Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Front Page: Twins Game Recap (8/20): Cruz Leads Twins Offensive Explosion

minnesota twins chicago white sox twins vs white sox twins win
  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#81 MVP Nick Punto

MVP Nick Punto

    Pensacola Blue Wahoos

  • Member
  • 560 posts
  • LocationDuluth

Posted 21 August 2019 - 11:11 AM

I choose Nick Punto. Now just give me a few minutes while I frame the question.

Good. Choice. +67
  • USAFChief and 70charger like this

#82 twins1095

twins1095

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 236 posts

Posted 21 August 2019 - 11:13 AM

Jorge is so HUGE for this team when he is hitting. He went into a prolonged slump for most of the summer and in the last 11 games or so it finally, hopefully, looks like he has snapped out of it and is hitting like he was at the beginning of the season. More impressively, he hi that HR as a right handed hitter last night.


I think his last 2 HRs have been as a righty. Very good to see!
  • Original Whizzinator likes this

#83 twins1095

twins1095

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 236 posts

Posted 21 August 2019 - 11:20 AM

Cruz is looking very much like David Ortiz did at age 39, let's hope he follows through with a similar age-40 season!

Ortiz put up .273/.360/.913 as a 39 year old with 37 doubles and 37 HR, and he followed that up with .315/.401/1.021 with a league-leading 48 doubles and 38 HR at age 40!

Cruz is currently at .296/.385/1.031 with 19 doubles and 32 HR...


He’s actually at .303/.390/1.057 with 22 2b and 33 HRs in 89 games/333 ABs.

Ortiz in his age 39/40 seasons was at 146/151 games and 528/537 ABs respectively. Now with that being said, health is a skill especially at older ages.

To put in perspective Cruz’s numbers with that many ABs are as follows:

.303/.390/1.057

99 runs -35 2B - 52 HRs - 127 RBI


Your point does stand. Very similar. Cruz has actually been better, especially during his age 39 season. I hope he makes a similar age 40 jump ;)
  • Jacks02 likes this

#84 Dantes929

Dantes929

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,606 posts

Posted 21 August 2019 - 02:50 PM

 

Part of the rationale for not voting for players on non contending teams is that they get pitched to differently.

If the Angels are contending and another contender is playing them, they aren’t going to let Trout beat them, period. Pujols doesn’t offer sufficient protection anymore. Nor does Ohtani. So Trout would have a more difficult time putting up numbers than he is. As it is now, most teams would be of the opinion that they can beat the Angels no matter what Trout does because the rest of the team has been so bad. Their high water mark was 54-49, after taking two from the Dodgers in mid July. At that point they were still 12 games back and since then have been an abysmal 9-16. And that’s probably what the rest of their season looks like.

Sorry.Not buying it.No team is going to say we can beat the Angels no matter what Trout does. They are going to say our odds of beating the Angels go up significantly if we pitch around Trout and make the others beat us.. At least the smart ones do.Twins should have pitched around Abreu this series. If they had they might have won 2 of 3 instead of losing. On the other hand, teams would have a tougher time pitching around Trout if he was surrounded by guys that can hit.He leads the major leagues in walks.That doesn't tell me they are going after him. The only reason to pitch to him ever is that when they don't walk him he makes outs 70% of the time.

If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.
If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

#85 Dantes929

Dantes929

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,606 posts

Posted 21 August 2019 - 03:05 PM

 

You could argue that in a macro sense, Mike Trout is the least valuable player in baseball.The Angels are currently 63-66; subtract Trout's 8.4 WAR, and that drops to 55-74.In other words, Mike Trout single-handedly drags the Angels to mediocrity, ensuring they don't get access to the premier talent at the top of the draft, or the larger bonus pool needed to get talent in the second and third round.The Angels can't enter a full-scale rebuild, dumping veterans to buttress the farm system, and throwing their own prospects out to see who sticks.

 

Over the past 7 full seasons, the Angels are 584-550 (average of 83-79).Take out Mike Trout's 64.2 WAR, and they're now 520-614 (average of 74-88); to put that in perspective, over the same timeframe, the Twins have been 507-627 (average of 72-90).

 

Further, while there is no other player the Angels could get to replace Mike Trout, his large salary (along with Pujols and Upton), prevent the Angels from getting immediate help.Put another way, Kepler and Polanco have combined for 7.4 WAR this year (88% of Trout), but at 25% of the cost, leaving the Twins $26M free to play with.

 

Is Mike Trout the best player in baseball?Currently there is no doubt that he is, and perhaps the best ever.Is he the most valuable?At least in my opinion, no.

Ok, I concede. Lets call it the NIAMSOWRTTPCOEHHODOBRHVHIITCSOTAPFWTMRTTTSHNot In A Macro Economic Sense Or With Regard To The Player's Contract Or Effect He Has on Draft Order But Rather How Valuable He Is In The Current Season On The Actual Playing Field Without Too Much Regard To The Talent Surrounding Him awardOr MVP for short.

  • Brock Beauchamp and MN_ExPat like this
If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.
If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

#86 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    A Little Teapot

  • Owner
  • 22,644 posts

Posted 21 August 2019 - 06:44 PM

 

Sorry.Not buying it.No team is going to say we can beat the Angels no matter what Trout does. They are going to say our odds of beating the Angels go up significantly if we pitch around Trout and make the others beat us.. At least the smart ones do.Twins should have pitched around Abreu this series. If they had they might have won 2 of 3 instead of losing. On the other hand, teams would have a tougher time pitching around Trout if he was surrounded by guys that can hit.He leads the major leagues in walks.That doesn't tell me they are going after him. The only reason to pitch to him ever is that when they don't walk him he makes outs 70% of the time.

Yep, look at Abreu. It's easier to pitch around a mediocre lineup with one superstar "greatest of all time" type of player in it than it is to pitch around a good lineup with that same amazing player anchoring it.

 

Imagine putting Trout between Kepler and Cruz or Gregorius and Judge.

 

The dude might OPS 1.400 on the year.

 

A sample photo of Mike Trout hitting second in the Twins lineup:

 

giphy.gif

  • MN_ExPat likes this

#87 Cap'n Piranha

Cap'n Piranha

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,273 posts

Posted 22 August 2019 - 09:14 AM

 

Ok, I concede. Lets call it the NIAMSOWRTTPCOEHHODOBRHVHIITCSOTAPFWTMRTTTSHNot In A Macro Economic Sense Or With Regard To The Player's Contract Or Effect He Has on Draft Order But Rather How Valuable He Is In The Current Season On The Actual Playing Field Without Too Much Regard To The Talent Surrounding Him awardOr MVP for short.

 

Dude, we can debate multiple definitions at the same time.I've stated, explicitly and multiple times, that based solely on on-field production (which is the current criteria), Trout is the MVP, it's not close, and it should be unanimous.

 

If the MVP is restricted to the current year (which it should be), but pay is included (which it also should be), Trout is much less valuable, due to the fact that each point of WAR costs $4.2M (Kepler is $1.7M, Acuna is $196k, Bellinger is $88k).Those 3 players cost less than half of Trout this year, but have combined for almost twice the WAR.

 

Here's an example for you; say you are told you can have one bowl of ice cream, and you get a choice between two bowls.One has 3 scoops, and costs $5, while the other costs $2 for 2 scoops.If all you care about is maximizing your ice cream, you'll get the 3 scoop bowl.However, if you get the 2 scoop bowl, you can use your extra 3 dollars to buy a brownie, some hot fudge, whipped cream, and a cherry.The latter option clearly has more value, which should perhaps be taken into account when conferring an award that has the word Valuable right in it.


#88 Dantes929

Dantes929

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,606 posts

Posted 22 August 2019 - 11:13 AM

 

Dude, we can debate multiple definitions at the same time.I've stated, explicitly and multiple times, that based solely on on-field production (which is the current criteria), Trout is the MVP, it's not close, and it should be unanimous.

 

If the MVP is restricted to the current year (which it should be), but pay is included (which it also should be), Trout is much less valuable, due to the fact that each point of WAR costs $4.2M (Kepler is $1.7M, Acuna is $196k, Bellinger is $88k).Those 3 players cost less than half of Trout this year, but have combined for almost twice the WAR.

 

Here's an example for you; say you are told you can have one bowl of ice cream, and you get a choice between two bowls.One has 3 scoops, and costs $5, while the other costs $2 for 2 scoops.If all you care about is maximizing your ice cream, you'll get the 3 scoop bowl.However, if you get the 2 scoop bowl, you can use your extra 3 dollars to buy a brownie, some hot fudge, whipped cream, and a cherry.The latter option clearly has more value, which should perhaps be taken into account when conferring an award that has the word Valuable right in it.

I was mostly trying to be funny.I disagree that pay should be included in any calculation.I don;t care how much they make. If price per WAR were a factor you might as well just eliminate any veteran over 6 years from consideration.Closest I can come withyour ice cream example is would you rather have Kemps, Edie's, Haagen Daaz, etc. Period. Most valuable asset would be a different discussion and would maybe bring Aj for Nathan, Liriano and Boof or Viola for Aguillera, Tapani into play. A different award could be most best return of WAR for the money. MVP should just be whose production for the current year would you most like to have on your team.If its close then players on competitive teams should be considered.If a guy has 20 homers and 6 of them are walk off that should be considered.If another guy has 20 homers and they all came with plus or minus 5 runs that could be considered also. In other words mostly stat driven but situational consideration. Situational meaning on the field situations not compensation or draft considerations.Thats just IMO.

If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.
If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: minnesota twins, chicago white sox, twins vs white sox, twins win