Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Photo

Keon Broxton !

  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Doctor Gast

Doctor Gast

    St Paul Saints

  • Member
  • 1,035 posts
  • LocationBelo Horizonte, Brazil

Posted 23 March 2021 - 01:36 PM

In the beginning of spring training related to LF, Baldelli said he was going to bring the best w/ him to start the beginning of the 2021 season. He was talking about Kiriloff but the the truth should still pertain. Keon has proven that he is more than able to come up with team. All indications points to Cave as the starting LF and main replacement for Buxton but is he the best selection?

Broxton has clearly shown he's by far better in each category than Cave. I get it that Broxton isn't on the 40 man roster and we'll use him as Buxton insurance. The 40 man is very tight and it'd be hard to justify bumping anyone out to find room for him, especially since Law is pitching well and is out of options. But can we afford not bringing him up?

 

Twins pride themslves about being so analytical, so lets look at a very complicated stat call wins and losses.

 

https://www.startrib...ured/512919562/

 

I couldn't find any exact records of Buxton throughout his career about this subject but this article by Sid Hartman gives us an idea on what they could be. When Buxton is playing CF we win about 2x as many games as we lose, when his substitutes play there we lose about 2x more games than we win. This stat not only show how great Buxton is defensively but also how inferior his replacements are. Of all his replacements Cave is the worst, it has been announced that he'll be his main replacement this year. Why does this matter?

 

This matters because CWS has been predicted to win the divsion by many pundits. On paper CWS look very good and we need to win as many games as possible because it'll be very close. If we lose the division, we should make the WC then more than likely we'll face our nemise NYY. I'd like the honor of winning the division and missing the Yanks. When Broxton wouldn't be playing LF, he'd close the gap between Buxton & his subs at CF& he could PR & be defensive replacements in crucial games. All this means many more wins. So you see we can't afford not to bring Broxton up to start the season. 

  • jimbo92107 likes this

#2 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Moderator
  • 18,666 posts

Posted 23 March 2021 - 02:08 PM

 

Broxton has clearly shown he's by far better in each category than Cave.

This has been discussed today under the Kirilloff article. Despite the spring training stats so far, it's not clear Broxton is better than Cave at the plate or overall:

 

http://twinsdaily.co...-3#entry1017069

 

http://twinsdaily.co...ster/?p=1017080

 

Also noted in that thread, Broxton doesn't have an opt-out clause in his minor league contract, so he can be assigned to AAA while the Twins continue to collect data on if/how he could potentially help the team, relative to other players.

  • Brock Beauchamp and In My La-Z-boy like this

#3 Dman

Dman

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 2,217 posts

Posted 23 March 2021 - 02:44 PM

I like what Broxton has done this spring and am surprised at how well he is doing.The K rate is fairly good.He has taken walks.He has hit and hit for power.He plays good defense and has enough speed to steal bases.Now that he has passed those hurdles in Spring training will that carry over to the Elite competition he will face in MLB.He rarely started this spring and I don't believe he faced the level of competition he will if makes the team so how do we know he will produce at levels close to what he did this spring or close to the ones the past two years that almost have him out of baseball?That is the question.

 

I don't know if he has an opt out later in the season like a month or two in, but if he does not have an opt out and I haven't been able to find an article that says he does, then the Twins can keep him as insurance in AAA for the rest of the season.If Buxton goes down for a long period of time they could put Broxton on the 40 man.They might lose him once Buxton returns but he still would have served his purpose.If does do well as Byron's replacement they could try and trade Cave or make some other move to keep him on the 40 man.

 

The sticky issue here is that Broxton is unlikely to be a long term answer.Celestino is the long term answer.He just needs a bit more polish and needs to play everyday right now so not an ideal replacement for Byron this year IMO.The Twins would also lose an option year if they played Celestino which not ideal either. So do you risk losing Garlick or Cave to add Broxton short term or move Kepler over or even use an option on Celestino?I don't know how the FO feels about that.They obviously brought him in for a reason but all indications are Cave is essentially the starting left fielder probably in platoon with Rooker to start the season.

 

My hope is that we can keep Broxton in AAA until a need arises which pretty much every year a need has arisen and we can use Broxton to fill the gap.I think his chances are good if he plays well in AAA and Buxton gets injured like most every other year.If he reverts to the hitter of old in AAA then either Kepler moves over or Celestino comes up.Not sure how this whole thing will play out but Broxton will start in AAA that much is certain.


#4 Azviking101

Azviking101

    GCL Twins

  • Member
  • 20 posts

Posted 23 March 2021 - 02:44 PM

Now that Kiriloff is gone, why not I guess.
Kind of going off on a similar tangent here, but many people were all for replacing Rosario including me. There were glaring holes in his game and it seemed like a perfect opportunity to upgrade.
Fine, perfect. Replacing Rosario with Cave, Rooker or Broxton is not an upgrade.

I hoped that the twins would stop playing this service game now that they were competitive but I guess it’s just part of their DNA

#5 Doctor Gast

Doctor Gast

    St Paul Saints

  • Member
  • 1,035 posts
  • LocationBelo Horizonte, Brazil

Posted 23 March 2021 - 03:13 PM

This has been discussed today under the Kirilloff article. Despite the spring training stats so far, it's not clear Broxton is better than Cave at the plate or overall:


http://twinsdaily.co...-3#entry1017069

http://twinsdaily.co...ster/?p=1017080

Also noted in that thread, Broxton doesn't have an opt-out clause in his minor league contract, so he can be assigned to AAA while the Twins continue to collect data on if/how he could potentially help the team, relative to other players.

So you are telling me that Cave has out performed Broxton in defense, running, hitting and slugging this spring training? Then you need to throw your indicators out the window.
I understand that he lost himself for years without ever showing any sign of his old self. But it's evident to me that he's found himself besides being wiser and more mature. So I'm not interested in any stats during his lost years
Thank you for informing me about Broxton not having a player's option but that was understood when I said that he was Buxton insurance because otherwise he'd be gone.
I didn't realize that this was discussed in the Kiriloff article although I thought about writing this there. I just believed that this subject is worth discussing in a specific thread.

#6 Azviking101

Azviking101

    GCL Twins

  • Member
  • 20 posts

Posted 23 March 2021 - 03:17 PM

The most unbelievable thing is that we're arguing about Cave vs Broxton instead of Rosario vs Kiriloff on a team that has been on a 100 win pace for 2 seasons.

 

It's embarrassing, but it's the Twins we know. People wonder why Minnesota sports fans are so miserable and have so many trust issues. This is the reason lol.


#7 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    A Little Teapot

  • Owner
  • 24,491 posts

Posted 23 March 2021 - 03:20 PM

 

So you are telling me that Cave has out performed Broxton in defense, running, hitting and slugging this spring training? Then you need to throw your indicators out the window.

I'm sorry but if you're using Spring Training box scores to evaluate players to put on the 26-man roster, you're the one who needs to throw your indicators out the window because they're quite useless and lead to really bad decision making. We have decades of evidence to support that being the case.

  • beckmt and In My La-Z-boy like this

#8 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    A Little Teapot

  • Owner
  • 24,491 posts

Posted 23 March 2021 - 03:22 PM

 

Replacing Rosario with Cave, Rooker or Broxton is not an upgrade.

I'd bet even money that a Rooker/Cave platoon is an upgrade over Rosario.

 

It's not a high bar to clear, frankly. Rosario was a fine MLB starter but that's all. Cave is good against RHP and probably a smidge better defender than Rosario. Rooker should be good against LHP while being a smidge worse defender than Rosario.

  • Jerr, ScrapTheNickname, Twins33 and 6 others like this

#9 Doctor Gast

Doctor Gast

    St Paul Saints

  • Member
  • 1,035 posts
  • LocationBelo Horizonte, Brazil

Posted 23 March 2021 - 05:06 PM

I'm sorry but if you're using Spring Training box scores to evaluate players to put on the 26-man roster, you're the one who needs to throw your indicators out the window because they're quite useless and lead to really bad decision making. We have decades of evidence to support that being the case.


The 26 man roster decisions are based largely on spring training production. To me the most serious problem and stat is how many games we lose when Cave is subbing Buxton. Cave can play an ok LF if that's the only issue I'd be fine with that, but it isn't. Wins and losses, what it boils down to it is the only stat that's important. If you throw the same worst solution to the same problem don't expect a different result.

#10 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    A Little Teapot

  • Owner
  • 24,491 posts

Posted 23 March 2021 - 05:37 PM

The 26 man roster decisions are based largely on spring training production.

They’re really not. Like, at all.

Analytics told us quite some time ago that spring training performance has a very low correlation to regular season performance, so weak that it’s basically nonexistent. If a team is basing decisions from an ST box score, they’re almost certainly doing it wrong.

Spring Training can tell a team a lot but it’s usually outside a box score and something that the general public is not privy to like attitude, work ethic, practice sessions, and biometric numbers.
  • Doctor Gast likes this

#11 sampleSizeOfOne

sampleSizeOfOne

    out to lunch

  • Member
  • 10,667 posts

Posted 23 March 2021 - 10:15 PM

I am happy to have Keon in the system, and realize that not being on the 40 man means we likely will only see him in case of a 60 day injury, or a trade, as we will give the outfielders on the 40 man every chance to succeed.

 

If i am able to roam through the Twin cities this summer, i assume getting St. Paul ticket will be easier? So i am glad they have good players there,


#12 hmarkose

hmarkose

    GCL Twins

  • Member
  • 7 posts

Posted 23 March 2021 - 11:59 PM

Judging from when Broxton has gotten into games this ST, I would say that there is no way that he will come north with the team, and that is ok.Garlick is another fantastic find that will be ready to go in case someone on the big league roster is injured or simply not performing.Those are two great treasures that have minor league options.I also agree with everyone who is predicting a Rooker/Cave platoon in LF.Let's keep the positive energy flowing - Go Twins!

  • Dman and wabene like this

#13 ScrapTheNickname

ScrapTheNickname

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 3,136 posts

Posted 24 March 2021 - 12:39 AM

 

Now that Kiriloff is gone, why not I guess.
Kind of going off on a similar tangent here, but many people were all for replacing Rosario including me. There were glaring holes in his game and it seemed like a perfect opportunity to upgrade.
Fine, perfect. Replacing Rosario with Cave, Rooker or Broxton is not an upgrade.

I hoped that the twins would stop playing this service game now that they were competitive but I guess it’s just part of their DNA

I would defend the maintaining of service time -- nothing illegal about it. And Kiriloff simply didn't perform in Spring Training, and he's never played above AA, so it would have been senseless to carry him now. Let him get ABs and maturity in St. Paul and AAA when the games start. No hurry. It's not about service time, clearly.

  • luckylager and terrydactyls1947 like this

#14 ScrapTheNickname

ScrapTheNickname

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 3,136 posts

Posted 24 March 2021 - 12:40 AM

 

 

The most unbelievable thing is that we're arguing about Cave vs Broxton instead of Rosario vs Kiriloff on a team that has been on a 100 win pace for 2 seasons.

 

It's embarrassing, but it's the Twins we know. People wonder why Minnesota sports fans are so miserable and have so many trust issues. This is the reason lol.

R-E-L-A-X. That's why they play 162.


#15 Doctor Gast

Doctor Gast

    St Paul Saints

  • Member
  • 1,035 posts
  • LocationBelo Horizonte, Brazil

Posted 24 March 2021 - 08:44 AM

They’re really not. Like, at all.
Analytics told us quite some time ago that spring training performance has a very low correlation to regular season performance, so weak that it’s basically nonexistent. If a team is basing decisions from an ST box score, they’re almost certainly doing it wrong.
Spring Training can tell a team a lot but it’s usually outside a box score and something that the general public is not privy to like attitude, work ethic, practice sessions, and biometric numbers.

Agree with you that spring training decisions are not etched in stone and shouldn't be. But they should help us make tough decisions like who will pitch the opening game, pecking order and who should start the season and who shouldn't.
Agree also that stats are useful but we need to look at the dimensions that you mentioned like attitudes, character and work ethic. We should look beyond stats and look at under lying conditions both good and bad.
I know Broxton's past problem is a concern. Our problem of CF without Buxton made me focus on Broxton. Broxton seemed like a different man when he arrived in camp, more relaxed. His 1st AB was a walk, that confirmed my assumption. His hitting in ST has been very encouraging. There has been no doubt about his elite defense and speed, now his rejuvenated hitting is icing on the cake. I don't know if it's a new mind set or mechanics or a combination of everything. So that's why I'm not putting much stock in stats on the old Broxton because I believe he's a new man.

#16 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Member
  • 4,147 posts

Posted 24 March 2021 - 09:22 AM

 

Agree with you that spring training decisions are not etched in stone and shouldn't be. But they should help us make tough decisions like who will pitch the opening game, pecking order and who should start the season and who shouldn't.
Agree also that stats are useful but we need to look at the dimensions that you mentioned like attitudes, character and work ethic. We should look beyond stats and look at under lying conditions both good and bad.
I know Broxton's past problem is a concern. Our problem of CF without Buxton made me focus on Broxton. Broxton seemed like a different man when he arrived in camp, more relaxed. His 1st AB was a walk, that confirmed my assumption. His hitting in ST has been very encouraging. There has been no doubt about his elite defense and speed, now his rejuvenated hitting is icing on the cake. I don't know if it's a new mind set or mechanics or a combination of everything. So that's why I'm not putting much stock in stats on the old Broxton because I believe he's a new man.

The order of the first 3 pitchers was pretty much set a long time ago.  Starting jobs can be lost in spring training as the topic of this thread shows. Backup roles can be won by players destined to be backups or nothing left to be gained by playing everyday in the minors, The off the game qualities would likely come into play there. 


#17 Twins33

Twins33

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 587 posts

Posted 24 March 2021 - 10:59 AM

Broxton has been a pleasant surprise for me in terms of plate discipline so far. I hope he can keep it up in AAA because I’m not a fan of Cave in CF ever. 

  • Doctor Gast likes this

#18 Dodecahedron

Dodecahedron

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 272 posts

Posted 24 March 2021 - 11:17 AM

 

They’re really not. Like, at all.

Analytics told us quite some time ago that spring training performance has a very low correlation to regular season performance, so weak that it’s basically nonexistent. If a team is basing decisions from an ST box score, they’re almost certainly doing it wrong.

Spring Training can tell a team a lot but it’s usually outside a box score and something that the general public is not privy to like attitude, work ethic, practice sessions, and biometric numbers.

 

The problem with knowing this for sure is that the metrics are circular.

 

I seem to recall Joe Nathan was a new Twin and was chosen to be the closer based on the job being open and his ST performance. Of course, now we can look at his seasonal stats v. ST stats and see there was a reason for his decent ST numbers that year -- he was a great player. However, his ST performance was a factor in him getting the job.

 

At the same time, we can look at ST v. seasonal stats for all the players who didn't make in the big leagues for very long, and get a great confirmation bias that the the metrics are pointless.

 

I would hope that smart GMs *do* consider ST stats, *but also* other factors. I would be surprised if *any* GM decisions are based on one factor alone. Is ST one of those factors to be considered? Sure, for those players who are "borderline ready" based on other factors.

 

For minor league deals, sure, decisions can be made based on one or two factors, but not for major league work.

  • Doctor Gast likes this

#19 spycake

spycake

    Senior Member

  • Moderator
  • 18,666 posts

Posted 24 March 2021 - 12:39 PM

 

I seem to recall Joe Nathan was a new Twin and was chosen to be the closer based on the job being open and his ST performance. Of course, now we can look at his seasonal stats v. ST stats and see there was a reason for his decent ST numbers that year -- he was a great player. However, his ST performance was a factor in him getting the job.

I'd be surprised if spring training stats played much of a role in Nathan getting the closer's job in 2004.

 

We signed him to a multi-year contract with spring training barely underway on March 4, with incentives for games finished and all-star appearances. He had been a fantastic high-leverage setup man for the Giants in 2003 and he was pretty much our only significant bullpen addition that offseason. He was way ahead of any potential competition for the closer's job before spring training even began -- Rincon and Balfour hadn't been used in any kind of high leverage spot yet, Romero was coming off a very shaky 2003 as a lefty specialist, and Crain hadn't pitched in MLB at all (and wouldn't until August 2004).

 

Could Nathan have had a disastrous ~10 innings in spring training and caused the Twins to change course? Certainly, but the problem would have to be bad enough that it would be evident to the Twins in non-statistical ways too. Otherwise, spring training is such a small sample, in such unusual circumstances, that good/bad performances with a normal range generally don't shift a team's preconceived evaluations too much.


#20 Dodecahedron

Dodecahedron

    Cedar Rapids Kernels

  • Member
  • 272 posts

Posted 25 March 2021 - 09:33 AM

 

I'd be surprised if spring training stats played much of a role in Nathan getting the closer's job in 2004.

 

I have no doubt that you would be surprised. Ron Gardenhire and Terry Ryan both talked about it in the media quite a bit, though. The story is, they decided with about 10 days left in ST, but only told Joe at the end of ST because they didn't want to mess with his head.

 

Obviously news reports this old are hard to find, but if you are truly curious, go for it.