| By Adam H. Wong |  | By 12-18-2012 |
For the second year in a row, the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim have flexed financial muscle to obtain the most coveted free agent on the market. The Angels are paying Josh Hamilton, based on average annual value, as much as the Philadelphia Phillies are paying Ryan Howard. Whether or not you think Hamilton's worth the cash, there's no doubt that the Angels have made a statement: win now at any cost. Many baseball pundits are saying that the Halos are the biggest threat in the American League, but I'm not so sure.
While browsing over Hamilton's stats, one thing stood out. The number of strikeouts he had in 2012 increased almost 50 percent, jumping to 162 strikeouts from 93 in 2011. As I was about to start my investigation, the folks over at Fangraphs addressed his contact issues. So rather than rehash that research, I decided to try to project how he will perform in the future based on an age curve.
Before we look at how Josh Hamilton could perform, it's worth noting that he's had a major league career unlike most players. He's not a late bloomer like Carlos Pena: although Pena and Hamilton both hit their strides at age 29, Pena had been in the majors since he was 23, and Hamilton couldn't play until age 26. And even though the Halos are paying Hamilton elite-caliber money like Albert Pujols, The Machine had made an impact in the National League as soon as he debuted at age 21. Hamilton's a unique case in that, although he performed at an elite level at the age most impact bats do, he lacks the early-twenties major league track record that most all-stars have.
To find comparable players, I searched for players that were ages 26 to 37, bat left handed, played at least half of their games in either corner outfield position, and hit at least 30 home runs and qualified for the batting title. Why 30 home runs? Well, if you're going to pay Hamilton superstar money like Alex Rodriguez, Prince Fielder, Mark Teixeira or Pujols, he better perform like the top paid position players. Although home runs aren't the best benchmark for analysis, it's the statistic that most franchises overvalue, and in doing so we should be able to filter out replacement level players.
That query pulled up 33 different players. For example, Adam Dunn had three seasons where he hit more than 30 home runs playing either corner outfield position, but since 2008, he's split time at first base and designated hitter as well. Dunn's stats while not playing the outfield will still count towards our analysis, because we need to see how he aged.
Now that I have these players, I want to plot two different statistics from that age range: their Baseball Reference-based WAR and OPS+. I want to use rWAR because it can take into account defense from players before 2002, and OPS+ will give us what percentage better or worse the player was compared to the rest of the league. One inaccuracy that we might get from using OPS+ is that it doesn't take into account the amount of games played, but the logic should still be sound. Let's plot the majority of those players on a graph.
The average WAR is the bold black line, and Hamilton's WAR is the bold red line. It's worth noting that only five players ended their age 37 campaign with a WAR above four: Barry Bonds, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Carl Yastrzemski and Brian Giles, and both Yastrzemski and Giles were coming off of below average years.
Other than being an eyesore, one of the things that this chart reveals is that it's hard to find sustainable success as a power-hitting corner outfielder. Ruth and Bonds are the clear outliers, but both of them performed at a legendary level. There's no way Hamilton will ever reach that type of production. He doesn't have the track record like a Bonds or Ruth, and he hasn't shown the type of production that would merit the "legendary" label. Here's the chart for the average OPS+ between all of the players.
Okay, so now that I've geeked out a bit, let's talk about what this all means.
It's obvious that Josh Hamilton is worth $125 million over five years in the immediate, but at the back end of the deal, when the Angels will be paying Hamilton progressively more per year, it's going to be hard to justify the deal. The end goal for every baseball team is to win the World Series, and if that comes at the cost of mortgaging the present, then that's the path Arte Moreno and company will have to live with.
If the Angels make it to the World Series, let alone win the Fall Classic, all of their investments will pay themselves off. But don't you think an ownership group would want sustainability? Every franchise wants to be like the late-90's New York Yankees--always in contention, always competitive. The 1996 Yankees were the perfect blend of a team constructed to win. New York utilized free agency to sign players like David Cone, they traded for Paul O'Neill a few years before then, and they groomed the likes of Andy Pettitte, Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera from their farm system.
Josh Hamilton could be the one piece that puts Los Angeles over the top. Having Mike Trout, Pujols and Hamilton in the lineup is a modern day Murderer's Row, but it's hard to look past the fact that the veterans of the team aren't getting any younger. Looking at A-Rod's OPS+ year by year, he's followed that declining trend since age 32. It's a bit troubling for Yankee's fans no doubt, and he's locked up until age 41. The Halos could be one of the best teams in baseball, but their timeline is narrow.
Using all of the historical data I culled together, this how Josh Hamilton's stats project for 2013 and onward.
| Age | AVG | OBP | SLG |
| 26 | 0.292 | 0.368 | 0.554 |
| 27 | 0.304 | 0.371 | 0.530 |
| 28 | 0.268 | 0.315 | 0.426 |
| 29 | 0.359 | 0.411 | 0.633 |
| 30 | 0.298 | 0.346 | 0.536 |
| 31 | 0.285 | 0.354 | 0.577 |
| 32 | 0.291 | 0.347 | 0.562 |
| 33 | 0.287 | 0.344 | 0.573 |
| 34 | 0.285 | 0.337 | 0.550 |
| 35 | 0.275 | 0.310 | 0.533 |
| 36 | 0.273 | 0.314 | 0.485 |
| 37 | 0.270 | 0.310 | 0.482 |
While Hamilton will more than likely be an above average player, he just won't be able to sustain an elite level of success. The Angels, like most teams that taste the allure of success, are going all-in, just for a shot at the World Series. Hamilton is a great player, and he has a few good years left in him. But the recent surge of strikeouts is a red flag, and unless he fixes some of the holes in his approach at the plate in 2013, this might be one signing that Los Angeles will regret sooner rather than later.
If you want to peruse some of the data I used, here's a link to the Google doc.
Adam H. Wong can be reached via email at wong@prospectinsider.com. Follow him on Twitter here.
projecting-the-36-year-old-josh-hamilton
Comments
The following 19 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: Paul Martin on 12-18-2012 20:11:31 Nice article Adam! Graphs made me a bit dizzy trying to follow them all! Angels aren't winning ANYTHING until they get some more pitching. Would give anything to have a passionate and free spending owner like Arte Moreno though... |
| 2. By: Lonnie on 12-18-2012 21:16:16 Adam, The Angles pulled off this deal for two reasons. One was in fact to win now, but the other, which was equally important, was to stick a thumb into the eye of the Dodgers. The Angles and Dodgers are in a fight for supremacy of greater Los Angeles market and both sides are willing to dole out the big bucks to take the crown. Whoever wins hearts of the market will have the larger fanbase (ie: money) going forward. Otherwise, no sane person would be throwing this kind of money around. |
| 3. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-18-2012 23:04:00 While that's true, Lonnie -- as is the idea that LAA took a player away from their toughest division rival -- it doesn't change the facts laid out by Adam in the least. The only thing that saves the Angels is the simple fact that they have money to cover up most bad contracts. That doesn't mean, however, that the Angels won't privately regret the signing if Hamilton's career takes the angle the above chart suggests. Those last three years he's likely to be a full-time DH on top of the below league average OBPs. The Yankees have proven, too, that all clubs have a tipping point. They still lead the majors, by a long shot, in total revenues generated and are still adamant about the luxury tax in 2014 and its benefits for their future immediately following. With Pujols and Hamilton both potentially being bad contracts in a few years, it could prevent the Angels from some things down the road, including things they would not need in three years if they aren't paying Hamilton $25 million to be a 2 WAR player. On top of how this could impact the Angels, the Mariners' may have missed out on the benefits of signing Hamilton, but they also avoid the potential dangers of giving him $125 million guaranteed. The Mariners cannot absorb contracts in the same manner. |
| 4. By: Jazz00 on 12-19-2012 06:39:09 Adam, I really needed this analysis. Though I felt the Angels overpaid for Hamilton I really wanted us to get his bat and I was disgusted for a day or two when we didn't get him. But the longer time has passed I realized he just wasn't worth it at the cost the Angels went to and your analysis has helped me get over it. Thanks for information. |
| 5. By: Docmilo on 12-19-2012 07:35:15 Jason, Lonnie said the Angels were competing with the Dodgers not their toughest division rival. It's all about market share not the AL West. Bringing up the fact that Hamilton would end up a DH would make sense that the Angels are rumored to be looking to move Morales more than Trumbo or Bourjos. Keep the young outfielders (and Trumbo can play 1st) and rotating Hamilton and Pujols thru the DH spot as much as possible will keep the old guys fresh. As far as the ability to absorb contracts? If the M's were putting 35,000 butts in the seats every night, how would that impact their ability to absorb a contract of this nature? |
| 6. By: rth1986 on 12-19-2012 08:30:23 Reading Rosenthal's piece about the Mariners re-sparked my irrational hope for the Mariners to acquire Stanton. Do you think a package of Montero, Walker, Franklin + 1 decent MLB piece (maybe Carp or Beavan) would get it done? That's a pretty big haul, in my opinion, and could potentially give the Marlins three above-average players under team control for a long time. Stanton would just fit so well... |
| 7. By: Edman on 12-19-2012 09:16:17 rth1986, you need to start thinking logically. Unless Seattle is willing to give up Felix, Stanton isn't coming to Seattle. They are not going to sell low on him. |
| 8. By: Marco on 12-19-2012 09:29:11 "The Angles pulled off this deal for two reasons. One was in fact to win now..." Not a bad idea to TRY TO WIN sometimes. Actually I do not need any further reason. |
| 9. By: maqman on 12-19-2012 11:23:06 I'm in the "glad the M's didn't sign him" camp too, for all of the reasons stated. Without Trout the LAAofA crew would be in serious trouble in 2 or 3 years. Imagine what they could have bought if they had left Wells in Toronto. Imagine Toronto being in position to win the AL East if they still were paying Wells. Albatross contracts are serious;y dangerous. The Yankees are going to have some heavy issues to deal with in coming seasons related to the age, cost and production from their Over The Hill Gang. I really believe the M's are doing the right thing by being cautious and building a young and sustainable team. That doesn't preclude them from spending millions on free agents if the cost is right and the risk is reasonable. There's a SS and OF from Cuba, aged 22 and 24 recently cleared to be signed by MLB that might be worth a look. |
| 10. By: rjfrik on 12-19-2012 12:41:05 So the Angels are actively shopping Morales for a pitcher who eats innings. My guess is they are looking for a back of rotation starter who will log 200 innings. Is it just me or is Vargas a perfect.t ade partner? We could grab a great.bat in Morales, make him an offer after next year, if he declines and bolts we get a comp pick. Then fill Vargas spot with a FA like Jackson or Marcum. Seems like JZ should be all over this. |
| 11. By: marinermutt on 12-19-2012 13:14:32 Would the Angels want to trade in their same division? Morales has much more perceived value than Vargas so the M's would have to throw in more. Probably a lot more. Would love to have Morales but I just don't see the Angels sending him off to us. |
| 12. By: Rudolf on 12-19-2012 13:40:59 Totally agree, rjfrik. Who knows, maybe they would prefer Blake Beaven. It's not like we're serious competition for them anyways so trading in division doesn't seem like a big deal. As much as I'd like to see the Angels crumble beneath the weight of an overpaid aging lineup I just don't see it happening. When your payroll is 150 million you can afford to have two guys making $25 million producing two WAR apiece. And it's not like they can't increased the payroll up to 170 million if they need to! Their market is enormous and their owner likes to spend money. Wishing for their franchise to buckle is futile in my opinion. Our best plan to best the Angels is to build a team with a dominant pitching staff. That's all you really need to beat anybody. between Felix and the hope of our big four we have the makings of that pitching staff. I would like to think Jack knows when it's time to buy the right piece. Apparently now is not that time (or the piece isn't there). |
| 13. By: skyway park on 12-19-2012 14:11:49 We just traded Vargas for Morales yes yes yes |
| 14. By: VikingArthur on 12-19-2012 14:22:01 @10...GREAT CALL!! Great trade, I am very happy with it. I think we need JAC to explain what this means for the Smoak, Montero, Jaso and crew. |
| 15. By: VikingArthur on 12-19-2012 14:24:42 I also wonder what the plan is for someone to take those 34 starts Vargas took. I really think this is the first domino for the Mariners in terms of their offseason plan. More moves to come, I am sure of it. |
| 16. By: Wishhiker on 12-19-2012 14:24:49 Yeah, nice call on that. looks like a good move to me and it happened pretty shortly after you suggested it. |
| 17. By: masonb on 12-19-2012 14:27:41 And now JZ can scream at the media: "Are you not entertained?" |
| 18. By: rjfrik on 12-19-2012 16:56:44 Lol. Thats crazy. I'm on set all day today away from internet, had a chance to browse briefly earlier so I stopped.by the site to give my two cents and then have another brief break and checked back by to see what you guys thought. Low and behold! JZ is a smart guy ;) |
| 19. By: greentunic on 12-19-2012 19:50:39 "The number of strikeouts he had in 2012 increased almost 50 percent, jumping to 162 strikeouts from 93 in 2011." Isn't that actually a much higher jump at 74%? 162 - 93 = 69 69 / 93 = .7419 What am I missing? |
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!
|
|
| Copyright 2013 Prospect Insider, Inc. | Created by AQ Central Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome |