Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email
Photo

FanGraphs: Is Brian Dozier's Power Repeatable?

  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#1 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 14,628 posts

Posted 15 February 2017 - 02:49 PM

Garald Schifman of FanGraphs wrote an article today asking if Brian Dozier's power is repeatable...

 

It leads to the question of why, being owed just $15 million over the next two years, he's still a Twins player. Yes, the Twins asked for a ton (as they should) and the plethora of quality second basemen in baseball right now. 

 

There are fancy things like exit velocity and true distance and charts and stuff too. 

 

http://www.fangraphs...wer-repeatable/

 

 

  • glunn likes this

#2 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 17,986 posts

Posted 15 February 2017 - 03:16 PM

Seems pretty fair and my expectation for Dozier is that he's roughly a 30 homer guy going forward. He's capable of 40 homers (obviously) but I just don't see him as that type of player perennially.

 

But I'm interested how his early season struggles affected the numbers used in that article. Will Dozier struggle to that magnitude again? It's certainly possible but I don't know whether he'll be as bad as he was through April and May again.

 

And I bet his batted ball profiles suffered mightily during that stretch, as he just wasn't hitting the ball with authority (198 PAs, 5 homers, 7 doubles).

  • glunn, Dantes929 and Oxtung like this

#3 Parker Hageman

Parker Hageman

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 2,501 posts

Posted 15 February 2017 - 03:27 PM

HR.PNG

 

oh no, i've gone cross eyed.

  • Steve Lein, USAFChief, glunn and 7 others like this

"You spend a good piece of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time." -- Jim Bouton, "Ball Four"


#4 Lee-The-Twins-Fan

Lee-The-Twins-Fan

    Ft Myers

  • Members
  • 251 posts

Posted 15 February 2017 - 03:56 PM

The conclusion of the story is to expect Dozier to have a 30-homer season.  Now to me, Dozier's value as a 42- homer guy is high, but a big part of his value is in leadership, and the other things he does as a batter and a fielder. Would I like another 42-homer season? Sure. But let's hope his RBIs and runs scored both get into the triple digits as well. That would be a better sign that the Twins are competing better.

  • glunn and ScrapTheNickname like this

#5 goulik

goulik

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,345 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 09:25 AM

 

Seems pretty fair and my expectation for Dozier is that he's roughly a 30 homer guy going forward. He's capable of 40 homers (obviously) but I just don't see him as that type of player perennially.

 

 

The conclusion of the story is to expect Dozier to have a 30-homer season.  Now to me, Dozier's value as a 42- homer guy is high

Frankly, having a 30+ homer 2nd base guy on my team for the next few years with Sano, Kepler, and Buxton in that same line up excites me. I can take a defense first catcher and a declining first baseman if those other guys all are what we hope they are offensively. That just leaves me worried about defense at Short and Pitching...

  • glunn and ScrapTheNickname like this

#6 Doomtints

Doomtints

    Doom By Design | Tints By Joe™

  • Members
  • 1,581 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 09:32 AM

Is Dozier's power repeatable?  Hell yes, he's a power guy.

 

Is his 42 home runs repeatable?  Doubtful.  Opposing pitchers did not have to bother pitching around Dozier last year because the rest of the lineup sucked.  How many of his dingers were solos?  85%?  More?

 

As a pitcher, there was no reason to fear Dozier last year because he was the only guy who was going to bite you.

 

If Dozier hits more than around 32 home runs again it's because the rest of the Twins are still hitting like little leaguers.  As a pitcher, why tire yourself out trying to challenge Dozier?  Just get the at bat over with, with as few pitches as possible, and move on to the lambs in the lineup.  His 1 solo home run that might come out of that won't cost the game. 

Edited by Doomtints, 17 February 2017 - 09:33 AM.


#7 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 17,986 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 09:38 AM

I believe the opposite would be true.

 

If there's one guy in a lineup who can hurt you (and in a lineup with Miguel Sano, I don't believe that's the case), you make sure that guy doesn't hurt you, not the other way around.

 

Why give up a free run (or two) when you can pitch around a single guy and coast through the rest of the lineup? It's not like this is the NBA where points/runs come fast and furious and a single point/run is mostly irrelevant. Even terrible teams win 30-40% of their games.

  • USAFChief, Blake, Mike Sixel and 3 others like this

#8 Thrylos

Thrylos

    They Finally fired ’em. Play Ball!

  • Members
  • 8,290 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 17 February 2017 - 09:48 AM

 

 

a big part of his value is in leadership,

 

I hear this.However, if Dozier was indeed a leader in a 103-loss team, (plus the two 96-Loss teams) doesn't this mean that his "leadership" does not work? Leadership produces team results not individual stats.  

 

Here are Dozier's splits in 2016:

With nobody on: .286/.345/.605, 30 HR, 400 PA (13.3 PA/HR);

with men on: .242/.332/.460, 12 HR, 291 PA (24.3 PA/HR).
Late and close: .177/.290/.283, 3 HR, 131 PA (43.7 PA/HR);

2 outs RISP: .191/.313/.426, 3 HR, 80 PA (26.7 PA/HR).
High leverage: .192/.288/.384, 6 HR, 146 PA (24.3 PA/HR),

Low leverage: .266/.338/.588, 15 HR. 223 PA (14.9 PA/HR)

 

In other words, Dozier was at his best when the game was not on the line and at his worst when it was.The anti-Kirby.That's why he is part of the problem with the Twins and needs to go...

Edited by Thrylos, 17 February 2017 - 09:56 AM.

  • crapforks, mikelink45 and Platoon like this
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#9 Doomtints

Doomtints

    Doom By Design | Tints By Joe™

  • Members
  • 1,581 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 09:59 AM

 

I believe the opposite would be true.

 

If there's one guy in a lineup who can hurt you (and in a lineup with Miguel Sano, I don't believe that's the case), you make sure that guy doesn't hurt you, not the other way around.

 

Why give up a free run (or two) when you can pitch around a single guy and coast through the rest of the lineup? It's not like this is the NBA where points/runs come fast and furious and a single point/run is mostly irrelevant. Even terrible teams win 30-40% of their games.

 

Doesn't seem like it.  Teams gave up 42 home runs to him for a 103 loss team.  His power was not a threat.  In fact his power was completely irrelevant.  Why tire yourself out against him so that the other guys have an easier time with you?  Like the lion on the kill, spend your effort not on the strongest of the herd but the weakest. This is game theory.

 

Obviously this strategy isn't the one to have if there is suddenly more than 1 guy in the lineup who can hurt you. But this was not the case. Thus, Dozier only "repeats his HR numbers" if the Twins are still ineffectual. Dozier was 10% of the lineup. Who cares if he hits a solo shot? Focus on tricking the other 8 slots in the lineup.

 

Edited by Doomtints, 17 February 2017 - 10:03 AM.


#10 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 17,986 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 10:07 AM

 

Doesn't seem like it.  Teams gave up 42 home runs to him for a 103 loss team.  His power was not a threat.  In fact his power was completely irrelevant.  Why tire yourself out against him so that the other guys have an easier time with you?  Like the lion on the kill, spend your effort not on the strongest of the herd but the weakest. This is game theory.

Seems like people *did* pitch around him in the rare moment that he was at bat with someone on base with his strangely high amount of solo dingers (granted some of that is from him hitting leadoff).

It's not like Dozier hit 42 home runs out of nowhere. His seasonal tallies since entering the league:

6 / 18 / 23 / 28 / 42

 

The guy has legit 30 homer power, maybe even better than that. I can't buy into the idea pitchers are throwing him batting practice, particularly when coupled with the idea they're doing it because the rest of the team is so horrible.

 

If I'm a pitcher, I pitch around the lone good hitter in the lineup and then attack the bad hitters to get my outs. I don't give up a free run "just because".

 

Besides, you're acting as if the Twins were last in the league in offense. Once you adjust for their terrible sequencing last season, they were close to the middle of the pack, if not a touch below.

 

It's not as if the Twins were trotting the 2000s era Dodger lineup to the plate every night. Their offense was some form of competent.

  • brvama and tarheeltwinsfan like this

#11 Doomtints

Doomtints

    Doom By Design | Tints By Joe™

  • Members
  • 1,581 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 10:12 AM

 

Their offense was some form of competent.

 

Not competent enough, clearly. 103 losses is no joke. "Sequencing" isn't the random thing we think it is -- it's a reflection of competence.

 

And yeah, Dozier is a known quantity. Pitchers knew he had power but apparently weren't worried about it. They made the right bet.

Edited by Doomtints, 17 February 2017 - 10:13 AM.


#12 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 17,986 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 10:18 AM

 

Not competent enough, clearly. 103 losses is no joke. "Sequencing" isn't the random thing we think it is -- it's a reflection of competence.

Sequencing is largely a form of luck. If it was competence, explain why the Cubs actually underperformed their sequencing last season and not by a little bit. It was a significant number (-4 wins IIRC).

 

And if you think the 103 losses were due to anything other than the pitching staff, I question whether you watched this team last season. They weren't 15th in the AL by a small margin; by many metrics there was a smaller gap between 10th and 14th place than there was between 14th and 15th place.

 

The Twins' pitching staff was historically awful last season. Not just "last in the league" bad but "one of the worst teams of the past decade" bad.

  • KirbyDome89 likes this

#13 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 17,986 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 10:22 AM

And what happens when you have a slightly below average offense and a historically bad pitching staff?

 

You field a truly terrible baseball team.

  • KirbyDome89 likes this

#14 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 17,986 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 10:24 AM

And if we're using the metric of home runs to measure how dangerous a hitter is to a pitcher, the Twins were dead-center middle of the pack last season in homers, hitting 200 for the first time since I've been a Twins fan (pretty sure about this unless they hit 200 in 87/88, can't remember).

 

It wasn't only Dozier who regularly went yard on this team.


#15 jimmer

jimmer

    Cooperstown

  • Members
  • 8,327 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 10:29 AM

Sequencing is largely a form of luck. If it was competence, explain why the Cubs actually underperformed their sequencing last season and not by a little bit. It was a significant number (-4 wins IIRC).

And if you think the 103 losses were due to anything other than the pitching staff, I question whether you watched this team last season. They weren't 15th in the AL by a small margin; by many metrics there was a smaller gap between 10th and 14th place than there was between 14th and 15th place.

The Twins' pitching staff was historically awful last season. Not just "last in the league" bad but "one of the worst teams of the past decade" bad.

I think it is fair to say the defense was also a major factor in how poorly we performed.
  • Mike Sixel and TheLeviathan like this

#16 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 17,986 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 10:30 AM

 

I think it is fair to say the defense was also a major factor in how poorly we performed.

Oh, sure. Throw that on the list, too... But I was just kinda bundling that in with pitching, as defense directly correlates to runs allowed.


#17 jimmer

jimmer

    Cooperstown

  • Members
  • 8,327 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 10:33 AM

...defense directly correlates to runs allowed.

yes, which is why its frustrating to see any position marginalized in its defensive importance. The concept of hiding a guy in a corner OF or IF spot should have gone the way of the dodo bird a long time ago.
  • birdwatcher likes this

#18 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 17,986 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 10:36 AM

 

yes, which is why its frustrating to see any position marginalized in its defensive importance. The concept of hiding a guy in a corner OF or IF spot should have gone the way of the dodo bird a long time ago.

I'm not against doing it at one position, maybe two if you include first, but a team certainly can't do it all over the field as the Twins have done in recent years.

 

To me, that's probably the most disappointing aspect of retaining Dozier. I don't like the idea of Polanco at short and I hate the idea of Polanco on the bench.

  • jimmer likes this

#19 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 21,548 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 10:42 AM

 

Doesn't seem like it.  Teams gave up 42 home runs to him for a 103 loss team.  His power was not a threat.  In fact his power was completely irrelevant.  Why tire yourself out against him so that the other guys have an easier time with you?  Like the lion on the kill, spend your effort not on the strongest of the herd but the weakest. This is game theory.

 

Obviously this strategy isn't the one to have if there is suddenly more than 1 guy in the lineup who can hurt you. But this was not the case. Thus, Dozier only "repeats his HR numbers" if the Twins are still ineffectual. Dozier was 10% of the lineup. Who cares if he hits a solo shot? Focus on tricking the other 8 slots in the lineup.

 

 

Or maybe they "gave up" home runs because Dozier is a good HR hitter. It's not like they said, "heck, I'm not going to try to get this guy out". That's like old school thinking that a walk is all the pitcher's fault. No one gave up trying to get him out.

  • Brock Beauchamp, brvama and jimmer like this

I don't know, it is a site to discuss sports, not airline safety.....maybe we should take it less seriously?


#20 Doomtints

Doomtints

    Doom By Design | Tints By Joe™

  • Members
  • 1,581 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 02:31 PM

 

Sequencing is largely a form of luck. If it was competence, explain why the Cubs actually underperformed their sequencing last season and not by a little bit. It was a significant number (-4 wins IIRC).

 

And if you think the 103 losses were due to anything other than the pitching staff, I question whether you watched this team last season. They weren't 15th in the AL by a small margin; by many metrics there was a smaller gap between 10th and 14th place than there was between 14th and 15th place.

 

The Twins' pitching staff was historically awful last season. Not just "last in the league" bad but "one of the worst teams of the past decade" bad.

 

Much of what people think of as being pitching is actually defense.

  • tarheeltwinsfan likes this