While there hasn’t been much activity during the first two days of the Winter Meetings, one contract that has drawn a lot of raised eyebrows is the two-year deal given to Ivan Rodriguez by the Nationals. One the surface, it almost seems insane, as we’re talking about a 37-year-old catcher coming off arguably the worst year of his career. Rodriguez hit just .249/.280/.384 in 2009, while the once most feared arm in the game nailed down a fairly average 35% of opposing base thieves. But it many ways, this deal isn’t about Pudge at all. If you are the Nationals, who is the most important player on your roster? It’s Stephen Strasburg, and it’s by a country mile. Could there really be anything better for Strasburg’s development than giving him a veteran catcher who understands the game as well as anyone around? Rodriguez basically becomes the real-life, 21st century’s version of Crash Davis. The Nationals had a very specific need, Rodriguez was the best player on the market to fill it, and for a player the Nationals are hoping can turn around the franchise, in terms of both the standings and on a economic level, an additional $6 million investment for the next two years is actually a reasonable one. This contract will be impossible to measure based on the $6 million and whatever Rodriguez does statistically. It might only me measurable on human factor levels that even the smartest statistical minds haven’t quite figured out.
That's assuming Strasburg makes the majors this year. Strasburg might make the transition easier if he had a catcher that could drive in runs.
I've never really heard of Rodriguez mentoring anyone, including all those busted Rangers and Tigers arms over the years.
Besides, why commit two years and the dollars for a catcher who was practically a free pickup each of the last two years? I'm sure there's another vet catcher available who is younger and can do the job just as well. Heck, I'd rather have Henry Blanco.
I don't know how well Ivan Rodriguez fits the description of "mentor" or "approachable" or "handles pitchers", but I do know that when he last joined the Marlins, the ERAs of his entire rotation improved:
Beckett from 4.10 to 3.04
Penny from 4.66 ro 4.13
Willis from level A to 3.30
Redman from 4.21 to 3.59
Pavano from 5.16 to 4.30
... and when he joined the Tigers all but one starter improved, but he came from another team and another defense:
Jason Johnson from 4.18 to 5.13, but Mike Maroth from 5.73 to 4.31
Bonderman from 5.56 to 4.89
Robertson from 5.44 to 4.90 Gary Knotts from 6.04 ro 5.25
I'm not sure how well ERA tells the whole story, but at least on the Marlins side, a lot of those players still hadn't come into their own yet, either because of age or injury.
Also, Rodriguez wasn't the sole pickup that year as the Tigers added Polanco, Ordonez, and as I recall, moved Inge to 3B, substantially increasing team defense.
Sure, and the Marlins put Alex Gonzalez at shortstop and improved their outfield, too. However, I think that is enough cross-the-board ERA improvement on his last two full season new team trials that you have to consider his "handling" of pitchers must be more on the plus side, if not pretty far on the plus side, than on the minus side as SGreenwell and you seemed to imply. In fact, I think that is primarily why The Nationals hired him. They are, perhaps, misled by the coinciding improved defense and naturally improving young pitchers he worked with, but, at least, they did improve.
I don't know, I'd read some BP studies that said catcher's affect on ERA was minimal if anything besides the catcher's own defensive traits like catcher caught stealing, preventing passed balls etc.
I still lean towards the Marlins and Tigers defenses improving in explaining the better ERA, especially when I consider that the Rangers didn't have a good pitching staff nor graduated many rookies during his tenure.
Looking beyond the ERA's, both teams also improved in areas where it seems pitch selection would matter. I also threw in UZR to get some idea of the difference in defense between the teams.
It seems like both teams improved in areas where a catcher calling a game could make a difference. Of course, much of this could also come from a young staff maturing. Clearly neither team had a stellar defense, but each one did improve from the previous year.
Also, it might be worth noting that Willis was a rookie for the Marlins in '03, and he had a fantastic year (14-6, 3.30 ERA). He's perhaps the closest comparison to Strasburg among the pitchers on these teams (a 21 year-old rookie pitching in the majors for the first time), but of course without half the hype. I do think Kevin makes an interesting point that has some good reasoning behind it, and it's one I hadn't heard before.
I agree with this. Also, hasn't the knock on Pudge been in the past that he's not the most approachable guy, and not great at handling pitchers? While I don't think that matters at all, it seems odd to me that Pudge would get pegged as a "veteran leader" signing, as opposed to some scrub like Brad Ausmus.
Remember the Dann Bilardello theorem: As Pudge's offense continues to tank his defensive reputation and intangibles will shoot through the roof. Name a 37-year-old catcher with a .600 OPS who isn't universally praised as a deft handler of young pitching and a superb framer of pitches.
"This contract will be impossible to measure based on the $6 million and whatever Rodriguez does statistically. It might only me measurable on human factor levels that even the smartest statistical minds haven’t quite figured out."
Perhaps I'm missing something. Is this really your defense of Washington's investment in Rodriguez? That his contribution is unquantifiable -- or perhaps "not yet quantifiable," which is really the same thing -- therefore a "6 million investment for the next two years is actually a reasonable one."
Is that really your position?
And: If this deal makes sense, based on the reasoning you offer, then what deal doesn't make sense? What are examples of bad decisions made by MLB teams that don't have a justification? If you're willing to accept that a deal is 1) "reasonable," but at the same time, 2) the success of he deal is not measurable in terms of dollars or wins, then how can anyone know if this deal doesn't work out? Doesn't this line of logic guarantee that, at the end of the contract, you (or the Nationals) can claim the deal was a "success"?
And also: How does this perspective on player investments differ from the P.O.V. offered by pundits who are frequently critical of Baseball Prospectus, but who (and please, let's be honest here) clearly demonstrate an inability to evaluate both on-field performance and the economics of the game with any acumen whatsoever?
They could sign any (qualified) retired catcher and make him a special assistant to the manager, or a bench coach. This would get him on the bench to talk with Flores and the pitchers between innings, etc. He can advise the manager if he has any ideas during the innings, too. That's a tutor. The Nats could get themselves one of those for a lot less than $6mil + taking up a spot on the 40-man roster.
This really seems to be more about having another name-recognition player on the roster to increase attendance. And to do that, he would need to actually play.
"Could there really be anything better for Strasburg’s development than giving him a veteran catcher who understands the game as well as anyone around?"
WOW ... On what planet was Pudge ever known as someone who works well with a pitching staff? ...
Quite the contrary ... he was roundly criticized for a pitch selection which favored his arm rather than that of the pitchers.
He was basically run out of New York (after being sent to the bench) because no one wanted to work with him and the Yankees tolerated Molina's dreadful bat because of that fact.
As someone who lived in Washington for the last few years, I can tell you this deal is only about the empty stadium that the Nationals play in every game. The 'Natinals' will continue to sign every big name on their way out or who slips through the cracks (Dunn) to try and build some enthusiasm around the team without actually building a competitive team.
"to try and build some enthusiasm around the team without actually building a competitive team."
That's a little harsh. I believe a more nuanced position might be that they are trying "to build some enthusiasm around the team now, while waiting for their prospects to mature and develop into a competitive team in the future."
The lead-in to the 6pm sportscast on channel 4 in DC last night was "Nats sign future Hall of Famer." That's what this is all about - attendance, and the misguided notion that a former star can bump it by more than a few dozen a game.
The real Crash Davis wasn't even a catcher, he was an infielder.
The problem with having Pudge around is he's going to want to play. Provided Flores is healthy it would be criminal to have Pudge start more than 40 games. Plus, Pudge is eying that 3000th hit, which could come late '11 if he gets enough PAs.
I agree with vic - unless Pudge is only going to catch Strasburg, what is this saying about the Nat's opinion on Jesus Flores? Is this a lack of confidence in his health?
... it doesn't matter what *I* think, but what the Royals think. Do you have a better explanation for what they could possibly be thinking? He's name recognition. That's it.
BP itself says that catchers have minimal impact on pitcher performance (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=432). What is Pudge going to bring to the plate that a Molina, Torrealba, Kendall, or any other light-hitting backstop can't teach him. By the way, isn't this what a pitching coach is for? (Who doesn't need to be paid $3 mm/year.)
BP 2008 scoffs at the notion of batless vet leadership at catcher in Brad Ausmus' section, saying that instead a "coach" should be employed, "someone you pay to sit on the bench, not go out onto the field and murder your offense".
How is this any different? I'd much rather have Jesus Flores catching and Rodriguez/Redmond/Jason Varitek/any decent young-pitcher-handler coaching him.
I'm with BurrRutledge. The Nats had money to burn and wanted a name player.
Is there actually any evidence that teams improve their attendance by hiring a name? Could be, I don't know. But if so, why were Barry Bonds and Frank Thomas unemployed last year?
Thomas was probably unemployed because he can no longer hit and was incapable of anything other than hitting before that. As for Bonds, personally, I think he is under some kind of super-secret suspension (see Animal House) where the league office has said privately to each club, "We won't approve the signing of Barry Bonds."
Either that, or they've both simply asked for too much money, and teams won't pay. I believe that for Thomas, but not for Bonds
Ok I don't know the numbers on this one, but my understanding was that there was a large African-American population in the Washington metro area and less of a Hispanic one. Assuming that any knowledgeable baseball fans missed his play for the Tigers and Yankees, I'd guess not... Is Rodriguez really some kind of fan enticement in that market?
38 comments have been left for this post.
That's assuming Strasburg makes the majors this year. Strasburg might make the transition easier if he had a catcher that could drive in runs.
I've never really heard of Rodriguez mentoring anyone, including all those busted Rangers and Tigers arms over the years.
Besides, why commit two years and the dollars for a catcher who was practically a free pickup each of the last two years? I'm sure there's another vet catcher available who is younger and can do the job just as well. Heck, I'd rather have Henry Blanco.
I don't know how well Ivan Rodriguez fits the description of "mentor" or "approachable" or "handles pitchers", but I do know that when he last joined the Marlins, the ERAs of his entire rotation improved:
Beckett from 4.10 to 3.04
Penny from 4.66 ro 4.13
Willis from level A to 3.30
Redman from 4.21 to 3.59
Pavano from 5.16 to 4.30
... and when he joined the Tigers all but one starter improved, but he came from another team and another defense:
Jason Johnson from 4.18 to 5.13, but
Mike Maroth from 5.73 to 4.31
Bonderman from 5.56 to 4.89
Robertson from 5.44 to 4.90
Gary Knotts from 6.04 ro 5.25
I'm not sure how well ERA tells the whole story, but at least on the Marlins side, a lot of those players still hadn't come into their own yet, either because of age or injury.
Also, Rodriguez wasn't the sole pickup that year as the Tigers added Polanco, Ordonez, and as I recall, moved Inge to 3B, substantially increasing team defense.
Sure, and the Marlins put Alex Gonzalez at shortstop and improved their outfield, too. However, I think that is enough cross-the-board ERA improvement on his last two full season new team trials that you have to consider his "handling" of pitchers must be more on the plus side, if not pretty far on the plus side, than on the minus side as SGreenwell and you seemed to imply. In fact, I think that is primarily why The Nationals hired him. They are, perhaps, misled by the coinciding improved defense and naturally improving young pitchers he worked with, but, at least, they did improve.
I don't know, I'd read some BP studies that said catcher's affect on ERA was minimal if anything besides the catcher's own defensive traits like catcher caught stealing, preventing passed balls etc.
I still lean towards the Marlins and Tigers defenses improving in explaining the better ERA, especially when I consider that the Rangers didn't have a good pitching staff nor graduated many rookies during his tenure.
Looking beyond the ERA's, both teams also improved in areas where it seems pitch selection would matter. I also threw in UZR to get some idea of the difference in defense between the teams.
Marlins
H/9 HR/9 BB/9 K/9 UZR
'02 9.0 0.9 3.9 6.8 -26.7
'03 8.8 0.8 3.3 7.0 -7.3
Tigers
H/9 HR/9 BB/9 K/9 UZR
'03 10.1 1.2 3.5 4.8 -42.3
'04 9.6 1.2 3.3 6.2 -26.7
It seems like both teams improved in areas where a catcher calling a game could make a difference. Of course, much of this could also come from a young staff maturing. Clearly neither team had a stellar defense, but each one did improve from the previous year.
Also, it might be worth noting that Willis was a rookie for the Marlins in '03, and he had a fantastic year (14-6, 3.30 ERA). He's perhaps the closest comparison to Strasburg among the pitchers on these teams (a 21 year-old rookie pitching in the majors for the first time), but of course without half the hype. I do think Kevin makes an interesting point that has some good reasoning behind it, and it's one I hadn't heard before.