats of the smaller players for well-hit fly balls more often.

For me, the really interesting part is the underpinning driver – that advanced metrics have changed the market which values the players. Whether consciously or not, players are changing to align with the market to maximize their value. Even more interesting is what the future holds – what is the cost of the hyper-focus on power and loft and what are the unintended consequences that have yet to come to light?  As far as the home-run issue, at least in terms of player size and age, less certainly has been more.

Any fan that is somewhat invested in the game of baseball understands the importance of putting both a good team on the field at the MLB level while also sustaining an adequate farm system. The Angels have done neither.

This is a hard thing to do when the best player in baseball plays for you, but Arte Moreno and the Angels have managed to do that. Let’s take a look at how they ended up in this dire situation.

MLB Team

One thing the Angels do have (sorta) is a good core of players. They have Mike Trout, Kole Calhoun, Andrelton Simmons and Garrett Richards. Trout and Simmons play at premium positions, Calhoun is a good two-way player and Richards has ace potential (given his arm doesn’t snap). They even have quality players in Yunel Escobar and C.J. Cron who are quietly productive. With the exception of Escobar, each of those players are controllable for the next several years. The team isn’t devoid of talent behind Mike Trout like some believe. They also have a few starting pitchers who have either shown success or are promising in Matt Shoemaker, Tyler Skaggs, and Andrew Heaney. The only problem is that Heaney is done for next year already and Skaggs may be too if his stem-cell therapy doesn’t work.

The holes in the team are at second base, left field, starting pitching spots that aren’t guaranteed and the bullpen. Especially the bullpen. The only true bright spot of their bullpen is Cam Bedrosian while everyone else is expendable at best (unless Huston Street can return to form).

Now that we’ve looked at their roster heading into next season, how can they fix it?

Win-Now Options

Moreno has to let Billy Eppler spend some money this offseason. He isn’t paying Jered Weaver or C.J. Wilson anymore. That leaves them with roughly $30 million to spend before hitting the luxury tax, which Moreno has made clear he won’t go over. One thing this offseason is sure to provide is offense.

Obvious fixes would be to sign Yoenis Cespedes and one of Justin Turner — which would move either him or Escobar to second — or Neil Walker. The Angels can’t go another year with below-replacement-level players at those positions if they truly want to win. The smart route for them would be to avoid what are likely to be excessive bidding wars for Cespedes and Turner. Walker is a great fit at second for them. He offers good offense from the left side to couple with their righty-heavy lineup as well as average defense to a team that has seen paltry turnouts at the position.

As for left field, their are plenty of corner outfielders on the market. However, instead of paying too much for a reunion with Mark Trumbo, the Angels should look at Ian Desmond, Dexter Fowler and Carlos Gomez. Desmond and Fowler failed to garner much interest last offseason, so an offense-heavy free-agent class should keep their price tags down. As for Gomez, he was DFA’d by the Astros before playing somewhat better with the Rangers. Gomez is the higher risk/reward player while Fowler is the closest to a sure bet to perform consistently. Desmond is a wild card since he just converted to the outfield and profiled as below average in center. Shifting him to left with Trout in center could improve his defense, so he is also a viable option. The Angels took huge risks in the past that didn’t turn out well, so Fowler is probably their best option. Plus he adds another lefty bat against righties.

If the Angels can manage to add both Walker and Fowler, their offense would actually fill the basic requirements for a successful team. They would have a leadoff hitter in Fowler, and a number two in Calhoun, with Trout in the three slot. Either Cron or Pujols will bat fourth and fifth with Walker behind them. Then some mix of Escobar, Simmons and their catcher in the 7-9 spots.

As for fixing the rotation, that will be much harder, and they might just have to wait out the storm or go over the luxury tax. Overpaying for Jeremy Hellickson or Ivan Nova would be a bad move and Rich Hill isn’t a good fit for a fairly old roster that already has its risks. Henderson Alvarez could be a good bounce-back candidate after missing 2016 following a shoulder surgery. Andrew Cashner could be an option in a pitcher-friendly park in Anaheim, though the one in San Diego didn’t do him much good. Going into the season with Richards, Shoemaker, Skaggs, Nolasco and one of Alex Meyer, Nate Smith or Daniel Wright isn’t the end of the world. It just has its risks.

What about the farm?

Minor Leagues

According to RosterResource.com, the Angels have 11 home-grown players on their 40-man roster. That’s definitely on the lighter side compared to most teams, but it isn’t quite as extreme as the Padres’ six. They also only have six free-agent signings, which isn’t too large of an amount. The part of their roster that stands out is their eight waiver claims. The fact is that the Angels didn’t have the depth to fill their own roster with players already within their organization.

Going back to the team’s free-agent signings, six isn’t a large amount as I stated before. However, some of their more recent signings have been very costly (both in terms of monetary and baseball value). In the offseason prior to the 2012 and 2013 regular seasons, they signed Albert Pujols, C.J. Wilson and Josh Hamilton. Each of these players cost north of $15 million per season. Each also cost the team draft picks. They lost two first-round picks and a second-round pick.

The teams’ most recent top picks most likely aren’t going to make an impact with the MLB team. For one, Sean Newcomb definitely won’t since he’s on the Braves now. Taylor Ward and Matt Thaiss were both very weak first-round picks. Ward won’t hit and Thaiss is basically limited to first base.

This isn’t to say the Angels have nothing in the minors. Jahmai Jones is promising but very young and a few of their other 2016 picks could develop into good MLB players, including Brandon Marsh and Nonie Williams. Their farm isn’t deep enough to trade for any key pieces though, and they shouldn’t do that even if they did have the pieces. Eppler has a chance to use a top-10 pick this year as well as future picks to try and build the strong farm that the Angels have lacked for so long, so he can’t waste that opportunity on a middling team.

In Summary

I feel that I’ve laid out the best-case scenario for the Angels next year with potential signings of Walker and Fowler, who would fit in very nicely with their current lineup. Any team with Mike Trout has a chance to be successful after all. They will need to sign those two players first, and then the rotation needs to have luck on its side with the injury situations. The bullpen is a clear gap in the roster, so safe signings over the offseason could complement Bedrosian and possibly Street. Their farm system is also a clear work in progress, but it isn’t empty in terms of talent. That talent is just a little ways off at the moment. Overall the future of the Angels seems dreadful, but if things break right they can be a contender next year. Their overall run differential was only 18 apart from the first-place Rangers, so they at least played in close games. Now all that needs to be done is execution by the players and by the front office to bring a winner back to Anaheim.