Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum

Blog Comments

  1. Anorthagen's Avatar
    I said the same with Correia and Doumit, it just doesn't work. My solution is to have Doumit only catch when Mauer can't.
  2. Brad Swanson's Avatar
    The more we learn about pitch framing, the more I begin to wonder the same thing. For a pitcher who needs to be very fine with his command, it would seem pitch framing would be especially important for Diamond. As you have pointed out in the past, Doumit rates as the worst catcher as far as pitch framing goes in the league, so getting him away from Diamond and letting Mauer frame for Diamond might make a big difference. Thanks for sharing the numbers!
  3. jorgenswest's Avatar
    There is probably a way to study where the extra runs came. It might be 5 in the first inning.

    We would probably give a couple back when a couple guys are on base mid game and 8-9 are due up.
  4. Shane Wahl's Avatar
    It is strange. I would bet that there would a 5 run difference in the first inning *alone*.
  5. jorgenswest's Avatar
    I am not sure there would be significant difference had I used Bill James, Marcel, Oliver, or Steamer.

    I decided to choose one before I looked at the data. Otherwise, I might pick the one that happens to have Dozier lower and some of the others higher to better attain the results I expected.

    Dozier's OPS projections range from 646 to 672. ZIPS had him at 649.

    Willingham's were 816 to 833. ZIPS had him at 822.

    ZIPS was least favorable to Doumit and Morneau.

    I don't think the results would be significantly different had I chosen different projections.

    The projections seem low, but three of those players are in the decline phase of their careers with some injury history.
  6. Shane Wahl's Avatar
    Um, those projections of batters 2-7 seem pretty low.
  7. Brad Swanson's Avatar
    Thanks for posting, I always enjoy your analysis.

    One of my favorite qualities of research is that the results speak for themselves. You can massage the results to fit a narrative, or you can present results as they are. In this case, the batting order doesn't mean a whole lot, but the it also doesn't mean nothing. I think that moving Mauer to 2 and Dozier to 8 will have more impact on a game-by-game basis, rather than a season-long basis. This means that sample sizes will always be too small to use for predictive value, but the results of the individual games can still be impacted.

    Of course, you are right about the ZIPS projections. If Dozier performs better than these projections, then the move will result in even fewer runs.
  8. old nurse's Avatar
    With the money the Cubs have to spend, the results should be better. Every year a new bad team.
  9. glunn's Avatar
    I think that the Cubs are different because they will have plenty of money to spend once they are ready to spend it. And the Astros may never be able to spend very much. I think that the Twins are somewhere in the middle.
  10. old nurse's Avatar
    Since the thread was on pitching. Fangraphs defines a good to great pitcher as one with a WAR above 3. There was only 35 of them last year in the majors, 46 the year before. A solid starter as one with a WAR of 2-3. There was only 36 of those last year, 21 the year before. Given those numbers are from fangraphs they should meet your standard. Random clicking on the names on the solid range of players reveals that either these pitchers are really inconsistent as their WAR score fluctuates widely, or there is an issue with the metric.
  11. old nurse's Avatar
    Jay, as bad as people want to quantify things, some things you can't without subjectivity. When there is subjectivity, there is error.
  12. jay's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by old nurse
    To me, the concept of WAR is not bad, the method of the computation is the problem.

    Heyman had to say this on WAR

    Jamey Carroll has a better WAR than Derek Jeter, 2.6 to 2.5. That's absurd.


    And Denard Span has a better WAR than Josh Hamilton, 4.0 to 3.7. Even more ridiculous.
    And Heymen supports the concept
    In both of those cases, it's the defensive valuations that are causing that. They both play defensively-demanding positions that can generate a lot of value (or negative value) in WAR calculations. WAR is hammering Jeter on his range and Hamilton on a bit of everything.

    It's hard/impossible to defend something like that, especially given the remaining inaccuracies in defensive measurements. However, I will say that it raises awareness to the fact that we commonly value run production over run prevention.
  13. old nurse's Avatar
    I believe that Heyman used the numbers posted on fangraphs. Having a problem with the inaccuracies of WAR?
  14. jorgenswest's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by old nurse
    To me, the concept of WAR is not bad, the method of the computation is the problem.

    Heyman had to say this on WAR

    Jamey Carroll has a better WAR than Derek Jeter, 2.6 to 2.5. That's absurd.


    And Denard Span has a better WAR than Josh Hamilton, 4.0 to 3.7. Even more ridiculous.
    And Heymen supports the concept
    Do those numbers include both offense and defense?
  15. old nurse's Avatar
    To me, the concept of WAR is not bad, the method of the computation is the problem.

    Heyman had to say this on WAR

    Jamey Carroll has a better WAR than Derek Jeter, 2.6 to 2.5. That's absurd.


    And Denard Span has a better WAR than Josh Hamilton, 4.0 to 3.7. Even more ridiculous.
    And Heymen supports the concept
  16. Clyde's Avatar
    Debating if a pitcher is a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 is completely meaningless and pointless debate. People want to quantify the starters. A 5 is replacement level. a 4 is a war under two, a three is under three, a two is under 4 and a nuber one is anything above. Everybody can now be happy with meaningless numbers,. Wether you use a 1-5 designation or a number based on a non predictive statistic, it doesn't change how good the pitcher is. It does not measure wear and tear or changing abilities due to learning how to pitch. At best you can say what was.
  17. jorgenswest's Avatar
    As for the NL comment...

    I don't think any NL dependent numbers were quoted for the new players. WAR is context, league and year neutral. Players can be compared across teams, leagues and seasons.

    As for using WAR...

    It may not be te best measure. Debating whether someone is a #3 or #4 starter is not a measure at all. Choose another neutral measure to compare pitchers across leagues and seasons.
  18. Clyde's Avatar
    You still need to build a team. What the team should be is a collection that is better than the sum of it's parts. The 2010 Twins did not have a lot of flash but they made their way to 94 wins despite any metric that said they should not have. WAR for pitchers is based on fip. The fangraphs site says that fip will not predict play so therefore WAR will not either. WAR will say that a player is good, but not always how bad they are. See Blackburn's -0.8 WAR
  19. Clyde's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim H
    While I tend to agree with Old Nurse on WAR, I think even you believers in WAR are missing something here. It is very hard to predict what pitchers will do. WAR or all pitching stats really, are not predictive. The Twins staff in 2010 was good enough(I have no idea what their collective WAR was) to be major contributors to a 95 win team. Virtually the same staff was considerably poorer in 2011 and contributed almost nothing in 2012.


    .
    fwar 2010 was14.5
    2012 was 8.1
  20. Jim H's Avatar
    While I tend to agree with Old Nurse on WAR, I think even you believers in WAR are missing something here. It is very hard to predict what pitchers will do. WAR or all pitching stats really, are not predictive. The Twins staff in 2010 was good enough(I have no idea what their collective WAR was) to be major contributors to a 95 win team. Virtually the same staff was considerably poorer in 2011 and contributed almost nothing in 2012.

    Also consider, last year at this time, nobody was predicting(including WAR) what Diamond went on to produce in 2012. What Ryan is trying to do is put together a staff that by any measure(use WAR if you like) has some chance of being league average. He is well aware that some of those will fail, which is why there are so many options. Now, this stragedy has a fair chance of failing, I think Ryan has acknowledged this. Part of the reason for this is that there is little chance of the assembled staff to be better than league average. If that is your upside......

    I am supportive of this stragedy because I don't think that by buying the higher priced, longer termed options actually much increases the staff's chances of being better than league average. Whether that is true or not, Ryan has acquired some higher upside pitching options, when added to the potentially higher sided options already in the system, gives a great deal of hope for the future.

    So getting back to the topic presented. Ryan is assembling a group of starters for 2012 that we all hope can be league average. He is avoiding any long committment that might inhibit assembling an above average staff in the future. Given where things were, I believe that is the right path.
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.