Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Is the FO "blowing it" in regard to the bench?

  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#41 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Billy G.O.A.T

  • Twins Mods
  • 13,738 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 08:03 AM

 

 Hadn't run across this. None of the articles this link points to tells me how the stat is actually computed - they just extol its virtues. Do you know?
 

Good mid-winter pun. :)

 

It says what DRC+ is right in that article! :

 

DRC+ differs from other (public) hitting metrics in that it focuses on each hitter’s expected contribution, rather than merely averaging the result of hitter PAs.

 

I take that to mean they use the stats we here at Twins Daily EXPECT from the Twins. What does Nelson Cruz's 80 home runs translate into DRC+?

 

Concur with the Sano Flakes pun. Very excellent.

  • ashbury likes this

#42 ashbury

ashbury

    Haighters gonna Haight

  • Twins Mods
  • 21,589 posts
  • LocationLake Tahoe, NV

Posted 24 January 2019 - 08:09 AM

I take that to mean they use the stats we here at Twins Daily EXPECT from the Twins. What does Nelson Cruz's 80 home runs translate into DRC+?

giphy.gif

  • nicksaviking likes this

Nothing is impossible for the one who doesn't have to do the work.


#43 LA VIkes Fan

LA VIkes Fan

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 1,453 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 03:23 PM

 

BPs deserved runs created based on last year’s performance suggests otherwise.

Kepler had a DRC+ of 111 and Cave 90. League average is 100.

https://www.baseball...d-runs-created/

Interesting. Everything else offensively suggests Cave. Cave had the higher OPS .797 to .727, higher OPS + by far, 113 to 95, and BR predicts .259/.317/.445 (.763) for Cave vs. .235/.317/.419 (.736) for Kepler in 2019.Pretty wide offensive disparities all around. Kepler is supposedly better defensively but it is interesting that Molitor tried both in CF last year and chose Cave over Kepler. Suggest at least he thought Cave was the better OF. Besides, these guys are playing RF since Buxton has been "'promised" CF - bad idea to promise anyone who hasn't preformed anything other than an opportunity to compete in my view - so I would say offense is more important than defense. 

 

I think Cave wins on the potential issue, at least based on results so far from Kepler. He's had over 1550 ABs and he hits like a 4th OF - .233/.313/.417 .(730), not like a good corner OF on a winning, contending team. Cave was better last year at the plate, actually much better. Who knows what we'll get this year from him, but he deserves the chance to play over a guy who has had his chance and not been able to show he can consistently hit MLB pitching. . My point is that mediocre teams pick winners and don't change when they don't perform as hoped and/or perform worse than someone they didn't pick as the winner. Let's not be that team.


#44 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 6,968 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 03:47 PM

Interesting. Everything else offensively suggests Cave. Cave had the higher OPS .797 to .727, higher OPS + by far, 113 to 95, and BR predicts .259/.317/.445 (.763) for Cave vs. .235/.317/.419 (.736) for Kepler in 2019. Pretty wide offensive disparities all around. Kepler is supposedly better defensively but it is interesting that Molitor tried both in CF last year and chose Cave over Kepler. Suggest at least he thought Cave was the better OF. Besides, these guys are playing RF since Buxton has been "'promised" CF - bad idea to promise anyone who hasn't preformed anything other than an opportunity to compete in my view - so I would say offense is more important than defense.

I think Cave wins on the potential issue, at least based on results so far from Kepler. He's had over 1550 ABs and he hits like a 4th OF - .233/.313/.417 .(730), not like a good corner OF on a winning, contending team. Cave was better last year at the plate, actually much better. Who knows what we'll get this year from him, but he deserves the chance to play over a guy who has had his chance and not been able to show he can consistently hit MLB pitching. . My point is that mediocre teams pick winners and don't change when they don't perform as hoped and/or perform worse than someone they didn't pick as the winner. Let's not be that team.


Without digging into a stat that I don't know much about, I'm assuming they are banking on Kepler's low babip's being a product of bad luck.
In other words, with neutral luck, Kepler "should" put up better offensive numbers than he has in the past.
I'm not necessarily agreeing with that. There are more variables that go into babip than just luck. But, theoretically, Kepler's numbers could be the victim of poor luck on balls in play, in which case those numbers should be expected to improve, even without any actual improvement from Kepler.

#45 yarnivek1972

yarnivek1972

    Cooperstown

  • Members
  • 5,059 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 04:13 PM

Cabrera signed by the Rangers for 1yr at $3.5M. He is expected to start at 3B or be the Rangers primary utility man.

I would offered him at least $5M to be the Twins primary utility guy!

Ridiculous Adrianza is our only infield bench piece with any sort of experience!


How many infield bench players do you expect a team carrying 12-13 pitchers to have?

#46 notoriousgod71

notoriousgod71

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,536 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 04:25 PM

The Twins are blowing it everywhere. There's not an above average component to this roster as it's presently constructed.


#47 DocBauer

DocBauer

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,967 posts

Posted 24 January 2019 - 07:53 PM

How many infield bench players do you expect a team carrying 12-13 pitchers to have?


Great question. Obviously, I'd prefer a 12 man staff and 13 total players. In that scenario, there is room for Adrianza AND Cabrera, or someone similar.

But let me ask you a question in return, if someone goes down, or if Sano simply can't get it going, where is the depth? Where is the fall back? Do we really view Adrianza as a full time starter? What's wrong with depth and competition? I'd much rather have the problem of "how do we keep all these guys" rather than "what happens if someone goes down"?

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

 

--Lou Brown


#48 yarnivek1972

yarnivek1972

    Cooperstown

  • Members
  • 5,059 posts

Posted 25 January 2019 - 03:44 PM

Great question. Obviously, I'd prefer a 12 man staff and 13 total players. In that scenario, there is room for Adrianza AND Cabrera, or someone similar.

But let me ask you a question in return, if someone goes down, or if Sano simply can't get it going, where is the depth? Where is the fall back? Do we really view Adrianza as a full time starter? What's wrong with depth and competition? I'd much rather have the problem of "how do we keep all these guys" rather than "what happens if someone goes down"?


You’re talking about two different issues. Unless something changes, the active roster limit is 25. At least 12 will be pitchers and there will certainly be times during the season when there are 13. Any way you slice it that means 3-4 bench players. Why would you want more than one to be an infielder when you are likely to get more offensive production from an outfield/ first base type?

The other issue you are talking about is minor league depth. Last year’s AAA roster was pathetic. Your AAA roster is supposed to be your depth. If you have any doubts about a guy being able to contribute at the MLB level, he shouldn’t be at AAA, period. Ideally, you would like as many of them as possible to have minor league options remaining.

#49 ahart10

ahart10

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 275 posts

Posted 25 January 2019 - 11:43 PM

Out of a possible 6154 plate appearances last season I count only 102 pinch hit appearances for the Twins on the season. I’ll take versatility over a bench bat every time.