11 hours ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

Even though I’m late to the party, I thoroughly enjoyed the article and I completely agree that the answer is both/and not either/or.  I also like your above statement about plan development and change.  I offer the following on it.

I am a musician (retired band conductor actually) and as such, have studied (or was forced to study) a great deal of music from different composers and different eras.  I found much of it quite confusing as describing one composer’s music compared to another’s can be pretty esoteric.  However, in graduate school, I had a music theory professor who described composers in terms of what their process was.  His thesis was essentially this:  There are three parts in the process of composing and developing music.  Composers are either innovators, codifiers, or exploiters.  A good example of an innovator would be Beethoven or Wagner - what they did changed the world of music, even if they didn’t have it all figured out yet.  It’s why they are still famous.  Innovators always get lots of credit.  Exploiters are people that take other peoples’ mistakes and learn from them, then figure out how to do something better than anyone else can, even after others have moved on.   In the music world that’s J.S. Bach, whose own sons thought he was old fashioned and stuck in the past.  However, because his music is the best possible example of its type, it remains popular hundreds of years later and he is on the “Mt. Rushmore” of composers.  Guys like him are kind of the GOAT.  It’s the codifiers who don’t get a ton of credit.  They are taking that innovation - using and applying it in new and different ways.  Sometimes they are successful, but often they aren’t or their success is middling at best.  We don’t name a lot of these guys because they get lost in the process of “progress”.  Some of these guys were excellent composers in their own right but didn’t take the ideas to their peak.   I think that all of this applies to a lot of different things, including the use of analytics in baseball.  

We are currently deep in the codifying world.  There were some great innovators that had some success and now everyone is trying to figure out how they can do it better than anyone else.  The problem is that within the certainty that statistics provide there is indeed a lot of uncertainty.  The Twins are no different in this than anyone else, even though there is WAY too much kvetching about “Rocco’s Spreadsheet” (I did like the line - “how do we know what is on it?”  That was funny and so so true.). At this point (maybe thankfully) we are still quite a distance from figuring it all out so I don’t think that we really have any exploiters yet, even though some would like to claim that they are.  

So. . . What does all of this mean?  Not much except that we keep on trying, mixing in a both/and kind of way in hopes of perfecting at least one part of it that we can exploit against the rest of the league. . . . until the next week when the rest of the league figures out what we’re up to and adapts to it.  Argh!

This might be the answer, but what do I know?  I’m just the (retired) band guy!

I love your composer comparables. 

Falvey/Lavine/Baldelli. IMO... Codifiers.

The designation of codifier comes from how they seem to weight certain things and then go on a drinking binge with those certain things that they may have overweighted.

I describe it this way. The Doctor (Data) may tell them that a glass of wine is good for them. They seem to take the doctors advice to heart by drinking 4 bottles a night which may not be good for them.

For example... the left vs left platoon split. They have taken the same data that all teams have... over weighted it and are platooning to an extreme beyond what other teams are doing with the same data.  

Before that... the Twins had an extreme reaction to pitchers and the third time through the order. The data supports starting pitchers not doing so well the third time through. The Twins take the application of that data to a new level... beyond what other teams were doing with the same data. The data may say that a glass of wine is good for you but they got a brown paper bag on that bottle as they carry it around with them all day.   

Are they testing the perimeters by being an extreme version of this followed by an extreme version of that? I don't know. From my chair it just seems to create other unintended issues. Protecting your lefties as caused your right handed hitters to become exposed. Protecting your starters from the third time through the order exposed the bullpen. 

Anyway... I loved your post. 

I love the open sound of a suspended 4th. But have some balance though... don't hang out there all day... come back to the major third.

Margot going 0 for 30 as a pinch hitter is being in a suspended state of dissonance with no resolve. 

2 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

I love your composer comparables. 

Falvey/Lavine/Baldelli. IMO... Codifiers.

The designation of codifier comes from how they seem to weight certain things and then go on a drinking binge with those certain things that they may have overweighted.

I describe it this way. The Doctor (Data) may tell them that a glass of wine is good for them. They seem to take the doctors advice to heart by drinking 4 bottles a night which may not be good for them.

For example... the left vs left platoon split. They have taken the same data that all teams have... over weighted it and are platooning to an extreme beyond what other teams are doing with the same data.  

Before that... the Twins had an extreme reaction to pitchers and the third time through the order. The data supports starting pitchers not doing so well the third time through. The Twins take the application of that data to a new level... beyond what other teams were doing with the same data. The data may say that a glass of wine is good for you but they got a brown paper bag on that bottle as they carry it around with them all day.   

Are they testing the perimeters by being an extreme version of this followed by an extreme version of that? I don't know. From my chair it just seems to create other unintended issues. Protecting your lefties as caused your right handed hitters to become exposed. Protecting your starters from the third time through the order exposed the bullpen. 

Anyway... I loved your post. 

I love the open sound of a suspended 4th. But have some balance though... don't hang out there all day... come back to the major third.

Margot going 0 for 30 as a pinch hitter is being in a suspended state of dissonance with no resolve. 

 

 

 

Indeed, the open suspended 4th is nice, but it's only good if we get some resolution. 

It is pretty easy to argue that professional sports are extremely competitive - played by extremely competitive athletes that will do almost anything to win, and coached/managed by extremely competitive individuals who are always looking for the latest angle to win.  In this dogged pursuit for advantage I believe lies the problem.  If a little of something works, then an extreme amount must work better -- until it doesn't.  It takes a while to figure out just how much of a thing is useful and what constitutes overuse - a delicate dance if you will.  Sometimes there is even a reaction to it.  I introduce you to Arnold Schoenberg, a very good composer who started as an exploiter - writing some of the most syrupy sweet music of the late, late Romantic period (think early 20th century, actually "The Transfigured Night" - 1899).  He was good at it, but it's too much of what was considered to be a good thing.  He had a bit of a reaction and produced (invented actually) the 12 tone system of writing (Suite for Piano, op 25 - around 1920 - it will sound very harsh to you probably, because it is).  The explanation for this is messy and complex, but essentially he abandoned the "beauty" that he was writing for the "structure" of something new. He was an exploiter. who became an innovator. 

I would agree with your analogy that Falvey, Baldelli, Levine, et al are most definitely codifiers.  They are looking for the way, and sometimes stumble upon it and experience some nice success, while at other times producing a product that seems to be wandering in the wilderness.  Their biggest challenge, aside from the deficiencies of the numbers themselves, is that the solution changes as personnel changes on the team, and it is only when the personnel can match the strategy that there is real success to make them exploiters -- 2019 comes to mind.  However, now they have young players, with all of the uncertainties that entails, so their strategies need to continue to adapt, so the target continues to move and their attempt to codify fails, because the raw ingredients are no longer the same.  Being a codifier isn't fun.

The process is fascinating, a little like defining creativity.  Go Twins! 

12 minutes ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

Indeed, the open suspended 4th is nice, but it's only good if we get some resolution. 

It is pretty easy to argue that professional sports are extremely competitive - played by extremely competitive athletes that will do almost anything to win, and coached/managed by extremely competitive individuals who are always looking for the latest angle to win.  In this dogged pursuit for advantage I believe lies the problem.  If a little of something works, then an extreme amount must work better -- until it doesn't.  It takes a while to figure out just how much of a thing is useful and what constitutes overuse - a delicate dance if you will.  Sometimes there is even a reaction to it.  I introduce you to Arnold Schoenberg, a very good composer who started as an exploiter - writing some of the most syrupy sweet music of the late, late Romantic period (think early 20th century, actually "The Transfigured Night" - 1899).  He was good at it, but it's too much of what was considered to be a good thing.  He had a bit of a reaction and produced (invented actually) the 12 tone system of writing (Suite for Piano, op 25 - around 1920 - it will sound very harsh to you probably, because it is).  The explanation for this is messy and complex, but essentially he abandoned the "beauty" that he was writing for the "structure" of something new. He was an exploiter. who became an innovator. 

I would agree with your analogy that Falvey, Baldelli, Levine, et al are most definitely codifiers.  They are looking for the way, and sometimes stumble upon it and experience some nice success, while at other times producing a product that seems to be wandering in the wilderness.  Their biggest challenge, aside from the deficiencies of the numbers themselves, is that the solution changes as personnel changes on the team, and it is only when the personnel can match the strategy that there is real success to make them exploiters -- 2019 comes to mind.  However, now they have young players, with all of the uncertainties that entails, so their strategies need to continue to adapt, so the target continues to move and their attempt to codify fails, because the raw ingredients are no longer the same.  Being a codifier isn't fun.

The process is fascinating, a little like defining creativity.  Go Twins! 

 

 

I don't anything about Arnold Schoenberg other than his work in the Terminator movies. 

However... In the Rock world that I'm much more familiar with. The exploitation of innovation reaches a point of exhaustion and that exhaustion produces the next wave,

In 1967... Brian Wilson's Pet Sounds was innovation. Sgt. Peppers was innovation. Jimi Hendrix was an innovator in 1967. The Doors as well. After they changed the landscape... the copycats came, the industry searched for copycats to hopefully reproduce the success while new bands dug the sound. Until exhaustion produced Jim Croce, Bread and the Carpenters until which exhausted itself into Disco and Corporate Rock and so forth. 

The Twins application of analytics might be in the Disco phase. There doing something different and it's selling some records but it may be short lived.  

50 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

I don't anything about Arnold Schoenberg other than his work in the Terminator movies. 

However... In the Rock world that I'm much more familiar with. The exploitation of innovation reaches a point of exhaustion and that exhaustion produces the next wave,

In 1967... Brian Wilson's Pet Sounds was innovation. Sgt. Peppers was innovation. Jimi Hendrix was an innovator in 1967. The Doors as well. After they changed the landscape... the copycats came, the industry searched for copycats to hopefully reproduce the success while new bands dug the sound. Until exhaustion produced Jim Croce, Bread and the Carpenters until which exhausted itself into Disco and Corporate Rock and so forth. 

The Twins application of analytics might be in the Disco phase. There doing something different and it's selling some records but it may be short lived.  

 

Does that mean that we can have Disco Demolition Night 2.0?   Sign me up!  

This discussion has been music to my ears! lol

My defense of Rocco, such as it is, is that Rocco doesn’t look much different to me than a bunch of other managers in the game right now. Same with this front office, I guess. 

I think we are in a period where fundamentals have been downplayed, in favor of data, and maybe we are exiting that cycle now. I don’t know. This is very anecdotal, but a few times during the last few seasons, I have seen a player on the other team look frankly no better than a typical minor leaguer (still very good I might add) batting and fielding, and think to myself, how is this guy in the majors? And then I check his exit velocities, and they are very high. The Twins have players like this too. Carlos Correa is very good and has very high exit velocity, which maybe played a part in his signing. Luis Arraez, terrible exit velocity. Traded. 

And we see many teams maybe think they are going to be the real innovators, to use the wonderful example above, but are all really doing the same thing. I don’t know. Maybe that makes them really to be codifiers or exploiters.

That old Far Side cartoon comes to mind, of the single penguin among thousands, shouting “I’ve got to be me!” 

The Twins are one of the penguins who look like all the other penguins to me.

I have been waiting for some smart baseball writer out there to publish that seminal essay of our time about Why The Game Has Changed, but have yet to see it. Because in the StatCast era, I really think it has.

However, this does not explain the massive collapse at the end of this season, which interests me.

The teams we see in both league’s championship series this season (or at least 3 or them) strike me as strong in many or most of the fundamental things teams traditionally have worked for—scouting, development, coaching, culture, yes analytics, taking the right risks, and yes money plays a role. The Dodgers and Yankees are not where they are solely because of their market or payroll, not in my opinion.

3 hours ago, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

The teams we see in both league’s championship series this season (or at least 3 or them) strike me as strong in many or most of the fundamental things teams traditionally have worked for—scouting, development, coaching, culture, yes analytics, taking the right risks, and yes money plays a role. The Dodgers and Yankees are not where they are solely because of their market or payroll, not in my opinion.

On the other hand, last year's World Series participants seem like the type of cookie-cutter teams I was minimizing earlier in my post. So there's that.

Hi @Jocko87

Continuing the conversation, Carlos Correa did indeed fall in the Twins lap, but I personally would not call it miraculous.

https://twinsdaily.com/forums/topic/68717-what-was-the-point-of-signing-carlos-correa/?do=findComment&comment=1458277&_rid=2874

First, the Astros declined to extend Correa, choosing to show faith in Jeremy Pena instead. So, Correa went to free agency. Correa was passed over in the mad rush to sign players prior to the lockout in December 2021. The next March after the lockout, Correa signed with the Twins on a year to year deal, and bragged about getting outta here at the first opportunity (the “shopping at Dior” quote and all the rest). 

(More parenthetically, there was that informal players poll this summer that showed Correa as the least popular MLB player after Jazz Chisholm, and I can see a pattern emerging.)

If I were to really go off the conspiratorial deep end, I would even suggest that when the Giants finally landed Correa for 13 years and $350 million, that San Fran had buyer’s remorse and someone in the organization said “oh Hell No” and thus the closer scrutiny and dispute around his medical records to get out from under it. Ditto with the Mets.

And here we are in the present.

How does this Correa story relate to using analytics responsibly? I see Carlos Correa’s dollar per WAR and am not impressed, that’s how. Lewis or Lee would have been better, as unimpressive as they were in 2024. When I factor in the intangibles, the Correa deal starts to look even worse to me.

Why pick on Correa or the decision to sign him? Why bring this up? I don’t know. I guess I just want to observe how two different people can look at the same data picture and in good faith see two completely different things. Which I know you know. So maybe this is just a reminder to myself.

Different people seeing things differently, a little like the dress illusion from 2015? 

1 hour ago, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

Hi @Jocko87

Continuing the conversation, Carlos Correa did indeed fall in the Twins lap, but I personally would not call it miraculous.

https://twinsdaily.com/forums/topic/68717-what-was-the-point-of-signing-carlos-correa/?do=findComment&comment=1458277&_rid=2874

First, the Astros declined to extend Correa, choosing to show faith in Jeremy Pena instead. So, Correa went to free agency. Correa was passed over in the mad rush to sign players prior to the lockout in December 2021. The next March after the lockout, Correa signed with the Twins on a year to year deal, and bragged about getting outta here at the first opportunity (the “shopping at Dior” quote and all the rest). 

(More parenthetically, there was that informal players poll this summer that showed Correa as the least popular MLB player after Jazz Chisholm, and I can see a pattern emerging.)

If I were to really go off the conspiratorial deep end, I would even suggest that when the Giants finally landed Correa for 13 years and $350 million, that San Fran had buyer’s remorse and someone in the organization said “oh Hell No” and thus the closer scrutiny and dispute around his medical records to get out from under it. Ditto with the Mets.

And here we are in the present.

How does this Correa story relate to using analytics responsibly? I see Carlos Correa’s dollar per WAR and am not impressed, that’s how. Lewis or Lee would have been better, as unimpressive as they were in 2024. When I factor in the intangibles, the Correa deal starts to look even worse to me.

Why pick on Correa or the decision to sign him? Why bring this up? I don’t know. I guess I just want to observe how two different people can look at the same data picture and in good faith see two completely different things. Which I know you know. So maybe this is just a reminder to myself.

Different people seeing things differently, a little like the dress illusion from 2015? 

 

Interesting to bring this back to this thread but I'm glad you did.  It ties in quite nicely.

In short, the Correa saga is what brought me back to posting regularly.  A bad work situation and a bad relationship went away as well, freeing up some time, but I could have gone anywhere.  The whole Correa event is fascinating to me and really caught my attention.  This was the topic I reset my account password for.  It's also a very good discussion point for using judgement with numbers in this topic.

I'm a real estate investor in addition to some other things.  I own several properties and have bought and sold several more.  There is a saying in real estate.  Something like "there is no such thing as a deal that doesn't work, only a deal that doesn't work at this price."

The Giants may well have gotten cold feet on the deal, but most teams would never go to the lengths they were at to begin with.  Baseball is waking up to that nonsense in general.  13 years.!?

The Mets are a completely different story.  Steve Cohen understands one very fundamental thing about negotiating-don't negotiate with the entire market.  By getting Correa to agree in terms (go to escrow in real estate terms) he pivoted the negotiation to between him and Boras alone.  Now, under escrow, boy that chimney needs tuck pointed and the corner of the foundation (ankle) is really concerning.  Dangit, I just can't pay $315m for this muffler.  Again, kudos to Boras for getting his client out of that situation.  Here we talk about numbers as a persuasion mechanism rather than a hard factual.  Numbers are often thought of as hard factuals when really context is the only thing that matters.

As a real estate investor, I instantly notice a property I was previously interested in being back on the market.  Same thing for the Twins here.  Kudos to them for staying awake, over the holidays, and locking down a crown jewel property for well under market price. 

That doesn't mean that crown jewel property doesn't come with some issues, issues are the only way crown jewels trade under market.  Being aware of the issue and the risks associated are the key.   Indeed, the issue they were aware of (ankle) has not been an issue as yet and the asset has performed exceptionally-except for another issue (planter fasciitis).  It's like buying a property that you know if you dig into the electrical you will have to replace everything but oops, the plumbing is a problem.

So I don't have an issue with other teams passing on Correa.  He's a very high end specialty case that takes a very special owner to manage.  Indeed, I believe the step up in class with the Correa signing may very well be the start of the selling mindset for the Pohlads.  There are huge successes available, but the risk is also much higher.  In real estate terms, I can buy something on 5th avenue but if I can't or am not willing to do what it takes to manage it, it won't matter how good the asset and location is.

So in terms of the numbers related to Correa and his contract history, per Fangraphs estimates he was a $50.4m player when the Astros "chose" Jeremy Pena.  Pena is a quite nice player, but he's not Correa.  Many other factors certainly played into the Astros choice to let Carlos go-their names are Yordon, Framber, Bregman, Altuve and Tucker.  With so many guys due for a payday, choices must be made.  Leaving aside some odd spending decisions the Astros have made (Hader) its pretty obvious they needed to look to what they had in the wings to decide who to pay.  Yordon and Tucker are not replaceable in their orbit.   I have no bad feelings about Correa from the Astros moving on.  It's a tough business.

Fast forwarding to Correa now, he only played 86 games this year due to a different issue that led to his contract questions.  In those 86 games he accumulated 4.3 fWar worth $34.2m on a $33.3m salary.  This is my 5th Ave property breaking even despite only being available for half the year.   All I need to do now is make the property available for the full year and it will be a monster performer.   Obviously baseball availability is a different thing but the Twins got that risk priced into the contract.  If you aren't impressed with his dollars to WAR its an availability question rather than a performance question.  Assuming consistent performance (big if), a fully available Correa would have been an 8.1 fWar player in 2024.  Juan Soto was an 8.1 fWar player this year, a $65.1m player.  Again, the risk of availability was priced into the Correa contract.

Jeremy Pena played 157 very solid games for the Astros this year, OPS .701 with very good defense.  fWar-2.8 and a $22.3m valuation.  Very good player, but Correa exists in another orbit.  In ten seasons, Carlos Correa has only had one year as poor as the solid year Jeremy Pena just had.

I look at Lee and Lewis and can see adequate replacements for Correa the shortstop but regardless of position they aren't close to replacing Correa the unicorn baseball superstar.  The Astros could make the choice they made because they had others that could fill the superstar vacuum. 

It would have truly been a Twins™️ move to just play Lewis at short, fill in with Lee etc and nobody would have batted an eye.  My contention is that when you get a chance to get an 8 WAR player (unicorn) on a favorable risk management contract, you do it.  EVERY time.  When you get a chance to buy a property on 5th Avenue at half price, you do it.  EVERY time.  Figure it out after.  Obviously you have to do your homework to believe for sure that the property is half price or a true unicorn, but when you confirm it, you do it.  Period.

What do you do once you've done it?  It depends.  In my 5th Avenue example, I would buy that property, absolutely.  I now control an asset at well under market value.  I can realize that value a few ways, but the simplest is just selling it at market value.  Knowing what my current portfolio takes, 5th Avenue doesn't fit with what I'm doing so the cost of spinning my operation up in that orbit is expensive.  Is it worth it?  Probably not.  Just take the gain and let someone familiar operate it.

I believe this is where the Pohlads find themselves.  They stepped up in class and don't like the costs of operating in that class.  It might be just that simple.

As for the numbers as related to Correa, I think it's more important to look at ranges rather than a moment in time.  For the comparisons to Pena. Lee and Lewis, we have to ask at what range of possible outcomes did each of them perform.  Pena played the entire year, at a solid level, but what he delivered was closer to the top range of his outcomes than the bottom.  Similar for Lee and Lewis, while although they may have more upside in the long term, they were both in the higher range of expected outcomes.

Correa, due to availability, was in the lower half of his range of outcomes.  As an investment, this is exactly what you want to put a large percentage of your money in.  Very, very high upside, but also a very high floor.  Risk, but the worst case ain't bad. 

If I were to invest $200m in something, it would have to have to meet these minimum thresholds.  Correa does that, in spades.  As you say, different people look at the data in different ways, and I look at the Correa deal as the best money they have spent in years. 

On 10/20/2024 at 8:20 PM, Jocko87 said:

Interesting to bring this back to this thread but I'm glad you did.  It ties in quite nicely.

In short, the Correa saga is what brought me back to posting regularly.  A bad work situation and a bad relationship went away as well, freeing up some time, but I could have gone anywhere.  The whole Correa event is fascinating to me and really caught my attention.  This was the topic I reset my account password for.  It's also a very good discussion point for using judgement with numbers in this topic.

I'm a real estate investor in addition to some other things.  I own several properties and have bought and sold several more.  There is a saying in real estate.  Something like "there is no such thing as a deal that doesn't work, only a deal that doesn't work at this price."

The Giants may well have gotten cold feet on the deal, but most teams would never go to the lengths they were at to begin with.  Baseball is waking up to that nonsense in general.  13 years.!?

The Mets are a completely different story.  Steve Cohen understands one very fundamental thing about negotiating-don't negotiate with the entire market.  By getting Correa to agree in terms (go to escrow in real estate terms) he pivoted the negotiation to between him and Boras alone.  Now, under escrow, boy that chimney needs tuck pointed and the corner of the foundation (ankle) is really concerning.  Dangit, I just can't pay $315m for this muffler.  Again, kudos to Boras for getting his client out of that situation.  Here we talk about numbers as a persuasion mechanism rather than a hard factual.  Numbers are often thought of as hard factuals when really context is the only thing that matters.

As a real estate investor, I instantly notice a property I was previously interested in being back on the market.  Same thing for the Twins here.  Kudos to them for staying awake, over the holidays, and locking down a crown jewel property for well under market price. 

That doesn't mean that crown jewel property doesn't come with some issues, issues are the only way crown jewels trade under market.  Being aware of the issue and the risks associated are the key.   Indeed, the issue they were aware of (ankle) has not been an issue as yet and the asset has performed exceptionally-except for another issue (planter fasciitis).  It's like buying a property that you know if you dig into the electrical you will have to replace everything but oops, the plumbing is a problem.

So I don't have an issue with other teams passing on Correa.  He's a very high end specialty case that takes a very special owner to manage.  Indeed, I believe the step up in class with the Correa signing may very well be the start of the selling mindset for the Pohlads.  There are huge successes available, but the risk is also much higher.  In real estate terms, I can buy something on 5th avenue but if I can't or am not willing to do what it takes to manage it, it won't matter how good the asset and location is.

So in terms of the numbers related to Correa and his contract history, per Fangraphs estimates he was a $50.4m player when the Astros "chose" Jeremy Pena.  Pena is a quite nice player, but he's not Correa.  Many other factors certainly played into the Astros choice to let Carlos go-their names are Yordon, Framber, Bregman, Altuve and Tucker.  With so many guys due for a payday, choices must be made.  Leaving aside some odd spending decisions the Astros have made (Hader) its pretty obvious they needed to look to what they had in the wings to decide who to pay.  Yordon and Tucker are not replaceable in their orbit.   I have no bad feelings about Correa from the Astros moving on.  It's a tough business.

Fast forwarding to Correa now, he only played 86 games this year due to a different issue that led to his contract questions.  In those 86 games he accumulated 4.3 fWar worth $34.2m on a $33.3m salary.  This is my 5th Ave property breaking even despite only being available for half the year.   All I need to do now is make the property available for the full year and it will be a monster performer.   Obviously baseball availability is a different thing but the Twins got that risk priced into the contract.  If you aren't impressed with his dollars to WAR its an availability question rather than a performance question.  Assuming consistent performance (big if), a fully available Correa would have been an 8.1 fWar player in 2024.  Juan Soto was an 8.1 fWar player this year, a $65.1m player.  Again, the risk of availability was priced into the Correa contract.

Jeremy Pena played 157 very solid games for the Astros this year, OPS .701 with very good defense.  fWar-2.8 and a $22.3m valuation.  Very good player, but Correa exists in another orbit.  In ten seasons, Carlos Correa has only had one year as poor as the solid year Jeremy Pena just had.

I look at Lee and Lewis and can see adequate replacements for Correa the shortstop but regardless of position they aren't close to replacing Correa the unicorn baseball superstar.  The Astros could make the choice they made because they had others that could fill the superstar vacuum. 

It would have truly been a Twins™️ move to just play Lewis at short, fill in with Lee etc and nobody would have batted an eye.  My contention is that when you get a chance to get an 8 WAR player (unicorn) on a favorable risk management contract, you do it.  EVERY time.  When you get a chance to buy a property on 5th Avenue at half price, you do it.  EVERY time.  Figure it out after.  Obviously you have to do your homework to believe for sure that the property is half price or a true unicorn, but when you confirm it, you do it.  Period.

What do you do once you've done it?  It depends.  In my 5th Avenue example, I would buy that property, absolutely.  I now control an asset at well under market value.  I can realize that value a few ways, but the simplest is just selling it at market value.  Knowing what my current portfolio takes, 5th Avenue doesn't fit with what I'm doing so the cost of spinning my operation up in that orbit is expensive.  Is it worth it?  Probably not.  Just take the gain and let someone familiar operate it.

I believe this is where the Pohlads find themselves.  They stepped up in class and don't like the costs of operating in that class.  It might be just that simple.

As for the numbers as related to Correa, I think it's more important to look at ranges rather than a moment in time.  For the comparisons to Pena. Lee and Lewis, we have to ask at what range of possible outcomes did each of them perform.  Pena played the entire year, at a solid level, but what he delivered was closer to the top range of his outcomes than the bottom.  Similar for Lee and Lewis, while although they may have more upside in the long term, they were both in the higher range of expected outcomes.

Correa, due to availability, was in the lower half of his range of outcomes.  As an investment, this is exactly what you want to put a large percentage of your money in.  Very, very high upside, but also a very high floor.  Risk, but the worst case ain't bad. 

If I were to invest $200m in something, it would have to have to meet these minimum thresholds.  Correa does that, in spades.  As you say, different people look at the data in different ways, and I look at the Correa deal as the best money they have spent in years. 

The overlooked thing about the Correa deal is that if it becomes a reasonable option to lock in years 7-10 of that deal at a total of $85 million that's a STEAL.  Especially at market prices that will exist 4 years from now.  And if it's not a steal, or the market takes an unexpected turn, walk away at no cost.

On 10/20/2024 at 8:20 PM, Jocko87 said:

In short, the Correa saga is what brought me back to posting regularly.  

Thanks for coming back to Twins Daily. 

And thank you for using your professional background to explain the Correa signing in a new way. 
 

Quote

The whole Correa event is fascinating to me and really caught my attention.

After thinking about the Pohalds announcing their intent to sell the team, I will add something more. My best guess as to what is happening.

If the purpose of the Correa signing was to win games, it has failed. That much is pretty clear to me. The 2024 team is coming off a historic collapse that might have been warded off by Correa’s supposed clubhouse leadership qualities, had they existed. The team’s record in the past three seasons with Correa is worse than the three seasons preceding those. What is the outlook for the next three seasons ahead? So poor, apparently, that the owner has chosen to sell the team. Obviously, television revenues would have something to do with forecasts. How much? Not sure.

The Pohlad seems to have responded to the failures negotiating television revenue by rolling them into the failures on the field. Falvey was reassigned to do St. Peter’s job, and St. Peter reassigned to do something else entirely. More personnel moves would be expected from any new buyer. Owners like the Pohlads will stay out of the way when everything is going ok. The need for the Pohlads to intervene by selling their majority ownership signals something is not right. My gut says there are other things we can’t quantify, like the future of downtown’s post-Covid or the recent emergence of the new mega contracts. But, the bottom line is winning, and the overall picture is clear. 

Why would smart billionaire baseball owners get involved in day to day operations if everything is running well? They wouldn’t. How would “Minnesota nice” billionaires from the Midwest fire the people running this organization, then? They sell the team. 

Cheers to a better 2025!

On 9/24/2024 at 8:16 PM, Jocko87 said:

I've often said, analytics isn't having the data-its figuring out which data is important at any given time or situation.  Analytics has been part of the game from the beginning. Just more and different data now. Many SABR discussions about did we discover something new or just learn how to quantify something Earl Weaver just did.

On 10/10/2024 at 9:05 PM, Rod Carews Birthday said:

Composers are either innovators, codifiers, or exploiters.  A good example of an innovator would be Beethoven or Wagner - what they did changed the world of music, even if they didn’t have it all figured out yet.  It’s why they are still famous.  Innovators always get lots of credit.  Exploiters are people that take other peoples’ mistakes and learn from them, then figure out how to do something better than anyone else can, even after others have moved on.  

I’m now newly re-fascinated with the musical side of baseball.  Iteration is iteration in any discipline and a good thing is still a good thing whoever thought of it.  

George Carlin — 'I'll tell you a little secret about the Blues: it's not enough to know which notes to play, you have to know why they need to be played.'

Also applies to baseball. 

On 10/28/2024 at 8:07 AM, dxpavelka said:

The overlooked thing about the Correa deal is that if it becomes a reasonable option to lock in years 7-10 of that deal at a total of $85 million that's a STEAL.  Especially at market prices that will exist 4 years from now.  And if it's not a steal, or the market takes an unexpected turn, walk away at no cost.

I've thought the same thing.

Those are his age 34-37 years. Even if he's shifted to 3B by then or even if he turns into a Nelson Cruz-ish DH, that's a stud. They're all one-year contracts at that point. 

(I personally hope each option year vests by virtue of his being the WS MVP.)