As I noted earlier in the week, the St. Louis Cardinals are heading toward arbitration hearings with Rick Ankiel (February 12) and Ryan Ludwick (February 17) to settle on one-year salary amounts for each player for the 2009 season.
I thought it would be interesting to look at the club’s arbitration record since the process began. While most who watch this area may be familiar with the fact that the club last went to hearing in 1999, when they defeated pitcher Darren Oliver and his agent Scott Boras, the Cardinals’ history in arbitration goes back much farther.
Fortunately, the late Doug Pappas, long-time chairman of SABR’s Business of Baseball Committee, kept detailed hearing records all the way back to 1974. The basics of what follows is sourced from his work.
Since the process began, there have been almost 500 arbitration hearings across MLB. Of course, many more players filed, but came to terms prior to the actual date. As one of 30 clubs now (though there were fewer teams back in 1974) one might expect the Cardinals to have had no more than about 3% of the cases. That is the approximate actual number, 15. The club’s record against players is very close to the overall MLB historical mark, around 60%.
| Through 2008 | Hearings | Club win | Player win | % club win |
| MLB | 484 | 279 | 205 | 58% |
| Cardinals | 15 | 9 | 6 | 60% |
| StL percent of MLB | 3.1% | 3.2% | 2.9% |
However, most of these Cardinals cases were held during the 1980s, nine of the 15 to be precise. Five more followed in the 1990s, but four of them occurred prior to 1995. Since then, there has been just one, Oliver.
| Cardinals cases | Hearings | Club win | Player win | % club win |
| 1970′s | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0% |
| 1980′s | 9 | 6 | 3 | 67% |
| 1990′s | 5 | 3 | 2 | 60% |
| 2000′s | 0 | 0 | 0 | NA |
Gregg Jefferies: Last to beat the Cards in arbitration (Getty Images/Stephen Dunn)
Ironically, the busiest year for the club was at the end of the boom. In 1994, three players went to arbitration, with the club going 2-1. They lost to first baseman Gregg Jefferies (pictured) and defeated starter Bob Tewksbury and third baseman Todd Zeile. As a result, Jefferies holds the distinction of having been the last player to defeat the Cardinals in a hearing.
And here we sit today, with two players heading toward a showdown with the club over their 2009 salary amounts. The Cardinals could double their total number of hearings in the last 15 years over the span of just six days later this month.
Below are the detailed hearing results, offering a most interesting view of how salaries have risen over the years.
As you will see, some of the most prominent stars of the club during the 1980s and early 1990’s participated in the process – Ozzie Smith, Danny Cox, Jose Oquendo, Vince Coleman and Terry Pendleton among them.
Having just returned to the Cards from the Mets in the Joe Torre trade, pitcher Ray Sadecki was the first-ever case for the club back in 1975. On one hand, the difference between the two sides was just $5,000. On the other hand, it was about 10% of the player’s salary – an amount worth fighting for. The left-hander was traded to Atlanta just three months after winning his case.
In the table, I added to Pappas’ base data the date when each player last suited up for the Cardinals and how he left. There were rumors that some owners did not take kindly to players fighting them over salary. If only the arbitration process had existed in 1972, another lefty, Steve Carlton, might have become a Hall of Famer as a Cardinal instead of as a member of the Philadelphia Phillies.
I include that information not because there is any proven correlation between an arbitration case and the player leaving St. Louis.
Yet do pay special attention to the timing of trade activity, especially in the early years of arbitration. Four of the first five players that took the Cardinals to arbitration didn’t even last through that season before having to pack their bags. Later, the players exerted their financial independence via free agency.
Even as trade rumors swirled around both Ludwick and Ankiel this winter, this data is offered as an interesting conversation piece about which to speculate over what might have been.
| Year | Player* | Club* | Club win | Player win | % club win | Left StL | Reason | |
| 1975 | Ray Sadecki | 52 | 47 | X | May-75 | traded | ||
| 1980 | Will McEnaney | 125 | 65 | X | Mar-80 | released | ||
| 1981 | Tony Scott | 225 | 180 | X | Jun-81 | traded | ||
| 1982 | Ozzie Smith | 750 | 450 | X | Sep-96 | retired | ||
| 1983 | Doug Bair | 450 | 325 | X | Jun-83 | traded | ||
| 1983 | Lonnie Smith | 580 | 500 | X | May-85 | traded | ||
| 1986 | Ricky Horton | 275 | 215 | X | Feb-88 | traded | ||
| 1987 | Danny Cox | 875 | 600 | X | Oct-90 | free agent | ||
| 1988 | Jose Oquendo | 360 | 275 | X | Sep-95 | retired | ||
| 1989 | Vince Coleman | 950 | 775 | X | Nov-90 | free agent | ||
| 1990 | Terry Pendleton | 1850 | 1000 | X | Nov-90 | free agent | ||
| 1994 | Gregg Jefferies | 4600 | 3700 | X | Oct-94 | free agent | ||
| 1994 | Bob Tewksbury | 4500 | 3500 | X | Oct-94 | free agent | ||
| 1994 | Todd Zeile | 3250 | 2700 | X | Jun-95 | traded | ||
| 1999 | Darren Oliver | 4150 | 3550 | X | Oct-99 | free agent | ||
| total | 9 | 6 | 60% | |||||
| 2009 | Rick Ankiel | 3300 | 2350 | |||||
| 2009 | Ryan Ludwick | 4250 | 2800 | |||||
| * amounts in $K |
February 2013 update: “Can Freese learn from the Cardinals’ 2009 arbitration cases?”
Rick Horton , Ozzie Smith, and Jose Oquendo offer examples of people who continued long-time relationships with the Cards, even though the team and player may have at one time been unable to reach agreements without recourse to arbitration.
As the cost of any player rises, this should give any team added financial reason to consider if those costs are better invested elsewhere, justifying a trade.
It unusual for the Cards to go to arbitration in the DeWitt era. The gap between Ludwick and the Cards is the largest ever, in absolute terms.
Ludwick and Ankiel have had unusual ML experiences, which could help explain differences of perspective. Both are getting up there in baseball years and may be pressing hard for this reason.
I believe another current and more pressing factor from the clubs’ perspective than in the past is the state of the economy. Many teams, including the Cardinals, are cutting back financially. The swing on these two players’ salaries alone represent $2.4 million. “Why not go to hearing to try to save that much money?”, could be the line of thinking from the club.
(Horton was traded away too, though not immediately. He did come back as a broadcaster as we all know. Of course, any player staying with the same team his entire career is an anomaly in itself, arbitration or not. Yet I find it impossible to ignore the timing of the early trades relative to the arbitration cases. Even the most optimistic Jumbo would have to acknowledge it seems more than a coincidence.)
I would imagine where the economy would tend to be most evident would be by the metric of non-offers of arbitration. (Maybe next December this metric will be even more pronounced than this past December.) Why? Arbitration salaries should be a temporally lagging statistic, if based on the past year or two of comparable salaries. I think of arbitration as argument based on past salary data, having its own internal logic consistent with this historic data. In contrast, if a team thinks a salary market will fall, it should decliine to offer arbitration, because the real-time salary free market should move faster than arbitration, which is less swift moving, more tied to the past. Thus folks like Abreu and Varitek, by declining arbitration, IIRC, are vulnerable to a bigger salary adjustment. Likewise Looper may fall more than he would have seen, if he had been given arbitration.
Are there more cases of arbitration this year, across all 30 teams? I do not know.
The Busch era was, at least to me from afar, a mean-spririted one in relation to players. I would be unsurprised if the Cards were cheaply disposed toward players and traded guys who took them to arbitration, during the Busch era. I doubt that sort of meanness exists today, with Rick and Ryan. If traded, it should be because the Cards have a strong trading suit of OFs.
Ludwick has been injury vulnerable and is around a peak time in age. This could give reason to gamble in arbitration, because the next injury could leave him looking for playing time again; his time to shoot for higher salary is now. On the cusp of free agency, Ankiel has incentive to get as high a number as arguable to help prepare him for seeking a big deal. The up and down ML performance in both careers, since these guys have not had smoothe ones, could possibly foster a disparity of views about appropriate salaries via arbitration, perhaps even without economic conditions being a factor. (I still use the word perhaps.)
I have a feeling that MO is a little overwhelmed right now. DeWitt know doubt okayed those numbers figuring on squeezing a few dollars by lowering the median. Now he has a red assed Boras and a guy with 112 rbi’s taking him to court. Here Mo, I’m counting on you.
The Economy is a variable that is out of bounds to both sides. No team finances.
Jumbo, for me the most relevant measurement will not be arbitration cases filed, but instead the number of ones that actually progress to the hearing, meaning the ones that could not be resolved via business as usual negotiations. We don’t know the answer yet, but at this point, it appears to me that there will be more hearings than in recent years. Perhaps financial heels are being dug in deeper than in recent years on all sides.
WC, the point about the economy (and team finances) being out of bounds was a big contributor (along with the comps) to why I predicted that both players have strong cases. The “we are out of money” line won’t play in Peoria. (Actually in Phoenix, but the two are close to one another…)
I have no reason to assume that Mo is overwhelmed, but the organization may have a couple of very challenging hearings coming up if they can’t find common ground with the two agents between now and then.
Is it not the case that your initial estimates of a settlement value for Ludwick was $4MM and for Ankiel $3.25MM? If so, what the players are asking is much closer to your estimate than to what the Cards have offered, though you acknowledged the Ankiel number was the most uncertain. This would support the theory of the Cards trying to economize.
Ludwick is seeking something like an 850 percent increase during his first shot at arbitration. Maybe the Cards think this an excessive percent jump for a first time guy.
Chances are, if both cases are decided by arbitration, there are split decisions, one team win, one player win. This is a way arbitrators put pressure on both sides to reach their own agreements.
Yes, my original estimates are closer to the players’ submitted amounts. That is why I personally feel each has a good case. But the Cards probably came up with their own comps and their own view of player value. I would imagine they feel they can confidently demonstrate why their amounts are also valid.
As you pointed out again, the uniqueness of these two players’ histories create some interesting gray area that would not be there for a player that took a “standard” career path.
Though not possible, it would be fascinating to interview the three arbiters in each panel after they pass judgment to learn why they landed where they did.
Having basically agreed with you so far, here is where we diverge radically. I don’t buy your split decision theory at all. First of all, you imply the results are predetermined, not based on the merit of the arguments presented. That is calling out the process as fixed. I don’t accept that at all. Second, the same independent arbiters are not used in each case.
While the article is interesting and appreciated , I wonder how much can be inferred for this years outcome since we are talking about basically an entire new regime since the Cards last went to arbitration.
CC, I didn’t suggest anything can be inferred with regard to Ankiel and Ludwick. While the process is basically the same, each individual case is heard on its own merit. The Mozeliak/Jocketty years might be considered together under the same ownership, but the rules are changing with the club seemingly more willing to go to hearing than in the recent past.
A historical look can be interesting even if not directly applicable to today. That is one reason why I ran this on Saturday, instead of during the week.
We only radically diverge, only because of your interpretations of what I said. Woe is me.
The way this has worked out over a long time, there has been a slight frequency advantage of wins to teams. For every two cases, across baseball, there will probably be a split decision, looked at from afar in a big picture way, without delving into the details of each specific case. For every 100 cases, teams have won about 59 times, in the past.
Agents and teams will do their respective homeworks about an appropriate salary. The agents for Ludwick and Ankiel have not asked for wacky numbers sure to be rejected by arbitrators. The Cards presumably have their own defensible logic to offer. The most probable outcome, if both cases are settled by arbitrators, is a split. This statement by me is based on all the cases ever settled by arbitration. I did not suggest who would win, nor claim the process to be fixed in specific cases.
If 90 percent of cases were awarded to teams, then this would probably be regarded by the MLPU as unfair. If the players won 90 percent, then the teams would be unhappy too.
I have heard it rumored that some of the arbitrators are not too knowledgable about baseball. And as you know, there are grey areas, because players situations are different and people are unique. The arbitration process wants to put pressure on both sides, teams and players, to settle, because they are probably more deeply knowledgable about their sport than some arbitrator.
The way to do this is to be close to even-steven as regards outcomes, across all cases. Then both sides understand there is a real risk that the case could be settled against them. This gives them each incentive to compromise and find common ground and not have to rely on the aribitration decision, because the outcome could be wrong, in the perception of either party. You want each side to be worried that the arbitrators might misread their side’s facts and award for the other side. This provides the risk and incentive to settle.
I suppose if the decisions have favored teams, 59 to 41 percent, then this could illustrate that agents are seen by arbititrators to be a bit more aggressive than their facts warrant.
The only anecdotal comment I recall about arbitrator knowledge levels is a quote from a Whitey Herzog book that jmodene trots out every now and then. A lot has changed since Whiteyball.
Yes, I now understand your point that if historical percentages are used as the predictor then the odds are that each side wins one case. On the other hand, that is hardly a sure thing. Far better to consider the comparative merits of each case. I misunderstood the point being made the first time.
Jumbo, let’s have some math fun with this.
Accessing my somewhat shaky memory from my statistics classes, I have determined that the actual probability that the two cases will split is slightly LESS than 50%.
Here’s why:
The actual owners win rate is 279/484 = 57.64% (rounded to 58% in the article).
The players’ win rate is 205/484 = 42.36% (rounded to 42% in the article).
The probability of owners winning both cases: 57.64% x 57.64% or 33.22%.
The probability of players winning both cases: 42.36% x 42.36% or 17.94%.
Therefore the probability of someone winning both cases: 33.22% + 17.94% = 51.16%.
So, the probability of a split of the two cases is actually only 48.84% (1 – 51.16%).
(Alternatively, (57.64% x 42.36%) + (42.36% x 57.64%) = 48.84%.)
Of course, a split is still the most likely of these three possible individual outcomes – owners win both, players win both or they split!
Check my math please and thanks (not!) for the college flashback! (Disclaimer: This is not what I believe will actually happen.)
Arbitrators may be able and educated people. But there is a very good chance, or so it seems to me, that they are not deep students of the game.
And I would even like to suggest, perhaps counterintuitively, that arbitration might work the best if they were not. The agents and the teams can do the deep research and make their arguments. It is good for there to be surprises and uncertainties in the arbitration system, so neither side, management or labor, can be exactly sure where the arbitrators will come down. It is this element of uncertainty, at the heart of the process, that helps give incentive to settle.
Through the years, as the system has evolved and established a track record, I believe there have been less cases going to arbitration, baseball-wide, because the sides can figure things out, based on all the precdents, and get into the same ballpark and settle. The real aim of aribtration as a mechanism is to foster the finding of agreements. It is working best, when it is litle invoked.
I would have thought the salary proposals of Ludwick and Ankiel are close to reasonable. I can only guess the Cards think they are high, on grounds of their short track-record of ML excellence.
The more I think about it, its hard to see team finances as coming into play. The Cards have a free choice between offering arbitration or not; this is where they should factor their ability to pay and ROI. When a team offers arbitration, it should be able to do so based on a reasonable estimate of a fair salary after arbitration.
So if a team lowballs its offer unfairly, simply owing to its internal fiscal reasons, this runs risk of being counterproductive, since it increases the chance of the player winning, which is exactly what a budget constrained team would not want to have happen. So I expect the difference in opinion is about how “established” these two players are, in relation to their 2008 performances. Put another way, what is the confidence interval surrounding their 2008 stats? The players are saying, here is what we did, its very good, and it deserves our proposed salaries. And the team is counter-arguing that this was the first regular year of play out of each man and there should be a lower salary to reflect this.
If I was arbitrating, I would award for the players. Hopefully the Cards will sweeten their offers and reach agreements before a decision.
Brian, if truth be told, I am more of a storyteller (a consumer of numbers) than someone who gets calluses on his hands from making them. I have known some great statisticians, but my faint knowledge is mostly from osmosis, or intuition, and I tend to rely on asking the right questions. (There is a famous expression and variants on the same that the right question with approximate answers is so much better than precise answers to the less right questions. Yet we live in a world in which people seem to find comfort in precise data, without enough wariness about surrounding uncertainties.)
After saying this, your probabilty distribution looks tres learned.
The arbitrators do a good job based on the evidence in the cases presented to them. I agree that they don’t need to be baseball experts.
It is my understanding that the whole process can be pretty humiliating to the players involved and also can get quite contentious. Seems like pretty good reasons to avoid arbitration if possible.
Of course with the economy going down as it is, makes some sense that the owners are looking to save dollars thru the arbitration process and free agent signings, long term deals , etc.
[...] In 2009, I presented the entire arbitration history of the Cardinals, which dates back to 1974, here. While there have been additional hearings across MLB since, the log of the Cardinals cases remains [...]