Carlos Beltran, Jose Reyes, and Ignoring the Contract Year Fallacy
No matter what Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran have accomplished to this point, the duo will witness every iota of their 2011 performance being scrutinized in the context of their future with the Mets organization.
Beltran's knee. Reyes's heart. Beltran's home run total. Reyes's stolen bases. All of it is in play in this conversation and rightfully so considering the important questions facing the Mets regarding the team's longest tenured member and former All-Star outfielder. Each of them will need to prove their worth to the team on their merits and be judged in the context of their present health and past performance.
So rather than engage that dialogue and judge the pair on their achievements so far, some folks are already dismissing it as a mirage due to each player's contract year status. Each of them will get paid by somebody in the offseason, which should provide them ample motivation to raise their game and deliver in the clutch. They're both just looking out for themselves and not the team's best interests. Selfish Beltran and Selfish Reyes strike again.
If you find yourself in this growing contract year camp, please keep reading to learn why I intend to flog you with my shoe.
Are you familiar with Occam's Razor? The principle recommends favoring simpler explanations and rules of thumb rather than longer, more thorough responses. Why explain it in seven steps when you can do it in three?The rule of thumb about players raising their games in contract years is a baseball spin on Occam's Razor. It emanates from anecdotal evidence of players like Adrian Beltre or Bret Boone that produce better numbers right as the time comes to start negotiating their next contract. The payday somehow provides extra motivation for Beltre to step up his game and focus more intently than he would in a non-contract year. Winning isn't enough, but money never fails to motivate.
Of course, the contract year phenomenon is also wrong. At his SABR 36 presentation in 2005, Phil Birnbaum gave a presentation on whether players outperform in their contract years. Birnbaum recounted his study on whether players could deliberately find ways to outperform and found no significant evidence of it being a true phenomenon. He found no meaningful change in the average performance of contract-year players from a pool of players between 1977-2001. Instead, Birnbaum hypothesized that free agents tend to be older players and that aging could explain some of the post-contract year decline.
If aging is a reasonable explanation for why a player may decline following a contract year, then it already lines up for Beltran's detractors to jump all over him should he falter. They'll dismiss his present .295/.387/.590 line this season as luck and small sample size, even though he's only significantly slugging over his .282/.360/.496 career line. The detractors don't care that Beltran's hitting as well as he did over a full season in 2006. He didn't swing at that Adam Wainwright curveball in 2006 and he was hurt the last two years. That's the new normal.
And Reyes? At age 27, he's likely starting to hit his peak years as many position players do at age 27. But he abandoned us with his thyroid issue and hamstring issues and WHY THE HELL IS HE LAUGHING WHEN WE'RE LOSING?!?!? We're supposed to dismiss his current rebound as a contract year mirage and expect his performance to crater when history indicates he should be peaking.
Listen, I'm receptive to a healthy dose of skepticism when discussing Beltran or Reyes. The entire reason they're under a microscope revolves around all the questions they need to answer this season. They dug holes over the past two seasons with poor performances and poorer health that previously looked insurmountable and only now reveals a way out.
I simply cannot stand anyone marching out the contract year fallacy to dismiss what the duo has done so far and will likely continue to do until either player slumps and the detractors can point their fingers and shout "I told you so!" at anyone who will listen. They're not playing well because they're selfish. They're playing well because, when healthy, Carlos Beltran and Jose Reyes are good at baseball.
And I swear, if both players find new homes in 2012 and excel and you try to whine that "They never cared about the Mets because they never did that for us" and point your fingers some more, I will hunt you down with my other shoe and flog you for not appreciating what that player likely did in Flushing all along when health wasn't an issue.
I wear a size 15. I promise to make it hurt.
80 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
.

One day, this team is going to kill me.
by fxcarden on May 13, 2011 2:07 PM EDT reply actions 4 recs
When you go around flogging everyone
can I come with you? We can make it a kind of Inglourious Basterds (or however you spell it) thing.
"Everything's gonna be awesome." -Ken Oberkfell
"ARSHAVIN IS MAGIC" -Brooks Peck
by Thomas Wachtel on May 13, 2011 2:15 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
You probably heard we ain't in the perspective-takin' business.
We in the floggin’ boneheads business. And cousin, business is a-boomin’.
Jagr? Seriously?
by Matthew Artus on May 13, 2011 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
kind of thinking more along jay and silent bob strike back
go house to house and flog people til they take it back
I LIKE IKE!
I think I can see
Uranus.
"You can spend minutes, hours, days weeks or even months overanalyzing a situation; trying to put the pieces together, justifying what would’ve, could’ve happened – or you can just leave the pieces on the floor and move the **** on."
-Tupac Amaru Shakur
by NetsMets4Life on May 13, 2011 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions
That was great
Give W some credit, he dodged that like a champ
by Stephen Schmidt on May 13, 2011 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions
If you can dodge a shoe,
you can dodge a [COMMENT REDACTED FOR POLITICAL CONTENT]
"Everything's gonna be awesome." -Ken Oberkfell
"ARSHAVIN IS MAGIC" -Brooks Peck
by Thomas Wachtel on May 14, 2011 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions
#donttradereyes
#donttradereyes
I hate Philadelphia so much.
by the caveman on May 13, 2011 2:43 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
dang
i’m realy getting tired of trade talk. we might actualy be in contention come trading deadlne. if we only had more pitching…
"it's not easy being green"-kermit the frog
"we the mets are an improved ball club, now we lose in extra innings"-casy stengal
i cant spell a nosebleed
he's gone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!OLIE PEREZ IS GONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
we don't though
We don’t have more pitching – in fact we have less than we did two weeks ago with Young and Mejia both going down.
don't remind me
"it's not easy being green"-kermit the frog
"we the mets are an improved ball club, now we lose in extra innings"-casy stengal
i cant spell a nosebleed
he's gone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!OLIE PEREZ IS GONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Um
Why do we get so angry at unnamed straw men? There are lots of them stuffed throughout this piece. I really don’t think more than a rump of professional irritatants actually thinks, e.g., Reyes is a slacker. Just maybe a couple of links would have helped, especially on a site that gets so haughty about empircism.
Also, aging is a convenient scapegoat for nearly all declines, isn’t it? It’s guaranteed to correlate at least from one year to the next.
Right,
it’s not like since 2007 we have had to listen to a bunch of random critiques on Reyes game. It’s not like we heard that his heart wasn’t in it. It’s not like we heard that he shows up opponents and thus makes their desire to win that much more (we know how much passion and desire make a difference in the standings), it isn’t as if anybody has talked about his handshakes and how he isn’t focused. It’s not as if we have had to endure endless droves of stupid people calling Reyes an injury prone talent who will never be a winner. Obviously Matthew made all of these things up. None are based in fact.
by nrmax88 on May 13, 2011 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 6 recs
+1
Columnist at Beyond the Box Score. Occasional contributor at Amazin' Avenue.
by Bill Petti on May 13, 2011 3:55 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Again, aren't these just talk radio idiots?
Aiming to inflame, needlessly combative, trying to provoke a response? I’m sure that sort of behavior rings a bell for you. What I’ve heard is a lot of people talking about how OTHER people talk about the handshakes, but apart from a few shock jocks who are contrarian solely to generate traffic/phone calls, I’ve never actually heard actual Met fans complain about any of that.
Like
other than Greg Pondo, or whatever the heck his name is? A real, live Met fan? A friend or family member who is otherwise rational?
I've heard it at the park (so I have no idea if that person(s) was other wise logical)
and I’ve heard it from someone outside of the park (who does seem to be otherwise rational).
People do listen to the MSM. It’s hard not to if you aren’t confronted with the evidence that says they are full of BS.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
I'd still contend that it's a tiny minority
everyone gets frustrated with players at times. Ultimately, though, I think the rank and file Met fans love Reyes. He gets huge ovations. I’ve never heard any rumblings about him “turning it on” for his walk year, though we’ll see that, as we see it with every single player in a walk year who performs especially well.
The one guy who is probably underappreciated is Beltran, and that’s the consequence of both not swinging at the Wainwright pitch, and simply not being around for two years.
And leave it to some dude at the bottom of the thread
to make me rethink all of this. Basically, it’s just short term thinking. If I guy is sucking, he ALWAYS sucks and needs to be kicked to the curb, and if he’s doing well, he’s a hero.
Go to the pages of metsblog for a little bit
You will hear the same “reyes and beltran having a good contract year lolllll” at least 3 or 4 times per large thread. Some of the less informed, who still think ERA is the be all end all of pitching stats, even throw KRod into that group.
The way they tell it a player never played well except when he got to sign a contract next year.
by Shea Strausman on May 13, 2011 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Wait...
so aging isn’t something that actually happens to baseball players? It’s just a convenient scapegoat? What?
Players get old. Players get injured. I don’t see how that’s not realistic and how it’s just a “scapegoat”.
Chamption of the R.A. Dickey Face contest and "Cromulent Photoshopper Extraordinaire" of Amazin' Avenue!
by Steve Schreiber on May 13, 2011 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions
No, they get old
it’s just that you can always fall back on age to explain any decline, because, by definition, the player will be older at the end of the decline.
I hear more about Beltran being selfish or Jose being a slacker on Amazing Avenue
than anywhere else. The people here have a tendency to overdo their sarcastic jokes a bit too much. We’ve repeated “Traid David Wrongz” so many times here, a lot of people actually think that’s what most Mets fans want to see. It’s slightly obnoxious but overblowing/exaggerating media reports has become a meme onto itself here.
As for the aging thing, I agree. It’s one thing to say that a player gets worse when he’s older, and entirely another to put up a career year when a contract is up. That said, the whole idea of the contract year breakout is overblown simply because it’s happened to a few high profile guys (Beltran, Andruw Jones, Beltre, etc) so it’s stuck. In actuality, it might be 50/50. Hopefully players are smart enough to play hard throughout the duration of their contract if they want $$$.
"I only wanted a few things out of life -- a wife, children, to play baseball and to hunt deer." - Turk Wendell
Exactly
It’s largely a straw man, albeit with some basis in reality. It’s just that that basis is a tiny minority of deliberately contrarian bloggers and radio personalities. Without getting overtly political by taking a side, this is precisely how both political parties characterize their opposition.
Also, lumping all of his critics together isn’t fair. If someone once complained about him showboating, that doesn’t mean he thinks the showboating shows that he’s a completely unserious douchenozzle who will never accomplish anything.
Reyes is Reyes. He’s having a great year thus far, and we’re happy about it. He goes through slumps, too, and we’ll see those this year. The vast majority of die-hard Met fans love Reyes. He is one of our most popular players. The incident where he stormed off the field after being taken out for any injury was really the one time I saw the media try to create a storm, and, quite frankly, given the circumstances, I thought he should have been a bit more forgiving of a manager in his first game. But the story really didn’t “take.” He was also painted with the same brush as Wright after the “Collapse.” There’s a reason the meme is TRAID DAVID WRONG — he got as much of it as Reyes.
You’re right about confirmation bias on the walk year thing. As many guys totally eff up their walk year as get it together.
I will say, though
that Beltran actually does seem to get quite a bit of undue criticism for being quiet and “unclutch,” which was pretty much unavoidable after the Wainwright thing. There’s no way that was getting past the chuckleheads.
Is it time to trade Beltran?
Is is value ever likely to be higher than right now? What would you want to get for him?
His value will be higher closer to the trade deadline
__________________________________________________
"He who gets the best players usually wins" - Bobby Bowden
Also, what performance does he need to be a type A free agent?
The two draft picks may be more valuable than anything we get for him, depending on how much the league trusts his knees. I would almost rather have the opportunity to watch him play some more.
This.
Chamption of the R.A. Dickey Face contest and "Cromulent Photoshopper Extraordinaire" of Amazin' Avenue!
by Steve Schreiber on May 13, 2011 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm sure Omar had a hand in that as well...he never really understood the importance of draft picks.
“Draft picks? Arbitration? Who the hell needs those, you know? I lobby, you know, that I’ll sign 70 year old Type A free agent Moises Alou before 2007 and, you know, give up draft picks for him and then, you know, trade, you know, pending Type A free agent Billy Wagner for trash, chicken bones and, you know, some PHer named Chris Carter anyway.”
Chamption of the R.A. Dickey Face contest and "Cromulent Photoshopper Extraordinaire" of Amazin' Avenue!
by Steve Schreiber on May 14, 2011 12:56 AM EDT up reply actions
I thought so too, but...
I don’t think anyone would pay him the $12MM+ he’s still owed, though. We’d probably have to pay half that, and even then, we’re not getting a top prospect.
The thing is: it’s not about Beltran. It’s about the buyer. Committing now to “going for it” is hard when you’re the small-market Oakland A’s. It’s hard when you’re the prospect-strapped Detroit Tigers. It’s hard when you’re the suddenly overperforming Royals or Marlins. Oh, and you need to need a RF/DH pretty badly.
That’s pretty limiting. But fast forward to mid-June and it changes.
Learn something new every day: http://dlewis.net/nik
Why do we need the salary relief?
Why not just ask for players? His contract is coming off the books after the season, we don’t need to find someone to take it off our hands.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
I don't think he's saying that.
I think he’s talking about the salary constraints of other teams, who aren’t yet sure if they’ll be contenders. That’s why it makes little sense to deal Beltran now. Dealing him now would still be a pure salary dump move. If you wait into June/July, that’s when you could ask for some legitimate prospects because more teams should be interested/officially ready to “go for it.”
Chamption of the R.A. Dickey Face contest and "Cromulent Photoshopper Extraordinaire" of Amazin' Avenue!
by Steve Schreiber on May 14, 2011 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Whether or not
either Reyes or Beltran come back to the Mets next season, is it wrong for me to wish that we don’t trade either one of them? I’d just like to enjoy what we have for as long as possible.
Enjoying what may be the final season of two of my favorite Mets in Blue and Orange: Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran
I don't think it's wrong at all.
I’d love to see them stay here longer than just the end of this season. At least with Reyes, though, we have the draft picks to fall back on. With Beltran, it’s either compete for a playoff spot/keep him or trade him or bust. If there were picks to fall back on, that’d make his situation a lot easier than even Reyes’.
Chamption of the R.A. Dickey Face contest and "Cromulent Photoshopper Extraordinaire" of Amazin' Avenue!
by Steve Schreiber on May 13, 2011 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Its only a matter of time before Brian Singer shows up
Gas prices today are a lot like a pitcher's ERA. Anything under 3 is amazing, under 4 is pretty good and anything 5 and up is something you want to avoid.
seriously though
Let’s trade beltran now. His stock really can’t get any higher. What can we expect to get?
as dandot says,
We need some teams who can see themselves in the post-season, and believe they’ve got what it takes but for what Beltran could provide, so they’ll be willing give up something real nice. Nobody’s going to fit that bill till mid-season.
That said, I will not be sorry if we keep him.
At this point,
we might as well just play the Beltran lottery…we’re already a month and a half into it now and things are looking up. Trading him now will likely get us nothing back other than salary relief (and maybe not even). However, wait a month or two, let his value build and as long as he stays healthy, we could actually get something worthwhile for him. I’d say mid to late June is the time to start heavily shopping him if that’s what they want to do. If you trade him right now, you’re just throwing assets away while waving the white flag on 2011 (which would be far too early in the season…it’s not even Memorial Day).
Chamption of the R.A. Dickey Face contest and "Cromulent Photoshopper Extraordinaire" of Amazin' Avenue!
by Steve Schreiber on May 13, 2011 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, wait
Wait until there are a few desperate teams who are willing to overpay for a shot at the postseason.
__________________________________________________
"He who gets the best players usually wins" - Bobby Bowden
While I agree with your message here
You’re misunderstanding Occam’s Razor.
First things first. Yes. I still exist, and yes, it took a historical-logical appeal (along with a slow work day) to draw me out. Now that that’s out of the way….
The popular, though incorrect, definition of Occam’s Razor is “the simplest explanation is the most likely explanation.” This is incorrect and actually can lead to heuristic contradictions of Occam’s Razor’s actual intent.
The actual definition, and its intended meaning, is as follows: “Plurality must never be posited without necessity”. What this means is, you shouldn’t add extraneous entities to explanations if they add no significant empirically demonstrable or logical likelihood to the explanations. It is a method of clarifying judgment to avoid the pitfalls and biases of heuristic shortcuts.
For a simple example (this is the one my philosophy professor in college used that I felt best explained it), lets say you’re walking along a dirt road and you see hoofprints. Occam’s Razor asserts that you should not assume a zebra, rather than a horse, has walked by recently. Broken down, the this is how it works: You should assume that a quadripedal animal of similar weight and mass to a horse recently walked over this area. You should not assume that a quadripedal animal of similar weight and mass to a horse AND one that has black and white stripes walked over this area. The assumption of black and white stripes is an extraneous entity. Given the facts provided, there is no reason to posit this extraneous entity without further information. This doesn’t necessarily mean you should posit that the animal WAS NOT a zebra, simply that you should not specifically posit that it WAS a zebra. Add in the fact that there are more horses in this part of the world than zebra’s, and you can posit that it was a horse without violating Occam’s Razor. However, if you were in Africa, where zebras are more common, you could more plausibly posit that it was a zebra without violating Occam’s Razor. My original set of facts included neither of these though, and thus positing zebrahood would violate Occam’s Razor (positing horsehood is a bit trickier, since I assume the vast majority of us are from North America and therefore there are likely underlying assumptions that make horsehood seem more plausible, however, given only the bare facts provided initially without any geographical information, we could probably say this could also be a violation of Occam’s Razor—the only type of claim you can make that wouldn’t violated Occam’s Razor would be something like “a quadripedal, hooved animal likely similar to a horse or perhaps a zebra recently walked over this area”).
If anything, I would argue that the “contract year” theory violates Occam’s Razor. The whole contract year thing is an extraneous entity, which, as the data you provided shows, offers no demonstrably empirical evidence that it has any bearing on player performance. As you point out, is it not more likely that they’re playing well simply because they are healthy and talented baseball players? Those two conditions have far more demonstrable effect on a player’s performance than whether or not he’s in a contract year.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on May 13, 2011 4:39 PM EDT reply actions 7 recs
Is this Nick Evans?
Chamption of the R.A. Dickey Face contest and "Cromulent Photoshopper Extraordinaire" of Amazin' Avenue!
by Steve Schreiber on May 13, 2011 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
In other words
the contract year explanation is actually not “the simplest explanation” because it requires accepting a number of tenuous propositions.
And something about a zebra.
I wanna know what happens if
the hoof prints turn to be Daffy Duck just fucking with you.
One day, this team is going to kill me.
Right, Occam's Razor says "the most efficient answer, is the best one".
The example I like to give is such: If you can explain the weather by explaining prevailing winds, due point, humidity, etc, there’s no need to then say “oh, and there’s Zeus too.”
Save Jenrry Mejia!
that's a bad example
because Zeus is an easier explanation than “prevailing winds, due point, humidity, etc.”
2009 Did Not Happen
But Occam's Razor isn't about an "easy" answer.
It’s about sufficient answers. Zeus is not a sufficient answer because even if he did control the weather, there would still be the physical laws of nature (prevailing winds, due point, humidity, etc.).
Save Jenrry Mejia!
Well said
This whole discussion aggravates me. I say we just let it lie. On thé other hand , i am all for shoe flogging those who deserve it, so Matt gets a rec as well.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own"
-Adam Savage
by blueandorange4life on May 13, 2011 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Two points
First, great to hear from you. Glad to know you’re still among the living.
Second, I think it’s key to point that the “contract year” theory supports Occam’s Razor if those supporting it are predisposed to do so. If you’re predisposed to drawing conclusions after reviewing the empirical data, then it shows you that they’re healthy and talented. If you’re predisposed to drawing conclusions after relying on anecdotal evidence, then it may show that contract years add a bump. So it works either way.
But yes, you’re right. It’s likely a violation of the theory. My wife really likes zebras, though. So I have to play both sides of the fence.
Jagr? Seriously?
by Matthew Artus on May 13, 2011 11:24 PM EDT up reply actions
No points, and may god have mercy on your soul.
Nah, lots of points, but when’s the last time you heard a Billy Madison reference?
I think Occam’s Razor just isn’t the right way to distill this argument. In my preferred definition, Occam’s Razor requires “all things to be equal”. i.e.: “All things being equal, the simpler of two explanations for a phenomenon is more likely.”
In the case of people making decisions about why a baseball player in his walk year is hitting .353 (or whatever), the fact is that we have too much potentially substantive information to apply Occam’s Razor: we know his OPS and every other stat on the planet, his health history, his family strife, the general age at which physical talent will stop developing, etc, etc; and we apply this information differently in making our determination about the reason for Reyes/Beltran’s performance. Thus, all things are not equal, and Occam’s Razor breaks, and the shoe beatings begin. After which we all go home and drink.
After all: I drink, therefore I am.
Stop looking at me, swan.
Fair point. I don’t know that it breaks Occam’s Razor, but rather conflicts with it as Mark pointed out.
That said, I’ll try to include more drunken zebras in my next argument.
Jagr? Seriously?
by Matthew Artus on May 14, 2011 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
That's a faulty understanding of Occam's Razor.
It’s not about “simplest”, it’s about efficiency. And it’s not even about which answer is “more likely”, it’s about which is best. Occam’s Razor states that the most efficient answer is best one. That means that the answer which most directly comes to the correct conclusion is the best available answer.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
I believe Michelangelo summarized it best when he said,
“Beauty is the purgation of superfluities.”
The 2011 New York Mets: Limit the Damage
gotta keep reyes, trade beltran this summer but make sure there is high probably return. wright definitely dealable. he’s become a major liability and it’s obvious he will never be a clutch hitter.
Shoot the puck Barry!!!
Where do people get their information?
Sometimes I hate NY sports fans. So quick to rid themselves of a player and take on a new one.
Irrational Mets fan known for memorable ranting and raving, when things inevitably go wrong.
I'm about ready to put my head through a wall.
These people are going to kill me.
Chamption of the R.A. Dickey Face contest and "Cromulent Photoshopper Extraordinaire" of Amazin' Avenue!
by Steve Schreiber on May 14, 2011 1:01 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah
nobody ever says we should trade Wright
"Everything's gonna be awesome." -Ken Oberkfell
"ARSHAVIN IS MAGIC" -Brooks Peck
by Thomas Wachtel on May 14, 2011 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
lohaus#54?
__________________________________________________
"He who gets the best players usually wins" - Bobby Bowden
thank you
I’ve been trying to make this exact point on metsblog for like the last 3 days. you did it better than I could.
Screw all the haters. LGM.
you should probably stop trying to make points on that site
unless you are keeping track of the funniest (dumbest) comments you see in order to make an end of year ‘i cant believe people think or type this stuff’ article for us AA readers to laugh at :P. otherwise, it is just too frustrating, disheartening and as pointless as an dicktorino’s life
I LIKE IKE!
Dr. Steve Brule says a better title for this post wold be
“For your health, dumb dumb”

Save Jenrry Mejia!




































