Finding the Right Price for Relievers

Now that Wade Davis is the highest paid relief pitcher in baseball, the discussion of reliever salaries has made a comeback. Should relievers get “starter” money? Should closers be paid the most? 

Talk about reliever salaries shot back during the previous off-season when a few elite closers hit the free agent market: Mark Melancon (4 years, $62 million), Kenley Jansen (5 years, $80 million), and Aroldis Chapman (5 years, $86 million). The standard for what the best closers were making immediately changed, as Chapman, Jansen, and Melancon became the three relievers with the highest average annual salary. David Robertson’s $11.5 million a year was a distant fourth place with a whole $4 million less than Melancon.

As a fan, and especially as a Yankees fan, I felt really conflicted about these signings. On one hand, these pitchers were the best of the best in relief and pitched the glorious ninth inning because they were the best of the best. I got to see the Yankees re-sign one of the best strikeout pitchers ever who could throw 105 mph. How could I complain? Well, that same off-season, I had to sit there and watch the Royals trade away the aforementioned Wade Davis, a relief god, in return for Jorge Soler, generally seen as a bust. That’s not a lot for one year of service from one of the best. I wasn’t sure if paying Chapman $17.2 million a year seemed so good anymore, especially when looking at what other teams were paying relief pitchers.

A lot of the best relievers end up being the ones signed as free agents; we see Kimbrel, Miller, Jansen, and Robertson all hovering towards the top. So really, there’s nothing wrong with paying these guys this money. It’s well deserved. Paying $10+ million for a three-win player seems perfectly reasonable, especially when teams are paying around $8 million on average per win above replacement. It’s just that teams don’t have to. Eight of the 20 are pre-arbitration players, which really puts paying relievers high dollars into perspective. For clarification, to qualify as pre-arbitration, a player must have less than three years of service time. Obviously, positional players and starting pitchers show similar trends in elite young players, and it’s the same concept as to why the ten best players sometimes get paid less total money than the ten worst players; young talent is often better and young talent is under control for less money.

I suspect part of this reason is because a lot of relief pitchers are young former starting pitchers that couldn’t make it work in that role. Some of these pitchers just couldn’t get through a lineup multiple times. Some of them are starters placed in the bullpen as long relievers in what’s originally temporary until they crack the rotation and it ends up working out in the bullpen. Others stick to the starting gig for a while, perform poorly, get a low salary because of it, and teams utilize them in a new role rather than a demotion. Just looking at the top 20 sample, Archie Bradley was getting a bust label before breaking out in the bullpen in 2017. Shane Greene was known more as the pitcher the Yankees traded for Didi Gregorius, and now he closes games for Detroit. Chad Green, Chris Rusin, and Brad Hand all made the change to relief recently as well and find themselves in that chart. Some pitchers who have been around for a while like Brandon Morrow, Mike Minor, and Joe Kelly also made the move. Of course, the most notable former starters feature big names such as Dellin Betances, Andrew Miller, Zach Britton, and Wade Davis himself.  I’d imagine teams over time will become reluctant in paying relievers Chapman-money knowing the potential (albeit risky) upside their pitching prospects could bring coming out of the bullpen. Teams won’t give up on the busts and instead play patient and try them out in a new role.

Another thing you notice about the top relievers from 2017 is that a lot of them weren’t closers. While Davis and Greg Holland (unsigned) are really the only free agent relievers guaranteed to close games, there’s definitely a trend in teams going after the less expensive relievers that don’t close games. These mid-relievers and set-up men are putting up the numbers that closers are putting up, so why should teams pay $17 million when they can pay $9?

Stats from 2017 season (N/A = played in different league)

The money that these guys are getting is a lot more than what non-closers are used to getting but it still feels like a steal compared to the money closers are getting. It may not be the bargain that the pre-arb guys are, but it’s a bargain I think teams are smart for pursuing. Just last year, the Yankees practicually bullied Dellin Betances for not being a closer. Closers are going to be getting more than set-up men but probably not for too long. In recent years, we’ve started to understand a lot of the value that comes with some of these relievers. Sure, the ninth inning is the last inning, but there’s incredible value in being a strikeout pitcher and coming with runners on base or to face the heart of the lineup. WAR is a leverage adjusted stat for relievers, thus why so many of the top relievers aren’t the standard clean one-inning closer. For now, teams are going to try to underpay the elite non-closers for as long as possible. (Side note: Another great context-dependent stat is RE24, which uses run expectancy based on outs and baserunners, rewarding those who succeed in tough situations. I like using it to compare relievers and pitchers of all roles. However, the score of the game isn’t a factor, which is pretty significant in deciding who pitches and what pressure is on whomever is pitching.)

In some sense I feel like Andrew Miller’s 4 year, $36 million dollar contract was the precedent for paying valuable set-up men. Miller didn’t pan out as a starter and turned things around in the bullpen with Boston. Miller ended up having a ridiculous 2014, and when the Yankees signed him it turned people’s heads to pay a non-closer that much money (the most ever for a set-up man). Of course the Yankees tricked everyone and made him the closer. Now, even as Miller is no longer a closer, most people would agree his contract has been a great one as he establishes himself as one of the best relievers we’ve ever seen. Terry Francona’s decision to use him in the highest leverage situation of the game, especially in the 2016 postseason, is perhaps starting to change the way we view a closer versus the best pitcher on a team.

All stats courteous of Fangraphs and Baseball Reference, as well as salaries from Spotrac.