Jump to content

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

Twins make offer for Chris Archer

  • Please log in to reply
335 replies to this topic

#221 terrydactyls1947

terrydactyls1947

    Ft Myers

  • Members
  • 256 posts
  • LocationCumberland Center, Maine

Posted 13 February 2018 - 04:48 PM

"Terry was at least able to sign Nolasco and Hughes..." and how did that work out? Just maybe, after all the dust settles, Falvey and Levine have been correct to proceed as they have. But we won't know for a while. In the meantime I'm looking forward to Spring Training.
  • luckylager, Danchat and howieramone2 like this

#222 prouster

prouster

    Ft Myers

  • Members
  • 381 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 04:54 PM

Rhett Bollingers tweet:

"Thad Levine on trading for pitching: "The prospect of kind of weakening one part of your team to strengthen another is not appealing."

Concerning to me, it makes it sound like they're not interested in trading Kepler as part of a package for Archer, would love to hear how they plan to improve the rotation otherwise. Especially considering they passed on Darvish...


If you had two job offers and accepted one, would you tell people the other passed on you?
  • Danchat likes this

#223 prouster

prouster

    Ft Myers

  • Members
  • 381 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 04:59 PM

If we trade for Archer now it is more likely the cost to get him will be less than if we try to trade for him at the trade deadline. Just wanted to throw that out there...


I don't think so. A team receiving him would be getting half a year less of control, and deadline deals don't always fetch a premium, David Price being another Tampa example. I'm sure there are more, but I'm in public transportation and don't feel equipped to do the research.

#224 jimmer

jimmer

    A former AF SNCO who values integrity.

  • Members
  • 9,679 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 05:00 PM

 

I don't think so. A team receiving him would be getting half a year less of control, and deadline deals don't always fetch a premium, David Price being another Tampa example. I'm sure there are more, but I'm in public transportation and don't feel equipped to do the research.

Prices almost always are higher at trade deadlines for quality starting pitchers.

 

'While relievers have been prized leading up to the last two deadline periods, no position provides potential impact like a front-line pitcher. Does it make sense to pay a premium to land a top-of-the-rotation pitcher? History says it typically does not.'

Edited by jimmer, 13 February 2018 - 05:03 PM.


#225 prouster

prouster

    Ft Myers

  • Members
  • 381 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 05:03 PM

Prices almost always are higher at trade deadlines for quality starting pitchers.


I'm going by memory, so maybe that's true. It seems to me that pitchers haven't been bringing back huge hauls the last couple years.

#226 amjgt

amjgt

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,236 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 05:51 PM

"Terry was at least able to sign Nolasco and Hughes..." and how did that work out? Just maybe, after all the dust settles, Falvey and Levine have been correct to proceed as they have. But we won't know for a while. In the meantime I'm looking forward to Spring Training.

Hughes is a split grade... A- for the original signing and F- for the extension.
Nolasco was probably a C
  • Jham likes this

#227 Oldgoat_MN

Oldgoat_MN

    A starter, please.

  • Members
  • 1,823 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 05:59 PM

Page 12. We need something real to talk about. And I'm not mocking anyone; I've read all 226 comments.

Both the Twins and Rays start workouts for pitchers & catchers tomorrow. If the trade was proposed 2 weeks ago and it was going to happen it would already have happened. Counter offers may have been made, but were rejected.

Fun stuff, though. Thanks y'all.

  • Oxtung, Hosken Bombo Disco and ken like this

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet just because it has a name or a photo you recognize.

- Abraham Lincoln


#228 Darius

Darius

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,121 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 06:08 PM

So it's an awful idea to spend ownership's money, which is only limited by their preferences, to get a good pitcher because people are worried about mortgaging the future?

But, it's a great idea to send 2 of our top 3 prospects (one being a SS, Gordon, and one being an extremely promising SP, Romero), a young team controlled OF who recently won AA MVP while putting up video game numbers and is primed for an offensive breakout (Kepler), and another young starter as a cherry on top (Jorge)?

Not sure I'm following the logic. But, got it.

Edited by Darius, 13 February 2018 - 06:09 PM.


#229 Danchat

Danchat

    Pro Bowl Armchair QB

  • Members
  • 2,862 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 06:09 PM

 

Hughes is a split grade... A- for the original signing and F- for the extension.
Nolasco was probably a C

Sorry for the nitpick, but Nolasco a C?! We ended up paying him something around $42M for 3 seasons (they sent $6M to LAA, I think?) and got 321 innings of 5.44 ERA with 1.474 WHIP and 11 hits per 9. Baseball Reference gave him a -0.4 WAR for those 3 years. 

 

If that's a C, I want to know what an F is.

I recently attempted to calculate WAR in the NFL over on Purple Pain forums. Click here to check out my article.


#230 amjgt

amjgt

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,236 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 06:17 PM

Sorry for the nitpick, but Nolasco a C?! We ended up paying him something around $42M for 3 seasons (they sent $6M to LAA, I think?) and got 321 innings of 5.44 ERA with 1.474 WHIP and 11 hits per 9. Baseball Reference gave him a -0.4 WAR for those 3 years.

If that's a C, I want to know what an F is.


Part of it is the initial reaction. I think people were good with the contract when it was signed. It worked out poorly but we needed pitching and it was a market contract.

Hughes’ extension was a head scratcher from the get go

#231 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,260 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 06:26 PM

 

I think you are under estimating what it will take to get him.

But if you want great players, that are cheap, you have to give up real value.

How can I underestimate what it takes to trade for him when I propose nothing?Unless Tampa is blown away by an offer, Archer is not going to be traded because he is cheap, dependable and overvalued.Nobody but fans of fip are goingis going to value him that high.


#232 jimmer

jimmer

    A former AF SNCO who values integrity.

  • Members
  • 9,679 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 06:36 PM

 

 Nobody but fans of fip quality pitchers are going to value him that high.

ftfy


#233 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,059 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 07:01 PM

So in other words, the Twins are going to pursue some of the remaining free agents out there instead of trading a king's ransom for Archer or other trade venues. At what part of the tweet suggested that the Twins were just going to give up on the rotation and leave it as it is? I'm frustrated at the lack of progress in the rotation too but I'm certain there will be at least one addition. They know the rotation is a problem and all reports suggest that they're actively trying to solve it.


But their biggest need is a front of the rotation starter. (Darvish or Archer.) A number 4, (Cobb/Lynn), or 5 (Tillman/Garcia), doesn't really move the needle much.

#234 Doomtints

Doomtints

    Joe's Shades™

  • Members
  • 2,398 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 07:29 PM

 

Chris Archer and Ricky Nolasco are nothing alike.

 

Nolasco ERA: 4.56

Nolasco FIP: 3.97

Difference: -0.59

 

Archer ERA: 3.63

Archer FIP: 3.45

Difference: -0.18

 

You're focusing on Archer's 2017 ERA/FIP difference, the largest of his career...

 

But that's the point of FIP.

 

Given enough innings, ERA and FIP should become interchangeable with one another in most pitchers (outliers like Nolasco being the exceptions) because ERA stabilizes in front of different defenses, free agency/trade player movement, and the removal of SSS luck.

 

But in smaller sample sizes, FIP exists for the very reason of pointing out expected performance versus "real" performance, which can be influenced by all those things listed above.

 

And if you look at Archer's past four seasons, which year jumps out at you as being the aberration?

 

Year: ERA / FIP

2014: 3.33 / 3.39

2015: 3.23 / 2.90

2016: 4.02 / 3.81

2017: 4.07 / 3.40

 

Yes, that's the textbook definition of FIP for anyone new.

Now what? Do you trust this rubbish when it comes to Archer, whose other stats don't match it?


#235 Doomtints

Doomtints

    Joe's Shades™

  • Members
  • 2,398 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 07:34 PM

 

We are quoting predictive statistics. You are quoting results based statistics.

 

I don't care what Archers results were last year. I care what his actions indicate for his future results. 

 

There was a very interesting article written which listed out the best ways to predict future ERA after analyzing all of the data. Here are the findngs, in order from "most predictive" to "least predictive":

SIERA
xFIP

ERA

FIP

ERA is a better predictor of future performance than FIP.

 

fWAR uses FIP, not xFIP or SIERA.


#236 Oxtung

Oxtung

    If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence of tryin

  • Members
  • 1,949 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 07:53 PM

 

There was a very interesting article written which listed out the best ways to predict future ERA after analyzing all of the data. Here are the findngs, in order from "most predictive" to "least predictive":

SIERA
xFIP

ERA

FIP

ERA is a better predictor of future performance than FIP.

 

fWAR uses FIP, not xFIP or SIERA.

 

Do you have a link to the article? All correlation studies I've seen have ERA behind the other metrics.

 

For instance this says:

tERA

FIP

SIERA

xFIP

K/9

SO

...

ERA

 

**EDIT** Here is another study showing FIP, xFIP, SIERA, et al > ERA for year to year correlation to ERA.

Edited by Oxtung, 13 February 2018 - 07:57 PM.

  • Oldgoat_MN and jimmer like this

#237 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 11,754 posts
  • LocationThe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 13 February 2018 - 08:09 PM

 

Chris Archer and Ricky Nolasco are nothing alike.

 

Nolasco ERA: 4.56

Nolasco FIP: 3.97

Difference: -0.59

 

Archer ERA: 3.63

Archer FIP: 3.45

Difference: -0.18

 

You're focusing on Archer's 2017 ERA/FIP difference, the largest of his career...

 

But that's the point of FIP.

 

Given enough innings, ERA and FIP should become interchangeable with one another in most pitchers (outliers like Nolasco being the exceptions) because ERA stabilizes in front of different defenses, free agency/trade player movement, and the removal of SSS luck.

 

But in smaller sample sizes, FIP exists for the very reason of pointing out expected performance versus "real" performance, which can be influenced by all those things listed above.

 

And if you look at Archer's past four seasons, which year jumps out at you as being the aberration?

 

Year: ERA / FIP

2014: 3.33 / 3.39

2015: 3.23 / 2.90

2016: 4.02 / 3.81

2017: 4.07 / 3.40

 

What I find striking is that he consistently underperforms his FIP... Nolasco was the same way, though not to the extreme. I think there's something to be said for something other than luck here (dont' get me wrong, I like Archer, as he's not 'unlucky' enough to avoid acquiring)... but bottom line is that pitchers have more influence in BABIP than stat heads are willing to accept. There are too many anomalies.

  • Jham likes this

#238 DocBauer

DocBauer

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,865 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 08:09 PM

Personally, I'd rather include Lewis in a deal over Kepler. Not only because I believe in Kepler, but losing him weakens this team that is just coming in to it's own. Lewis is a few years away, and no matter how talented, there are quality SS in the system.

I'd like to sign a FA, especially now that the market seems to be deflated from expectation. Lynn or Cobb DOES deepen the rotation and help the team still. The pen is better and the lineup should continue to improve.

On the other hand....

Without doing at least a small purge of the roster, how do we keep all our prospects on the 40 man next year?

Just saying, if we improve by trade, try to keep the ML roster intact.

"Nice catch Hayes...don't ever f*****g do it again."

 

--Lou Brown


#239 jimmer

jimmer

    A former AF SNCO who values integrity.

  • Members
  • 9,679 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 08:13 PM

 

What I find striking is that he consistently underperforms his FIP... Nolasco was the same way, though not to the extreme. I think there's something to be said for something other than luck here (dont' get me wrong, I like Archer, as he's not 'unlucky' enough to avoid acquiring)... but bottom line is that pitchers have more influence in BABIP than stat heads are willing to accept. There are too many anomalies.

Saying he underperforms his FIP assumes ERA is his actual performance.Basically, it goes back to saying ERA is the best stat to evaluate performance.

  • Oxtung likes this

#240 diehardtwinsfan

diehardtwinsfan

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 11,754 posts
  • LocationThe charred ruins of BYTO

Posted 13 February 2018 - 08:14 PM

 

I don't think they passed on Darvish but they were outbid by the Cubs who were likely one of Darvish's favorites from the beginning.But your right it is concerning and confusing.I see conflicting message here about trading which they seemed much more open to a few weeks / months ago.Ya gotta give up something to get something when trading.If not then SIGN Cobb or Lynn.Simple as that.

I'd love to know what they bid. I'd agree with you if they bid 6/140 and the Cubs got him with their deal... but if it's 5/105 as suggested here, they were just looking for a bargain. Darvish would have likely gotten more than 6/140 last year... that's kind of my point.

 

Bottom line is that the Cubs got Darvish for a steal. Perhaps the market is changing and this is the classic case of thinking you're getting a steal right before it bottoms out, but I'm not so sure of that.