I told you so! (Or did I?)

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

If we buy Rasmus being worth a couple wins based on his baseball statistics and ignore his major suckage as a dancer and DJ, yes, he would have been a better choice. I'm wondering how we'd go about factoring the immeasurables though, and didn't Rasmus sit in his living room for a good part of the winter with no takers? Makes me wonder about his real value to his club as opposed to a hypothetical value based on the stats.

 

At any rate, selecting Hunter instead of Rasmus seems to be about the least of this team's problems. I'd call it a wash

Well, if you're just going to eyeball it with that kind of analysis ("living room time"?), I'd guess most every MLB decision or transaction will be "a wash."

[bird]

 

Well, if you're just going to eyeball it with that kind of analysis ("living room time"?), I'd guess most every MLB decision or transaction will be "a wash."

 

 

 

Haha, that's a little harsh. Let's turn it around though, OK? If you're just going to eyeball it with that kind of an analysis ("OPS+") , I'd guess you're going to conclude with absolute certainty the results of every MLB transaction, whether you're right or not.

 

Do you completely reject qualitative analysis?

[nicksaviking]

I wanted Yasmani Tomas as well.

 

I probably would have blown a gasket had the Twins given a multi-year deal to any corner outfielder though, there's no way I wanted Cabrera, and I still don't. Blah, declining power AND declining BB rate? Smells like trouble, and that's not even considering the fact that he'd be blocking internal options for three years.

 

I said I would have preferred Rios or Rasmus to Hunter, but didn't care much either way as it was a one year deal in what was expected to be another throw away year. I was wrong though as it's clear now these reunions are a bad move as it's prohibitive when it comes to trying to move these guys in July or August.  The Twins could have recouped some value from Rasmus and seeing as even David DeJesus and Shave Victorino were traded, Rios likely could have been moved as well.

 

That being said, I don't think the Twins could have had Rasmus.  He's a southern boy who if memory serves did not take the trade from St. Louis to Toronto well.  I think Houston would have had this guy locked down unless the Twins offered something stupid.

[Brock Beauchamp]

If you can't use a stat that is "Wins above Replacement" and have it correlate to actual wins, it's really a meaningless stat. But that been discussed before.

It's only a meaningless stat if that's what it's trying to measure. There are plenty of reasons to question WAR but that's not really one of them.

[jimmer]

 

If you can't use a stat that is "Wins above Replacement" and have it correlate to actual wins, it's really a meaningless stat.  But that been discussed before.

'WAR is context neutral, so it doesn’t account for any kinds of sequencing, which can have a big impact on W-L record; just ask the A’s about that. It’s also a linear model, where team run scoring is not linear, so at the team level, it’s better to use something like BaseRuns.'

 

'WAR isn’t “inaccurate” because it doesn’t align with team win-loss records perfectly. It isn’t designed to, because team W-L records include a lot of things that aren’t player-skills.'  

[GACbaseball]

Torii and Rasmus are a wash to me, Colby being a little better in the field and on the basepaths with Torii bringing intangibles and a better stick.

 

I much prefer Torii's intangibles over whatever extra contributions Colby's on the field play would be worth (right now ~1 win according to WAR). I love what Torii has done to the Twins culture and his outfield expertise (even though he may not be very good anymore) has to have some value to Hicks, Rosario, Buxton, Arcia, etc.

 

Having solid veterans is worth a small decrease in WAR (or OPS+, etc.) if they bring solid contributions to the team outside of their direct play. This isn't in a bubble of who's the better player, Torii or Rasmus, rather it's who is a better fit for the 2015 Twins. I would say Hunter without a doubt

[KGB]

 

No, not at all.....it's purpose is to measure the talent of a player, independent of the context of any one game. It is not, even a little, meant to predict how a team would do by adding up individual WAR. That's not what it is intended to do at all.

Is it fair to say, the goal of the Twins FO is to build a team that wins games, not just field a team of best individual talent?  Based on expectation of last place by most people for the Twins (myself included), we would have to say that they been successful at this point.  And I think we would have to agree that Hunter has played a large role in the team’s success.

So Rasmus & Caberera might be better individual players, but not better players to achieve the Twins goal of winning more games.  Plus, to sign Rasmus at the time you signed Hunter, you would have had to make a multi-year commitment, which based on the Twins farm system, Hunter is a better signing (praying he not signed to another year).

So Kirby_waved_at_me  is correct in “I told you so!”

[drjim]

It's only a meaningless stat if that's what it's trying to measure. There are plenty of reasons to question WAR but that's not really one of them.

The "wins" is only the second most confusing part of the stats name.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Cabrera got a multi-year deal and Rasmus held out until late January, hoping for a multi-year deal.

 

Hunter signed in early December.

 

I understand why Ryan pulled the trigger. I'm not against waiting out the market at times but given the specific qualities the Twins wanted in a player - veteran, decent floor, one year contract - it made sense to go with the sure thing and guarantee your team is improved going into the season.

 

And given the results, it's pretty hard to argue Ryan was wrong to go that route. The Twins are a pleasant surprise and Hunter has been an acceptable stop-gap player.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The "wins" is only the second most confusing part of the stats name.

Hah, fair enough.

 

The concept of the theoretical Replacement Player is a murky one when you're attempting to apply real-world wins and losses to a player.

 

For example, the Twins would be a few more games over .500 had they a mystical "replacement player" at shortstop for the entire season.

 

(we're ignoring the fact the Twins had this player and refused to play him)

[bird]

 

Torii and Rasmus are a wash to me, Colby being a little better in the field and on the basepaths with Torii bringing intangibles and a better stick.

I much prefer Torii's intangibles over whatever extra contributions Colby's on the field play would be worth (right now ~1 win according to WAR). I love what Torii has done to the Twins culture and his outfield expertise (even though he may not be very good anymore) has to have some value to Hicks, Rosario, Buxton, Arcia, etc.

Having solid veterans is worth a small decrease in WAR (or OPS+, etc.) if they bring solid contributions to the team outside of their direct play. This isn't in a bubble of who's the better player, Torii or Rasmus, rather it's who is a better fit for the 2015 Twins. I would say Hunter without a doubt

 

 

Very well put. I'm generally skeptical about the value of "leadership" as described by the beat writers because of the likelihood of bias, but it can't be dismissed entirely. LaVelle doesn't get good grades from me overall, but there has to be at least something to his strident opinion about Hunter's intangible value. I saw a tweet recently where he was asked what he thought was behind Aaron Hick's remarkable turnaround to becoming such a steady and professional ballplayer, and Neal replied with one word: "Hunter".  Without knowing how to quantify this, I'd certainly include it in any proper analysis of the man's relative value.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Haha, that's a little harsh. Let's turn it around though, OK? If you're just going to eyeball it with that kind of an analysis ("OPS+") , I'd guess you're going to conclude with absolute certainty the results of every MLB transaction, whether you're right or not.

 

Do you completely reject qualitative analysis?

We're on a message board.  I am obviously not claiming absolute certainty about anything.  Nor did I completely reject anything or limit my analysis to OPS+.

 

Quantitatively, Rasmus has:

- virtually the same batting average (-.004, or 1 base hit difference)

- better OBP (+.015)

- better SLG (+.034)

- overall, better OPS+ and wRC+ (+15 each), roughly the same difference as that between Hicks and Hunter at the plate this season (or the same relative difference as between Dozier and Plouffe at the plate in 2015)

- also overall, better Rbat (+7), roughly the same difference as that between Willingham and Parmelee in 2014

- better defense (+24 runs by Rdrs/yr, or equal UZR/150 but spread across all 3 OF positions, either way advantage Rasmus)

- better base running (+3 runs by B-Ref, +4.4 by Fangraphs)

 

Qualitatively, Rasmus has:

- played across all 3 OF positions as needed

- accepted a bench role at times as needed, apparently without adversely affecting his or his team's performance

 

Rasmus also signed with a team whose 2014 record was equal to that of the Twins, for less money and less guaranteed playing time, so he wasn't exactly an unrealistic target either.

 

I am not opposed to qualitative credit in the least, but that's a decent-sized and thorough gap to overcome (including some qualitative advantages for Rasmus in 2015, despite his prior reputation).  If you want to wash away any difference between, say, Hunter and Rios last offseason, that's fine.  But Hunter vs. Rasmus, 2015?  Personally, I am not comfortable just washing that away.  Obviously you and other posters disagree.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Torii and Rasmus are a wash to me, Colby being a little better in the field and on the basepaths with Torii bringing intangibles and a better stick.

Better stick in 2015?  Curious how you figure that.  Basically same batting average (1 hit difference), but notably better OBP and SLG for Rasmus.  15 point different in OPS+/wRC+, roughly the same difference as between Hicks and Hunter at the plate this season.

 

I agree with your other points, which is why it's hard to make it a wash.  Notably better in the field, on the bases, AND at the plate is awfully hard to wash away with intangibles (and whatever his previous reputation, Rasmus appears to be providing positive intangibles in 2015 too).

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Rasmus held out until late January, hoping for a multi-year deal.

Not sure if that's really all that clear, from the facts we have.  Back in January, MLBTR said "It had been widely assumed that Rasmus would pursue such a pillow contract (one year deal) in the wake of his underwhelming 2014 season to potentially set him up for a richer multiyear deal next offseason."  If Rasmus defied conventional wisdom and wanted a multi-year deal coming off of his 2014 season, it almost certainly would have been a Phil Hughes 3/24 type deal which in many ways is even more team-friendly than a one year deal. 

 

Before signing with the Astros, he was strongly connected to the Orioles, who were reportedly hoping to land him for "$5-8 million" according to MLBTR.  He was also connected to the perpetually frugal Rays.

 

Both of those teams, plus the Astros, planned to use him in an OF rotation (so not everyday, and primarily in the corners) from day 1.

 

Seems there was a reasonable chance that if the Twins had offered $10.5 million early, to take the opening day CF job instead of Schafer (particularly before the Dec. 2nd deadline to offer Schafer arbitration), Rasmus would not have waited until January to sign.  Make it $12 million (MLBTR's predicted contract for him, and the salaries of Hunter + Schafer) and it would be even more likely.

 

I am sure the Twins did not view Rasmus as their "type" so I don't think it was anything about his market that turned them off.  They simply prioritized Hunter, and have also shown a willingness to roll the dice on Jordan Schafer types in various roles on the roster (see also: the bullpen).

[DaveW]

I wanted them to sign Nelson Cruz instead of Hunter. Good thing they didn't.