Buster Olney is so dumb, he confuses himself

I thought I ought to check in, else Joist will kick me off the blog. I'm happy to report, after my absence, that Buster Olney is still a tool.

First, let's try to figure out what Buster is trying to say here. The headline reads, "Not all big deals are bad deals." It sounds like he is going to point out that some large-value contracts are still worth it because the players are good. But then he lays this opening paragraph on us:

Some players in the game are forever viewed through the lens of their contract. As they are signed, the debate begins about whether they are worth the money, a conversation that continues throughout the duration of their multiyear contract and even beyond. If you separate the player from the money, however, and judge him only on what he provides as a player -- because after all, once the contract is signed, the money is gone -- you might get an entirely different view. There are a number of well-paid players -- players who might even be overpaid -- who serve their team very well.

So now he is actually ignoring the cost of the player, because "once the contract is signed, the money is gone." But the entire point here is whether the player was worth the money, given the alternative ways of spending the same money. That is precisely what made the "big" deals "bad." So ignoring the cost just begs the question. This is like if you had a choice between a Fort Taurus for $30,000 and a Lexus for $25,000, and you came to ask Buster for advice. He would talk about how the Taurus will generally do the job, and will be better than riding a bicycle to work. He will ignore BOTH the cost of the Taurus AND the alternatives you have. Ignoring these things allows you to assert the useless proposition that a player is good because he just shows up every day and plays baseball (and, as we'll see below, Buster actually DOES assert this with regard to a particular player!). The lesson: nobody should ever ask Buster Olney about anything.

Now, to be fair, there is, theoretically, an important point somewhere in here about sunk costs. Once the teams sign the contracts, which in MLB are always guaranteed, the money is indeed gone. So they are faced with the choice of either sticking with what they have or spending additional money on a replacement, and occasionally the player disappoints so severely that it turns out to be worth cutting him lose or sticking him in the minors and paying a replacement for cheap to do the job better (see Cliff Lee last year, the Mets and Bobby Bo, etc.). And often teams fail to recognize that the costs of the first player are gone, and the fact that the money was spent is no reason to go with a crappier alternative. But nobody would argue that any of the players on Buster's list are anywhere near that bad.

Speaking of Buster's list, Buster could (and, perhaps, does? -- it's unclear) argue that some of these deals actually ARE good deals, even considering the cost and even though they were criticized at the time they were signed (see Magglio Ordonez, Derek Lowe, A-Rod and arguably Manny). That would have been a little more useful, ableit still boring. Let's run through a few, shall we?

Gil Meche, Royals: His $55 million contract stunned the industry in the winter of 2006-2007, because going into last season, Meche had never pitched in 190 innings in any season, and won more than 11 games once in his career. But Meche shouldered the responsibility that came with his contract last year, made 34 starts, threw 216 innings and had the best season of his career, with a 3.67 ERA. He went 9-13, but …

That ellipsis is in the original. But WHAT??? Now, I believe Buster is one of those baseball commentators/writers who is dumb enough to think that a pitcher's W-L record actually says something accurate about the pitcher's value. But let's be charitable. Let's replace the ellipsis with "that was due only to the utter putridity of the Royals lineup and bullpen, not any deficiency in Meche." This still shows precisely why the contract was pointless. Why pay premium money for a half-decent pitcher when you are nowhere near contention and will still lose most of your games and when you can instead spend the money and effort on rebuilding a young talent base? Oh that's right, we're ignoring alternatives. Essentially, Buster is just here to inform us that Gil Meche had an ERA of 3.67, which is good (without even examining, by the way, how lucky that ERA might have been). Again, thank you, Buster.

Adrian Beltre, Mariners: He signed a five-year, $65 million deal and has struggled offensively at times, in his first three years with Seattle. But he plays Gold Glove-defense, is perceived to play hard, and has averaged 154 games and 92 RBI in his three seasons. There aren't many third baseman who have been better than that.

We should address this one, because I hear the point made often by Seattlites. The Mariners are a decently wealthy team, but not one of unlimited resources. After all, this is the team that had to shed A-Rod and the Unit for financial reasons. Yes, Beltre is good, but the question is, could the Mariners have paid him less, or done better with the same amount of money, at 3rd base and/or elsewhere on the field? Beltre's VORP last year was 28.6. Not bad, good for 10th among third basemen in baseball last year. Of the nine players above him, one is the aforementioned, unaffordable A-Rod, five have not yet hit free agency, and all three of the remaining players (Chipper Jones, Aramis Ramirez, and Mike Lowell) made less money than Beltre (although it is fair to point out that Jones and Lowell both had injury problems in the preceding two years). Exactly zero of the 3rd basemen with lower VORP's than Beltre made more money than he did last year. VORP fails to account for defense, you say? Beltre is overrated defensively and, according to Baseball Prospectus, was in fact slightly below average last year in that department (a FRAA of -3). Seattle clearly overpaid him based on what everyone outside the Puget Sound area knew to be a freakish 2004 season. The case of Aramis Ramirez is especially instructive -- he was a free agent two years later than Beltre (and thus salaries were more inflated in the interim), had a better, more consistent track record, and signed for less annual value than Beltre.
There, some actual research! It took some work, but I learned way more from that than from all of Buster Olney's columns of all time combined. And I have a very time-consuming profession that is wholly unrelated to baseball (although today is a slow day, as you can see...).

Torii Hunter, Angels: His $90 million contract absolutely stunned executives around baseball, because mostly Hunter is thought of, beyond his spectacular defense, as a very good complementary offensive player -- but not a star hitter. He's 32, has achieved a .290 average, has hit 30 homers once, and driven in 100 or more runs twice. But here's the thing about Hunter. He comes to play every day. He runs down balls in the outfield every day. He is a positive clubhouse presence every day. There will be mornings after night games when other Angels will be lagging and Hunter will lift them. And he will get his share of hits and drive in his share of runs and create more than his share of defensive outs.

I don't need to point out why the Torii Hunter contract was so collossally stupid, or the well-known, alleged fact that the Angels coughed up way more cash than any other team was willing to pay. But how completely lame is Buster's defense? "He comes to play every day"??? What baseball players don't come to play every day? Were the Angels considering some alternative OF who they then discovered would occasionally choose to stay home and watch TV on game day? How will Hunter be less tired than other players on his team for a day game after a night game, and how exactly will he "lift" his teammates? Does he really believe this nonsense? And do these nebulous skills, even if we grant they exist, really require a $95 million outlay? Can't they hire a motivational speaker for $200/hour on those sluggish days? Or maybe they can hire Buster Olney as an inspirational example to show that you can get paid lots of money by the Worldwide Leader in Sports to say absolutely nothing intelligent or interesting.