Roster Turnover?

[whydidnt]

Interesting story over at Sportsonearth:

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/111159344/major-league-baseball-teams-with-most-and-least-roster-turnover

 

Reviews the number of players still with an organization that were on that teams 25 man roster at the beginning of 2014. 

 

The Twins are 2nd in the AL with 17 players remaining, meaning they have the 2nd lowest turnover in the AL, with only the Orioles ahead of them. Am I the only one that finds it strange that one of the teams with the worst records in the league is going into the following season with one of the most stable rosters? Seems like the Twins plan is to hope the guys they have get better - AND keep in mind that turnover already includes guys like Santana and Vargas who came up after the year started last year. 

 

Stability is a good thing when you have a good team, however, it makes no sense to keep the same guys year after year if they are only getting you to 70 wins. I'm sure there are circumstances, such as a younger roster that contribute to things, but it's also decisions to stick with Duensing, Pelfrey, Hicks, etc. as potential key contributors that concern me. I just don't think the front office did enough this year to address the teams problems.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

It's a bit concerning the effort we put into renewing and extending some of these guys (Pelfrey, Perkins, Suzuki, Hughes, etc) not to mention the reunion tours. Obviously that claim can be nit picked, cost control is good, Hughes is good, etc. but I do think the Twins put far too much emphasis on having "the right guys" around.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Astros and White Sox both have 16 guys remaining, just one behind the Twins.  So while I would have liked to see a few more guys jettisoned (Duensing, Nunez although he doesn't count here, etc.), it doesn't appear that we are way off the mark.

 

Still better than the Rockies, who were worse than us in 2014 and still have 19 of the same players!

[diehardtwinsfan]

Not strange at all in my opinion, especially when you account for age. The young guys stick around and some of the older vets get jettisoned. This team is getting younger, so at this point you have to let the young guys play.

[twinscowboysbulls]

Interesting story over at Sportsonearth:

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/111159344/major-league-baseball-teams-with-most-and-least-roster-turnover

 

Reviews the number of players still with an organization that were on that teams 25 man roster at the beginning of 2014. 

 

The Twins are 2nd in the AL with 17 players remaining, meaning they have the 2nd lowest turnover in the AL, with only the Orioles ahead of them. Am I the only one that finds it strange that one of the teams with the worst records in the league is going into the following season with one of the most stable rosters? Seems like the Twins plan is to hope the guys they have get better - AND keep in mind that turnover already includes guys like Santana and Vargas who came up after the year started last year. 

 

Stability is a good thing when you have a good team, however, it makes no sense to keep the same guys year after year if they are only getting you to 70 wins. I'm sure there are circumstances, such as a younger roster that contribute to things, but it's also decisions to stick with Duensing, Pelfrey, Hicks, etc. as potential key contributors that concern me. I just don't think the front office did enough this year to address the teams problems.

 

WHY WOULD YOU GET RID OF GUYS LIKE PELFREY, NUNEZ, NOLASCO, SCHAFER BMW, HERRMANN? THEY GET IT DONE. I CAN'T BELIEVE WE GOT RID OF BURTON!!!!!!!!!!

[mnfireman]

If the team is old and bad and the retention level is this high its not a good thing. But the 25 man roster is fairly young, with players who's best years are ahead of them. Hopefully these players pan out and the team has a 10 year or better run of winning baseball.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Not strange at all in my opinion, especially when you account for age. The young guys stick around and some of the older vets get jettisoned. This team is getting younger, so at this point you have to let the young guys play.

2014 opening day roster, average age: 29.16

Seth's projected 2015 opening day roster, average age: 28.96

 

Progress!  At this rate, it will only take us 15 years to get down to our 2001 opening day roster average age of 26.16.

[Otto von Ballpark]

But the 25 man roster is fairly young, with players who's best years are ahead of them.

See my post above -- not sure if this is really true.  Seth's projected 25 man roster has 8 players under age 28 (including Rule 5 pick JR Graham), same as our 2014 opening day roster.  The 2001 opening day team had 13 such players.

 

 

And it's not just Hunter and his one-year deal -- we also have 6 guys above our average team age signed for multiple future seasons.  The rotation in particular isn't getting significantly younger anytime soon absent some major moves.

[whydidnt]

2014 opening day roster, average age: 29.16

Seth's projected 2015 opening day roster, average age: 28.96

 

Progress!  At this rate, it will only take us 15 years to get down to our 2001 opening day roster average age of 26.16.

 

Thanks for the research, I was going to look it up, since they haven't "seemed" young to me over the last few years. 

 

My opinion hasn't changed, the front office should have done more to turn over the roster after 4 straight awful years. 

[jay]

2014 opening day roster, average age: 29.16

Seth's projected 2015 opening day roster, average age: 28.96

 

Progress! At this rate, it will only take us 15 years to get down to our 2001 opening day roster average age of 26.16.

74-year-old Torii Hunter is probably skewing that a bit.

 

Lot of the other "old" guys are in the bullpen and we've got a solid group of flamethrowers that will be looking to replace them shortly. I'm not concerned by the average age.

[jimmer]

Don't most teams have an older player on their roster that skews the average age of the players on their team as well?  

[jay]

Don't most teams have an older player on their roster that skews the average age of the players on their team as well?

Probably... but we're specifically talking about the difference in average age for the Twins from 2014 to this year, so I'd say it's relevant.

[formerly33]

So what's the big concern over age, anyway? Sure, young teams can be hot, but they can also give a depressing show of inexperience. We used to have a weak farm system, so in recent years our young guys weren't getting the job done. However, now that we have the hottest farm system out there, it shouldn't be long before we have a young, confident team again.

 

I think that confident is the key word there. And Torii Hunter, an old man by common standards, can instill plenty of that in our team. And I think that's really important. Once lose the winning spirit, and you're out of the playoffs before the season starts. Keep up that spirit, and the impossible can happen.

 

Finally, I just took a quick look at the Giant's roster and did some math. I didn't check my work, but the answer I came up with for their average age was 29.39. I wouldn't consider them a bad team by any standards, and they seem to think that they've become a dynasty.

[jorgenswest]

If an old roster works together to lose 90 games, there is little hope for upside. If a young roster loses 90 games, they will grow together. That happened with 82-83 and 99-00 Twins. It did take patience on the part of the management.

[formerly33]

If an old roster works together to lose 90 games, there is little hope for upside. If a young roster loses 90 games, they will grow together. That happened with 82-83 and 99-00 Twins. It did take patience on the part of the management.

I'm in complete agreement, but my point is that we have new guys like Torii Hunter who have not been losing 90+ games a year. Torii is our oldest man, but he is a great ball player. And we do have young guys coming up like Buxton and Sano. I think that it's wonderful that they have an experienced, not to mention cocky player like Hunter to mentor them.

[Thrylos]

If an old roster works together to lose 90 games, there is little hope for upside. If a young roster loses 90 games, they will grow together. That happened with 82-83 and 99-00 Twins. It did take patience on the part of the management.

 

True.  But this is not a young roster.

 

Here is how it projects:

 

C - 31

1B - 32

2B - 28

SS - 24/26

3B - 29

LF - 24

CF - 25/28

RF - 39

DH - 24

 

 

SP - 29

SP - 32

SP - 32

SP - 27

SP - Milone 28

 

RP - Perkins 32

RP - Duensing 32

RP - Fien 31

RP - Thielbar 28

RP - Stauffer 33

RP - Pelfrey 31

RP - ???

 

Only 4 players under 28 years old.  The youngest 24. Not good. Really.

[brvama]

Turnover by itself does nothing to indicate a teams potential. One year chnage can be misleading. This, to me, is another example of using a certain statistic without proper analyzation of it. Certainly, when you are in building phase (using younger players) by a couple of years the turnover will likely be less than a team that is old, or a team that has many needs. It says more by looking at how has the roster changed in the last 3-4 years, which in the Twins case has been substantial. I am not at all concerned by the number of turnover, but rather has the team made the necessary changes to improve the roster and that is not usually done in one year.

 

Secondly, the average age of 29+, taken on the number only, is the prime year of a player. Just as Hunters 40 can skew the average, so can a 21 year olds. Ideally, I'd take a team full of 28-30 year old. But here again just the average age of a team really tells us nothing - except the teams average age.

[jay]

Here is how it projects.

Given that roster age as of Opening Day is what was being discussed and is also a commonly accepted practice in identifying a player's season age, it would be fair to use that over whatever later cutoff you used.

 

The point mostly remains, so...

[Thrylos]

Given that roster age as of Opening Day is what was being discussed and is also a commonly accepted practice in identifying a player's season age, it would be fair to use that over whatever later cutoff you used.

 

The point mostly remains, so...

 

I am using the cutoff that b-r is using.  Those numbers are their B-R 2014 ages +1.

[Otto von Ballpark]

74-year-old Torii Hunter is probably skewing that a bit.

 

Lot of the other "old" guys are in the bullpen and we've got a solid group of flamethrowers that will be looking to replace them shortly. I'm not concerned by the average age.

Last year had Willingham, only 4 years younger than Hunter. That 2001 team had 40 year old backup catcher Tom Prince and still clocked in with an average age of just 26.

 

The long term deals in the rotation are going to keep this average age up.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I am using the cutoff that b-r is using. Those numbers are their B-R 2014 ages +1.

That is also what I used in my calculations. Seems to be the standard.

 

I however was just using opening day rosters, and not weighing for playing time, so I doubt it should be compared to B-Ref's average age figures...

[Otto von Ballpark]

Finally, I just took a quick look at the Giant's roster and did some math. I didn't check my work, but the answer I came up with for their average age was 29.39. I wouldn't consider them a bad team by any standards, and they seem to think that they've become a dynasty.

If the Twins had the Giants record the past 5 years, I would have no concern about having a similar average age.

 

Just like I had no qualms with the 1988 Twins or 1992 Twins retaining veterans from previous years.

[whydidnt]

Turnover by itself does nothing to indicate a teams potential. One year chnage can be misleading. This, to me, is another example of using a certain statistic without proper analyzation of it. Certainly, when you are in building phase (using younger players) by a couple of years the turnover will likely be less than a team that is old, or a team that has many needs. It says more by looking at how has the roster changed in the last 3-4 years, which in the Twins case has been substantial. I am not at all concerned by the number of turnover, but rather has the team made the necessary changes to improve the roster and that is not usually done in one year.Secondly, the average age of 29+, taken on the number only, is the prime year of a player. Just as Hunters 40 can skew the average, so can a 21 year olds. Ideally, I'd take a team full of 28-30 year old. But here again just the average age of a team really tells us nothing - except the teams average age.

All valid points, except I really don't see a lot of change over the last few years. Some of the names of changed, but not as many as you would hope after 4 straight awful seasons. At some point you have to say what you've been doing hasn't been working at try something else. Instead we continue to see tweaks and conservative moves. Heck, even after the worst 4 years in franchise history, the Twins couldnt even bring themselves to replace the entire coaching staff, and one of their signature moves was to bring in a 40 year old ex-Twin. When you are as bad as the Twins have been I would think they would want to try something new.

[brvama]

I went back to 2011-2014 to see how many are still around. I just looked at everyone that were on the MLB roster a one point during the season. The names capitalized should be considered as givens or strong candiates to make this years 25 man roster.

 

In 2011 there were 44 different players. Still with the Twins 5: MAUER,PLOUFE, PERKINS, DUESING, Oliveros,

 

2012 had 46 different players. Add 3: DOZIER, ESCOBAR, FIEN.

 

2013 had 43 different players. Add 10: ARCIA, HICKS, PINTO, GIBSON, PELFREY, THIELBAR, Pressley, Tomkin, Bernier, Fryer.

 

2014 saw only 37 different players. Add 13: SUZUKI, SANTANA, NUNEZ, VARGAS, SCHAFER, HUGHES, NOLASCO, MAY, MILONE, Polanco, Darnell, Herrmann, A Thompson.

 

So, as I see it, the Twins still have 4 for 2011, 3 from 2012, 6 from 2013, and 9 from last year. Of the 22 that have a good chance to make this years active roster, FIFTEEN (15) have 2 years or less with the Twins. I would have to say there has been a pretty good turnover.

[Otto von Ballpark]

So, as I see it, the Twins still have 4 for 2011, 3 from 2012, 6 from 2013, and 9 from last year. Of the 22 that have a good chance to make this years active roster, FIFTEEN (15) have 2 years or less with the Twins. I would have to say there has been a pretty good turnover.

The 2006 Twins retained only 5 Twins who appeared in 2002, so I am not sure that turnover in and of itself is the best measure.

 

The 2001 Twins only retained 5 players from 1997 too, but they also cut their average age (opening day roster) from 30 to 26.16.  The 2015 projected opening day roster is actually a hair older (28.96) than the 2011 one (28.88).  (And Thome more than cancels out the Hunter effect.)

 

So, are they turning over with players likely to improve?  With upside?  I'd argue that they haven't, not nearly enough, particularly on the pitching staff.

[formerly33]

If the Twins had the Giants record the past 5 years, I would have no concern about having a similar average age.

 

Just like I had no qualms with the 1988 Twins or 1992 Twins retaining veterans from previous years.

I understand that. But I don't mind bringing Torii Hunter back. I think he can help us a lot this year, regardless of the age factor.

[jorgenswest]

For the last three years, the Twins care more about selling tickets and the illusion of being competitive than they do about the long term health and success. They are a business and it has probably been necessary.

 

The clubs in 82-83 and 99-00 fortunately had an ownership that did not spend money. They spent the 90s constantly signing decline phase players trying to patch and recapture the 87-92 stretch. Mike Morgan, Bob Tewksbury, Dave Winfield, Paul Molitor, Jim DeShaies, Greg Myers, Dave Hollins, Roberto Kelly, Terry Steinbach, Darrin Jackson, Greg Swindell, Orlando Merced and Otis Nixon were signings so similar to our current stretch. It wasn't until they were forced to go young that they began to take care of the long term.

 

The current plan guarantees mediocre teams. Even if they get a good half season out of a player, they sign him to a couple more years (Doumit, Burton, Suzuki) guaranteeing a piece of the decline. Who is next? Stauffer? With Willingham they got one good year out of three. How many out of 8 will they get from Nolasco and Santana?

 

The problem is that even if they get good years they are in the early half of the contract. In 2017 the Twins will be paying 30 million dollars to two guys that probably would not make the starting rotation of a play off team. While the younger players grow as often happens after 1000 plate appearances or 50 starts, the older players will decline and the record doesn't change much. At least not enough to turn 90 losses into 90 wins.

 

Looking back, 2011 was unexpected and injury filled. They might argue that it was the injuries that year and that there would be a bounce back in 2012. When that didn't happen, they should have torn it down. Stopped signing decline phase players. They would have been better off today had they gone with upside guys and lost 100+ in 2013-2014. They would have been better off minimally due to the draft and the international cap. They would have found a player or two that they wouldn't have given a chance otherwise because they were busy filling their playing time with Pelfrey, Kubel, Nolasco and the like. No need to give a shot to a JD Martinez when you can have a Jason Kubel in camp. Kubel is proven. He has hit 30 homers before injuries and age started his decline.

 

If they are going to sign decline phase players, they have to spend bigger. They have to sign guys well above league average so they are still valuable in their decline. They have to stop putting off problems to the next year with patches that never get fixed.

[jorgenswest]

Just adding to the rant...

 

Pages in this forum were written last year about giving signing Stephen Drew and Emilio Bonifacio. During the winter Drew was seeking a 3-4 year deal and the aTwins had a clear need at SS.

 

Suppose they sign Drew and he is under contract for two more years. Would we have seen the talent in Escobar? Would we see a guy who will be a valuable player on a rosterabl?

 

The Twins might have signed Bonifacio to a one year contract and he got off to a great start much like Suzuki. The Cubs cashed in and traded him in the summer. What would the Twins do? They almost certainly would have extended him two more years. Would we have seen the talent in Danny Santana had Bonifacio been on the roster? It goes further. The Twins picked up Sam Fuld instead and he turned into Tommy Milone. Milone has some upside and there is a small chance he will be a useful player for the Twins long term. The guys he Braves DFA'd when they acquired Bonifacio was Jordan Schafer. Schafer also has a chance with some upside to be a useful player on the roster long term.

 

It is so fortunate for our offense that the Twins focused on fixing the pitching staff last winter.

[gunnarthor]

 

Stability is a good thing when you have a good team, however, it makes no sense to keep the same guys year after year if they are only getting you to 70 wins.

Of course, this article didn't say that.  They are looking at a one year change, not "year after year" as you suggest.  And that's usually the problem with threads like this - we take one thing that doesn't mean much by itself and then use it out of context as an excuse to attack the FO. 

[whydidnt]

Of course, this article didn't say that.  They are looking at a one year change, not "year after year" as you suggest.  And that's usually the problem with threads like this - we take one thing that doesn't mean much by itself and then use it out of context as an excuse to attack the FO.

 

Well, I think the Twins record over he last 4 years is plenty of evidence of the front office's abilities. I don't need an excuse to attck them, the results speak for themselves. The team has been awful, yet the FO continues to make safe, conservative moves instead of trying aggressively to change the roster and style.

 

For the last 3 years on this forum, we have had supporters say over and over, if things don't change next year, they'll call the FO out. When things don't change, the same people say wait til next year. I'm done giving the benefit of the doubt. I want to see real meaningful attempts to improve, not just sell tickets.