PDA

View Full Version : Span vs. Revere OPS



Shane Wahl
09-19-2012, 01:17 AM
.750 to .676 right now. I understand that there is a 21 stolen base differential that mildly offsets the slugging difference, but still a .74 OPS difference does NOT mean replacement to me. I still do not like the idea of trading Span before Aaron Hicks is fully ready to step into Span's role.

old nurse
09-19-2012, 01:25 AM
.750 to .676 right now. I understand that there is a 21 stolen base differential that mildly offsets the slugging difference, but still a .74 OPS difference does NOT mean replacement to me. I still do not like the idea of trading Span before Aaron Hicks is fully ready to step into Span's role.

The hope would be by midseason Hicks can step in. A trade deadline deal might bring a better return for Span than an off season deal. However, if a good deal can be made during the off season, do it. If the Mets want to give up Zach Wheeler for Span and a decent prospect not named Hicks, Arcia, Rosario or Sano, well bring on Revere as CF. The Phillies also have decent pitching prospects to trade for.

USAFChief
09-19-2012, 01:34 AM
.750 to .676 right now. I understand that there is a 21 stolen base differential that mildly offsets the slugging difference, but still a .74 OPS difference does NOT mean replacement to me. I still do not like the idea of trading Span before Aaron Hicks is fully ready to step into Span's role.

And yet if I recall correctly you love the idea of dumping Morneau (.802) for Parmelee (.699).

70charger
09-19-2012, 01:51 AM
.750 to .676 right now. I understand that there is a 21 stolen base differential that mildly offsets the slugging difference, but still a .74 OPS difference does NOT mean replacement to me. I still do not like the idea of trading Span before Aaron Hicks is fully ready to step into Span's role.

Doesn't seem like it's really the point.

It's comparative advantage. Is it worth it to give up .74 OPS in exchange for the potentially far more impactful starting pitching we could get in return for Span? Yup. Don't compare the wrong things. We're not talking about giving up Span because we don't like him.

Riverbrian
09-19-2012, 08:07 AM
.750 to .676 right now. I understand that there is a 21 stolen base differential that mildly offsets the slugging difference, but still a .74 OPS difference does NOT mean replacement to me. I still do not like the idea of trading Span before Aaron Hicks is fully ready to step into Span's role.

Doesn't seem like it's really the point.

It's comparative advantage. Is it worth it to give up .74 OPS in exchange for the potentially far more impactful starting pitching we could get in return for Span? Yup. Don't compare the wrong things. We're not talking about giving up Span because we don't like him.

Im just quoting your post Charger... cuz I thought it was great.

Shane... I'd love to have both Revere and Span. I like them both going forward. It's pitching... We need pitching. If Revere gets the better pitcher in return. Say goodbye to the little guy. If none of them bring back pitching or a decent middle infielder. Keep them both. We need depth as well.

Shane Wahl
09-19-2012, 08:26 AM
.750 to .676 right now. I understand that there is a 21 stolen base differential that mildly offsets the slugging difference, but still a .74 OPS difference does NOT mean replacement to me. I still do not like the idea of trading Span before Aaron Hicks is fully ready to step into Span's role.

And yet if I recall correctly you love the idea of dumping Morneau (.802) for Parmelee (.699).

I think that the .886 OPS post all-star game for Parmelee is more telling than his season numbers, a season that the Twins tried to ruin for him initially. The analogy does not hold.

Brock Beauchamp
09-19-2012, 08:34 AM
In a trade, it's all about net gain. Let's throw out some hypotheticals. Span is a 5 WAR player this season. Revere is a 2 WAR player. If Revere progresses at all and moves to CF next season, let's say he becomes a 3 WAR player due to positional scarcity. That's a difference of -2 WAR, not including any +/- we'll see from Parmelee (which I think would be at least a 2 WAR player over the course of a season in RF). That's also not factoring in any advancement from the likes of Hicks or Arcia in 2013.

So, we need to cover a 2 WAR loss.

Well, it just so happens that PJ Walters is almost a -1 WAR pitcher in less than 10 starts. Let's say the Twins can get a decent, though unspectacular, 3 WAR pitcher for Span. That's brings the total to...

Outfield:
Revere (3 WAR) - Span (5 WAR) = -2 WAR

Pitching:
Pitcher X (3 WAR) - PJ Walters (-1 WAR in a quarter of a season) = 4 WAR.

Net gain? 2 WAR. That makes the Twins a better team and those estimates are very conservative. I think the swing could be as much as 5-6 WAR if Parmelee/Hicks/Arcia pan out and the acquired pitcher is decent.

Shane Wahl
09-19-2012, 08:34 AM
.750 to .676 right now. I understand that there is a 21 stolen base differential that mildly offsets the slugging difference, but still a .74 OPS difference does NOT mean replacement to me. I still do not like the idea of trading Span before Aaron Hicks is fully ready to step into Span's role.

Doesn't seem like it's really the point.

It's comparative advantage. Is it worth it to give up .74 OPS in exchange for the potentially far more impactful starting pitching we could get in return for Span? Yup. Don't compare the wrong things. We're not talking about giving up Span because we don't like him.

Im just quoting your post Charger... cuz I thought it was great.

Shane... I'd love to have both Revere and Span. I like them both going forward. It's pitching... We need pitching. If Revere gets the better pitcher in return. Say goodbye to the little guy. If none of them bring back pitching or a decent middle infielder. Keep them both. We need depth as well.

Yes, the Twins do need pitching. It seems foolish for them to first think trade-for-pitching, though. Anyway, I see Revere as playing himself out of the top of the order. Trading Span as well leaves a big hole at the top.

Rosterman
09-19-2012, 09:07 AM
Revere has to prove an able Span replacement. He steals bases, but so does Casilla,,so does Mastro. Span has shown consistency. Revere has yet to do so and if he doesn't finish the season above .300, he is just another cog in the system. Revere does have a smile, coves ground and is enthusiastic. But with Hicks, Arcia (and still Benson) in the wings...do you stay with two more years of Span (who is only tradable during the season) or the exciting basepath promise of Revere. Revere is exciting, but he has to learn to bunt or chop, And take more pitches (shades of Carlos Gomez).

LimestoneBaggy
09-19-2012, 09:22 AM
In a trade, it's all about net gain. Let's throw out some hypotheticals. Span is a 5 WAR player this season. Revere is a 2 WAR player. If Revere progresses at all and moves to CF next season, let's say he becomes a 3 WAR player due to positional scarcity. That's a difference of -2 WAR, not including any +/- we'll see from Parmelee (which I think would be at least a 2 WAR player over the course of a season in RF). That's also not factoring in any advancement from the likes of Hicks or Arcia in 2013.

So, we need to cover a 2 WAR loss.

Well, it just so happens that PJ Walters is almost a -1 WAR pitcher in less than 10 starts. Let's say the Twins can get a decent, though unspectacular, 3 WAR pitcher for Span. That's brings the total to...

Outfield:
Revere (3 WAR) - Span (5 WAR) = -2 WAR

Pitching:
Pitcher X (3 WAR) - PJ Walters (-1 WAR in a quarter of a season) = 4 WAR.

Net gain? 2 WAR. That makes the Twins a better team and those estimates are very conservative. I think the swing could be as much as 5-6 WAR if Parmelee/Hicks/Arcia pan out and the acquired pitcher is decent.

I agree. Primarily, making this team better is a big "it depends". If you are not going to pay for a few free agent pitchers, you have to trade someone to get pitching. Span seems to be the asset we can potentially live without (maybe moving Morneau).

Twins Twerp
09-19-2012, 11:02 AM
Don't quote WAR, it is such a scam. Put this into your stupid I-pad/computer/I-phone, Our pitching is downright terrible. The differnce between Span and Revere is small. What you lose with Revere in OPS and arm strength, you gain in baserunning and taking hits away. Revere is faster than Span, and is especially better at baserunning. Span does not get the whole baserunning thing. I have never seen someone so good at getting picked off at first. Where do you put that into WAR? What part of WAR measures how a guy hits away from his home field, or how a guy can't hit because he is worried about being traded around the trade deadline.

Let's just stop playing games, and start putting numbers into a computer and name the Oakland A's the Wolrd series champs, because they get on base alot and made a movie with Brad Pitt about it.

mike wants wins
09-19-2012, 11:13 AM
Um, um

kab21
09-19-2012, 11:32 AM
I'm not hung up on whether or not Revere can directly replace span. Revere is pretty much guaranteed to be in the starting lineup next season regardless. My biggest concern is that the Twins have basically made their decision and they will sell span low for a crappy MLB ready starter.

Shane Wahl
09-19-2012, 11:33 AM
Aha, so Twins Twerp is the TT known on various Twins sites. The Granny Baseball guy?

If not, the coincidence is astounding.

Brock Beauchamp
09-19-2012, 11:44 AM
Don't quote WAR, it is such a scam. Put this into your stupid I-pad/computer/I-phone, Our pitching is downright terrible. The differnce between Span and Revere is small. What you lose with Revere in OPS and arm strength, you gain in baserunning and taking hits away. Revere is faster than Span, and is especially better at baserunning. Span does not get the whole baserunning thing. I have never seen someone so good at getting picked off at first. Where do you put that into WAR? What part of WAR measures how a guy hits away from his home field, or how a guy can't hit because he is worried about being traded around the trade deadline.

Let's just stop playing games, and start putting numbers into a computer and name the Oakland A's the Wolrd series champs, because they get on base alot and made a movie with Brad Pitt about it.

Yes, god forbid that a GM use advanced metrics to supplement an eyeball test. Good GMs just wing it and hope for the best. It's the only way to run a billion dollar operation, really.

USAFChief
09-19-2012, 11:50 AM
Yes, god forbid that a GM use advanced metrics to supplement an eyeball test. Good GMs just wing it and hope for the best. It's the only way to run a billion dollar operation, really.

"WAR" and "advanced metric" are not necessarily the same thing.

Brock Beauchamp
09-19-2012, 11:52 AM
Yes, god forbid that a GM use advanced metrics to supplement an eyeball test. Good GMs just wing it and hope for the best. It's the only way to run a billion dollar operation, really.

"WAR" and "advanced metric" are not necessarily the same thing.

Read TT's post again. It wasn't solely an attack on WAR. He did everything except yell "get out of your parents' basements and learn something".

Nick Nelson
09-19-2012, 11:53 AM
Outfield:
Revere (3 WAR) - Span (5 WAR) = -2 WAR

Pitching:
Pitcher X (3 WAR) - PJ Walters (-1 WAR in a quarter of a season) = 4 WAR.

Net gain? 2 WAR. That makes the Twins a better team and those estimates are very conservative. I think the swing could be as much as 5-6 WAR if Parmelee/Hicks/Arcia pan out and the acquired pitcher is decent.
Honest question, Brock: Why do you put so much stock into WAR as an assessment of value when you've clearly demonstrated in the past that you have little faith in UZR and other defensive metrics? I agree with what you're saying but the way you've presented this argument isn't very compelling to me.

Anyway, like others have pointed out, no one is claiming that Revere is going to be able to replace Span without the offense missing a beat. But the Twins have outfield depth that is only likely to grow going forward, and they have significant needs elsewhere. At this point, Span is probably their most valuable trading chip (outside of maybe Willingham but he's just not going anywhere). Revere is, at worst, a decent placeholder.

Also, Shane, why you assuming that Revere is what he is at this point? He's 24, in his second big-league season, and he showed significant improvement from Year 1 to Year 2. When Span was his age, he was just finally figuring things out in Triple-A.

USAFChief
09-19-2012, 12:04 PM
Read TT's post again.

No thanks. :D

It does seem rather inconsistent of you, though, to cite WAR in this thread and then pooh-pooh it in another--when it shows data you discount--all within the space of a few hours.

USAFChief
09-19-2012, 12:12 PM
.750 to .676 right now. I understand that there is a 21 stolen base differential that mildly offsets the slugging difference, but still a .74 OPS difference does NOT mean replacement to me. I still do not like the idea of trading Span before Aaron Hicks is fully ready to step into Span's role.

And yet if I recall correctly you love the idea of dumping Morneau (.802) for Parmelee (.699).

I think that the .886 OPS post all-star game for Parmelee is more telling than his season numbers, a season that the Twins tried to ruin for him initially. The analogy does not hold.

The 60 PAs "post all-star game for Parmelee" you mean?

OK, tell me what Morneau's second half numbers look like.

CDog
09-19-2012, 12:27 PM
I have never seen someone so good at getting picked off at first. Where do you put that into WAR? What part of WAR measures how a guy hits away from his home field, or how a guy can't hit because he is worried about being traded around the trade deadline.



Things I find amazing: That the analytical folks who come up with formulas for things like WAR somehow decided to only count home games (or is it only away games? Or is it that one should count differently than the other?). That those same folks think they should measure results of plate appearances rather than the alleged thought processes and worries in a player's mind while at the plate. That despite the constant attention and coverage and devotion to recording virtually every single thing that happens in every single baseball game that nobody has thought to record players getting picked off on the base paths.

OR

That someone can apparently think those things are actually true.

Brock Beauchamp
09-19-2012, 12:29 PM
Read TT's post again.

No thanks. :D

It does seem rather inconsistent of you, though, to cite WAR in this thread and then pooh-pooh it in another--when it shows data you discount--all within the space of a few hours.

I was using it purely as a hypothetical in that post. Showing that if you subtract from one position and add more at another, you see a net improvement in team play. WAR is a nice easy way to compare pitchers and positional players, even if it's not terribly accurate in partial seasons.

Brock Beauchamp
09-19-2012, 12:34 PM
Outfield:
Revere (3 WAR) - Span (5 WAR) = -2 WAR

Pitching:
Pitcher X (3 WAR) - PJ Walters (-1 WAR in a quarter of a season) = 4 WAR.

Net gain? 2 WAR. That makes the Twins a better team and those estimates are very conservative. I think the swing could be as much as 5-6 WAR if Parmelee/Hicks/Arcia pan out and the acquired pitcher is decent.
Honest question, Brock: Why do you put so much stock into WAR as an assessment of value when you've clearly demonstrated in the past that you have little faith in UZR and other defensive metrics? I agree with what you're saying but the way you've presented this argument isn't very compelling to me.

Anyway, like others have pointed out, no one is claiming that Revere is going to be able to replace Span without the offense missing a beat. But the Twins have outfield depth that is only likely to grow going forward, and they have significant needs elsewhere. At this point, Span is probably their most valuable trading chip (outside of maybe Willingham but he's just not going anywhere). Revere is, at worst, a decent placeholder.

Also, Shane, why you assuming that Revere is what he is at this point? He's 24, in his second big-league season, and he showed significant improvement from Year 1 to Year 2. When Span was his age, he was just finally figuring things out in Triple-A.

As I mentioned to USAChief, I used WAR because it's an easy way to compare pitchers and positional players and gauge their value, even if it isn't perfect over partial seasons (if at all). When putting together that hypothetical situation, I was demonstrating how bigger gains can be had by replacing a guy like Walters with Pitcher X than the drop-off you'd see from Revere replacing Span. WAR was the easiest way to do that without going into complex math and confusing the hell out of everyone (including myself).

In the end, all I was saying is "Pitcher X - Walters >> Revere - Span".

FWIW, I think WAR is overrating Span this season and underrating Revere so the net loss is even lower than the numbers I used in my original post.

USAFChief
09-19-2012, 12:45 PM
Read TT's post again.

No thanks. :D

It does seem rather inconsistent of you, though, to cite WAR in this thread and then pooh-pooh it in another--when it shows data you discount--all within the space of a few hours.

I was using it purely as a hypothetical in that post. Showing that if you subtract from one position and add more at another, you see a net improvement in team play. WAR is a nice easy way to compare pitchers and positional players, even if it's not terribly accurate in partial seasons.

Can you tell us why--if it's not terribly accurate in partial seasons--we should believe its accurate in full seasons?

When someone hits .400 for a month, everyone understands the player most likely isn't going to keep that up. Nobody, however, says "but he didn't really hit .400 for that month...that's not what happened."

Yet with WAR, that's exactly what people say. "Well, yeah, I know WAR says Denard Span is the 13th best player in the AL, but that's not accurate. What we need to do is take lots of these innacurate chunks and add them together, and presto change, they become accurate."

Thats like saying "I'm pretty sure one plus one doesn't equal three, but if I add together enough one plus one equals three samples, it becomes good math."

Brock Beauchamp
09-19-2012, 01:16 PM
Can you tell us why--if it's not terribly accurate in partial seasons--we should believe its accurate in full seasons?

When someone hits .400 for a month, everyone understands the player most likely isn't going to keep that up. Nobody, however, says "but he didn't really hit .400 for that month...that's not what happened."

Yet with WAR, that's exactly what people say. "Well, yeah, I know WAR says Denard Span is the 13th best player in the AL, but that's not accurate. What we need to do is take lots of these innacurate chunks and add them together, and presto change, they become accurate."

Thats like saying "I'm pretty sure one plus one doesn't equal three, but if I add together enough one plus one equals three samples, it becomes good math."

I have two issues with your assumption of WAR. First, that people say "that didn't happen" regarding a defensive metric. I think it's more "I don't believe that player is good defensively" is more the case. Even Delmon Young has had good weeks in the field, just as Drew Butera has had weeks where he posted an OPS over .800.

Second, I believe the problem lies in the absolute versus the abstract. At the plate, we deal with far more absolutes than we do in fielding. A homer, a strikeout, a walk. Those are absolutes that are not very open to interpretation. But even in batting, we see the weak double where the batter got lucky. We see a squibber the fielder should have scooped up but didn't and it resulted in the scorer calling it a "hit". That weak double counts just like a true gapper but no one would argue that it is just as indicative of a player's talent as a liner off the left-centerfield wall. That's where WAR suffers a bit. The defensive side of the metric is open to interpretation instead of hard results that are tracked by stat sheets. There will be aberrations that make a player look better than he should over a short period of time. An unusual number of balls may be hit into part of his "zone" that are difficult to reach. An unusual number of balls may be hit into part of his "zone" that are easy to reach. Over time and repetition, these anomalies should even out. It's not that the math is bad, it's that it's more easily influenced by statistical anomalies. Add in the fact that while a batter gets 4-5 chances at the plate every night, he may only have the chance at 2-3 putouts in a night. Other nights it might be 5-6. In the end, all of that combines into a metric that is unreliable in the short-term but fairly decent in the long-term.

And I haven't met anyone who argues that WAR is perfect... Far from it. People usually say that it's a good guideline to use for a player's performance but should never be used as the sole indicator of his play.

Ultima Ratio
09-19-2012, 01:27 PM
I think you can count coup Chief.

70charger
09-19-2012, 03:04 PM
Read TT's post again.

No thanks. :D

It does seem rather inconsistent of you, though, to cite WAR in this thread and then pooh-pooh it in another--when it shows data you discount--all within the space of a few hours.

I was using it purely as a hypothetical in that post. Showing that if you subtract from one position and add more at another, you see a net improvement in team play. WAR is a nice easy way to compare pitchers and positional players, even if it's not terribly accurate in partial seasons.

Can you tell us why--if it's not terribly accurate in partial seasons--we should believe its accurate in full seasons?

When someone hits .400 for a month, everyone understands the player most likely isn't going to keep that up. Nobody, however, says "but he didn't really hit .400 for that month...that's not what happened."

Yet with WAR, that's exactly what people say. "Well, yeah, I know WAR says Denard Span is the 13th best player in the AL, but that's not accurate. What we need to do is take lots of these innacurate chunks and add them together, and presto change, they become accurate."

Thats like saying "I'm pretty sure one plus one doesn't equal three, but if I add together enough one plus one equals three samples, it becomes good math."

Logically, the sum is quite often more than the mathematical total of its parts.

Fallacy of composition = assuming that what is true of the parts must therefore be true of the whole. In this case, the parts do not encompass the total picture; putting them together does.

Riverbrian
09-19-2012, 09:40 PM
Someone Cue Edwin Starr... I feel a song coming on...

70charger
09-19-2012, 10:53 PM
Someone Cue Edwin Starr... I feel a song coming on...

2370

CDog
09-19-2012, 11:43 PM
Can you tell us why--if it's not terribly accurate in partial seasons--we should believe its accurate in full seasons?

When someone hits .400 for a month, everyone understands the player most likely isn't going to keep that up. Nobody, however, says "but he didn't really hit .400 for that month...that's not what happened."

Yet with WAR, that's exactly what people say. "Well, yeah, I know WAR says Denard Span is the 13th best player in the AL, but that's not accurate. What we need to do is take lots of these innacurate chunks and add them together, and presto change, they become accurate."

Thats like saying "I'm pretty sure one plus one doesn't equal three, but if I add together enough one plus one equals three samples, it becomes good math."

Because of variance and the fact that not everything that is measured has the same amount of it. What we are trying to measure with a defensive metric is essentially "how likely is a player to make a certain type of play." Is it 70%, 90%, 99.4%...? Well the recorded measurements are only "Did he make a given play or didn't he?" He never makes 70% of the play. There is variance in the observed measurement. Throw in that on the defensive side, most plays are "routine" and the number of games needed to get a reliable estimate is large. Nobody (reasonable) claims that the data accumulated in smaller samples isn't true. They simply say/know/claim that the amount of data to get a reliable estimate is larger than the amount of data that they have.

As an analogy that may make more sense, if we are trying to find the average height of men in St. Paul and we measure one fellow at 6'1". We don't discount that he is actually 6'3", but we also don't know yet if the average height of men in St. Paul is 6'1". We will keep measuring other men to deal with the fact that there is variation. The more measurements we gather, the more accurate our estimate can become. None of our men have the "wrong" height, but none of their individual heights is the answer we are looking for.

I don't know if that explanation makes things more clear or less.

SpantheMan
09-20-2012, 12:55 AM
Don't quote WAR, it is such a scam. Put this into your stupid I-pad/computer/I-phone, Our pitching is downright terrible. The differnce between Span and Revere is small. What you lose with Revere in OPS and arm strength, you gain in baserunning and taking hits away. Revere is faster than Span, and is especially better at baserunning. Span does not get the whole baserunning thing. I have never seen someone so good at getting picked off at first. Where do you put that into WAR? What part of WAR measures how a guy hits away from his home field, or how a guy can't hit because he is worried about being traded around the trade deadline.

Let's just stop playing games, and start putting numbers into a computer and name the Oakland A's the Wolrd series champs, because they get on base alot and made a movie with Brad Pitt about it.
Half of the hitting in War measures how a guy hits away from his home field. And WAR includes baserunning too.

Riverbrian
09-20-2012, 10:04 AM
Data replicates at some point and you will see the same results repeat itself eventually. However... This is more reliable for the collective.

The data changes for each individual player based on his personal improvement or decline or flatness.

I'm intriqued by WAR but there isn't a single stat that will make me bang my gavel down and say case closed.

As evidence I offer up Carlos Ruiz. Statiscally you can't explain Cooch at age 28, 29 and at age 33. Or Chone Figgins at 29 and age 33.

Ben Revere is young. Lots of data needs to be collected yet. Denard Span isn't as young but age 24 is different than age 26 and 28 is different than 26.

kab21
09-20-2012, 11:48 AM
Sweet! Another WAR argument.

what is the argument about anyway? Doesn't WAR say that span is a fair amount better currently and don't the eyes agree?

John Bonnes
09-20-2012, 02:05 PM
.750 to .676 right now. I understand that there is a 21 stolen base differential that mildly offsets the slugging difference, but still a .74 OPS difference does NOT mean replacement to me. I still do not like the idea of trading Span before Aaron Hicks is fully ready to step into Span's role.

Let's do this a way that isn't really involving somewhat convoluted stats....

Essentially their OBP has been about the same all year. Revere is down a little now, Span is up a little, but I think they're still within 10 points or so of each other. The difference in OPS is primarily driven by slugging percentage difference. Span is about 60 points in slugging higher than Revere.

60 points of slugging over 500 at bats is a difference of 30 bases. Revere has about 20 stolen bases over Span and more than that if you deduct the damage done by being caught stealing or being picked off.

Add in the additional defensive ability (UZR says Revere is somewhere between five runs and 20 runs better defensively over a year) and I'd have trouble saying the two aren't at least comparable in value. And, of course, that isn't taking into account Span's durability and the risk of him being out for a large chunk of the season.

I guess I might agree that the fan base is generally underrating Span and overrating Revere, but I think Revere is a suitable replacement for him. And I'll take it yet one step further - essentially, moving Span (or Revere) allows the team to plug Parmelee into the roster. That also appears to be a net gain.

Twins Twerp
09-20-2012, 02:29 PM
What we need to do, is get into a room, rent "Money Ball" and the new Clint Eastwood Movie. They seem to be two 100% fictional movies. Which everone is better, shall rule the day. Money Ball is the WAR, sabre metrics movie, while Clint Eastwood's is the scout, humanistic, have a conversation with an empty chair one.

I haven't seen Eastwood's...but I would say that movie looks to have the edge "on paper."

Brock Beauchamp
09-20-2012, 02:30 PM
Sigh.

snepp
09-20-2012, 02:32 PM
Sigh.

x1000

greengoblinrulz
09-20-2012, 02:45 PM
Span is a good player...not great...who has some value & will get us a decent return. There has always been something about Denards attitude that rubs me wrong.
On radio today, they talked about asking Span about Revere's highlight style catches & why.....despite bein a very solid OF...he never makes them himself. He replied he's too old for that
WHAT

CDog
09-20-2012, 11:46 PM
Let's do this a way that isn't really involving somewhat convoluted stats....

Revere has about 20 stolen bases over Span and more than that if you deduct the damage done by being caught stealing or being picked off.



Just because I'm that guy...their difference in Picked Off + Caught Stealing is 1. Over 150 games. And in Span's favor.

CDog
09-20-2012, 11:48 PM
Span is a good player...not great...who has some value & will get us a decent return. There has always been something about Denards attitude that rubs me wrong.
On radio today, they talked about asking Span about Revere's highlight style catches & why.....despite bein a very solid OF...he never makes them himself. He replied he's too old for that
WHAT

I heard that on the radio as I was driving back to work at lunch today. I thought to myself, I bet some...ummm...person...is going to take that literally and be all up in arms about Span making a self-deprecating joke. Then I thought, "Nah...nobody would go that far." Then I thought, "I spend too much time reading comments from people on the interwebs when I react to their theoretical reactions."

Shane Wahl
09-21-2012, 12:13 AM
Let's do this a way that isn't really involving somewhat convoluted stats....

Revere has about 20 stolen bases over Span and more than that if you deduct the damage done by being caught stealing or being picked off.



Just because I'm that guy...their difference in Picked Off + Caught Stealing is 1. Over 150 games. And in Span's favor.


Boom. No one ever considers caught stealing!

70charger
09-21-2012, 12:35 AM
Span is a good player...not great...who has some value & will get us a decent return. There has always been something about Denards attitude that rubs me wrong.
On radio today, they talked about asking Span about Revere's highlight style catches & why.....despite bein a very solid OF...he never makes them himself. He replied he's too old for that
WHAT

Think he was channeling Sgt. Murtagh in Lethal Weapon? "Riggs! I'm too old for this ****!"

Dry humor doesn't play well without inflection.

Thegrin
09-21-2012, 04:43 AM
Revere + Parmelee will probably be better than Span + Revere. However, trading Span is probably a bad idea. If a trade gets us a pitcher that will be an innings eater for 3 years + a couple "prospects with upside", then perhaps it would be a good trade, given the Twins need. However, it is far more likely that Span will improve in his prime years, and the pitchers will break down.
The solution may be to not trade any of them and rotate them in and out of the lineup.
http://twinsdaily.com/entry.php?1894-Fitting-7-players-into-6-positions

Don't Feed the Greed Guy
09-21-2012, 08:20 AM
.750 to .676 right now. I understand that there is a 21 stolen base differential that mildly offsets the slugging difference, but still a .74 OPS difference does NOT mean replacement to me. I still do not like the idea of trading Span before Aaron Hicks is fully ready to step into Span's role.

And yet if I recall correctly you love the idea of dumping Morneau (.802) for Parmelee (.699).



I think that the .886 OPS post all-star game for Parmelee is more telling than his season numbers, a season that the Twins tried to ruin for him initially. The analogy does not hold.

The 60 PAs "post all-star game for Parmelee" you mean?

OK, tell me what Morneau's second half numbers look like.

Morneau is having his best second half since 2006, when he was MVP. As I have posted elsewhere, now is the time to trade Parm, while he and Span have value. The numbers show that Morneau is back to his old form. He is poised to have another monster first half in 2013, and the Twins would be CRAZY to trade him now. (see the stats in my blog post: What Could Morneau Do With a Healthy 2013?)

Perhaps they can trade Mornie next season at the trade deadline, IF they are out of it, again. But the best way to prevent that is to trade Span and Parmalee for pitching.

Brock Beauchamp
09-21-2012, 08:36 AM
Morneau is having his best second half since 2006, when he was MVP. As I have posted elsewhere, now is the time to trade Parm, while he and Span have value. The numbers show that Morneau is back to his old form. He is poised to have another monster first half in 2013, and the Twins would be CRAZY to trade him now. (see the stats in my blog post: What Could Morneau Do With a Healthy 2013?)

Perhaps they can trade Mornie next season at the trade deadline, IF they are out of it, again. But the best way to prevent that is to trade Span and Parmalee for pitching.

Parmelee's trade value is not that high right now. If he had spent the entirety of 2012 in AAA pounding the ball, it'd be higher.

But that didn't happen. The Twins let Parmelee sit on the bench for months, accruing just a handful of ABs with the ML club. No team is going to offer anything of significance for a guy who suddenly broke out 13 months ago but then stagnated for a large portion of the following season riding the pine.

Twins Twerp
09-21-2012, 12:10 PM
You only trade Mornie if you can get a pitcher close to Major league ready AND you spend that 14+ million on another arm. WAR= 2 stud pitchers- Mornie finally coming back.

Shane Wahl
09-21-2012, 05:12 PM
Morneau is having his best second half since 2006, when he was MVP. As I have posted elsewhere, now is the time to trade Parm, while he and Span have value. The numbers show that Morneau is back to his old form. He is poised to have another monster first half in 2013, and the Twins would be CRAZY to trade him now. (see the stats in my blog post: What Could Morneau Do With a Healthy 2013?)

Perhaps they can trade Mornie next season at the trade deadline, IF they are out of it, again. But the best way to prevent that is to trade Span and Parmalee for pitching.

Parmelee's trade value is not that high right now. If he had spent the entirety of 2012 in AAA pounding the ball, it'd be higher.

But that didn't happen. The Twins let Parmelee sit on the bench for months, accruing just a handful of ABs with the ML club. No team is going to offer anything of significance for a guy who suddenly broke out 13 months ago but then stagnated for a large portion of the following season riding the pine.

Damn it, you gave me another reason to be pissed off about how poorly they handled him this year. Are we to expect similar things with Arcia, Hicks, and Herrmann now!?

Shane Wahl
09-21-2012, 05:15 PM
I thought I posted this, but maybe not (I tend to type things for awhile and then think better of continuing various conversations . . . ).

If Span is traded and Revere repeats this sub .675 OPS and is not worth it at the top of the order, what the hell is the plan?

Brock Beauchamp
09-21-2012, 05:18 PM
I thought I posted this, but maybe not (I tend to type things for awhile and then think better of continuing various conversations . . . ).

If Span is traded and Revere repeats this sub .675 OPS and is not worth it at the top of the order, what the hell is the plan?

Wait for Aaron Hicks.

Shane Wahl
09-21-2012, 05:20 PM
I thought I posted this, but maybe not (I tend to type things for awhile and then think better of continuing various conversations . . . ).

If Span is traded and Revere repeats this sub .675 OPS and is not worth it at the top of the order, what the hell is the plan?

Wait for Aaron Hicks.

Yeah. The thing is I think of Hicks as Span's replacement, so it would seem that a deadline deal might make sense.

Brock Beauchamp
09-21-2012, 05:28 PM
Yeah. The thing is I think of Hicks as Span's replacement, so it would seem that a deadline deal might make sense.

I'm hoping that Hicks is Span's replacement and Arcia is Revere's. I've never been high on Revere (as most know) but if he's surrounded by two outfielders with pop, he won't kill the lineup. If Revere falls on his face, we can hope for a Willingham/Hicks/Arcia outfield. If Revere succeeds, a Revere/Hicks/Arcia outfield would look stellar in the field. The team can always move Willingham to DH if need be (though it would require serious shuffling of the lineup, with Morneau also being traded and you have to figure out what to do with Doumit).

Thrylos
09-21-2012, 06:17 PM
.750 to .676 right now. I understand that there is a 21 stolen base differential that mildly offsets the slugging difference, but still a .74 OPS difference does NOT mean replacement to me. I still do not like the idea of trading Span before Aaron Hicks is fully ready to step into Span's role.

The logical flaw in this argument is that Span's numbers are from a player in his prime, while Revere has not yet reached his prime.

Add the fact that Revere is better with the glove, faster and better on the bases; top it with certain weirdnesses that Span has like claustrophobia, tendency to fall asleep on the base paths etc; look at the salaries, the respective attitudes and what they can bring in return and it is a no-brainer

USAFChief
09-21-2012, 10:10 PM
Can you tell us why--if it's not terribly accurate in partial seasons--we should believe its accurate in full seasons?

When someone hits .400 for a month, everyone understands the player most likely isn't going to keep that up. Nobody, however, says "but he didn't really hit .400 for that month...that's not what happened."

Yet with WAR, that's exactly what people say. "Well, yeah, I know WAR says Denard Span is the 13th best player in the AL, but that's not accurate. What we need to do is take lots of these innacurate chunks and add them together, and presto change, they become accurate."

Thats like saying "I'm pretty sure one plus one doesn't equal three, but if I add together enough one plus one equals three samples, it becomes good math."

Because of variance and the fact that not everything that is measured has the same amount of it. What we are trying to measure with a defensive metric is essentially "how likely is a player to make a certain type of play." Is it 70%, 90%, 99.4%...? Well the recorded measurements are only "Did he make a given play or didn't he?" He never makes 70% of the play. There is variance in the observed measurement. Throw in that on the defensive side, most plays are "routine" and the number of games needed to get a reliable estimate is large. Nobody (reasonable) claims that the data accumulated in smaller samples isn't true. They simply say/know/claim that the amount of data to get a reliable estimate is larger than the amount of data that they have.

As an analogy that may make more sense, if we are trying to find the average height of men in St. Paul and we measure one fellow at 6'1". We don't discount that he is actually 6'3", but we also don't know yet if the average height of men in St. Paul is 6'1". We will keep measuring other men to deal with the fact that there is variation. The more measurements we gather, the more accurate our estimate can become. None of our men have the "wrong" height, but none of their individual heights is the answer we are looking for.

I don't know if that explanation makes things more clear or less.

Actually, I know of at least one person who DOES make that claim: Mitchel G. Lichtman, the "inventor" of UZR. (you might know him as the poster "MGL" on various saber oriented websites)

Here's what he has to say in his latest "UZR Primer" on Fangraphs:

As an answer to "Does UZR tell us what actually happened on the field?"

"A player’s UZR does not necessarily tell you how he actually played just as it does not necessarily tell you what his true talent is."

He goes on to compare batting average to UZR to illustrate his point. In one--BA--we know factually what happened. In one--can you guess which one--he tells us we DON'T know what really happened.

He goes on at great lengths to explain why, and then basically tells us to come up with our own guess as to how to regress UZR when looking at small samples. His personal guess is 50%....when looking at a YEAR'S worth of data. "If my own invention, UZR, tells me he's +10 defender, I automatically make him +5 in my head. If it's a month's worth of data, I regress it by 85%."

In your terms, what he is saying is "well, yeah, we measured the St Paul guy at 6'1", but we don't really know if our measuring stick is defective or not. We're not even sure if we're measuring height. Let's call him 3'6" and go with that. Or, pick your own number, if 3'6" doesn't look good to ya. Then, let's go measure some more guys, take a guess at their height, and when we add them all up we'll be good!"

You can verify this at http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-fangraphs-uzr-primer/

SpiritofVodkaDave
09-21-2012, 11:01 PM
The difference between Span and Revere is that Span is a legit and very solid major league CF. Revere is a 4th OF who had a lucky/whatever you call it first half to 2012 that made him seem like some real option in the OF.

As far as 2013 goes, Revere can be a perfectly fine stop gap at CF for a year or so until Hicks or someone else is ready to step up, but make no mistake about it, Span is twice the player Revere will ever be. Revere has value, but he is basically a poor man's Juan Pierre, which isn't exactly saying a whole lot.

I for one can't wait for Hicks to take over CF and send Revere back to the 4th OF/PR role where he utimately belongs in.

old nurse
09-22-2012, 01:18 AM
If the Twins talk of trading Span for pitching, here is to hope that the Twins say not good enough to an offer for Span, and say how about Revere instead and the team bites on it.

Shane Wahl
09-22-2012, 02:35 PM
I don't mean to pollute the waters any more, but it IS true that Ben Revere and Chris Parmelee are just not likely in the long term starting plans. The Twins have Hicks, Arcia, and Benson on the one hand, and the likes of Miguel Sano and Travis Harrison on the other (both could likely be moved to 1B), and Kennys Vargas for 1B/DH.

One option would be to keep the productive Span AND Morneau until they are truly replaced by the NEXT group, not by the current group. Meanwhile, 2013 is a showcase of Revere and Parmelee.

Just throwing another idea out there . . .

Having 7 guys for 6 lineup spots in 2013 doesn't bother me and that certainly is better bench depth than simply Butera, Mastro, Caroll, Escobar, Carson . . .