Escobar's slash line since the Santana demotion

[Eris]

From Fangraphs.  For the 2014-2015 seasons Escobar has played 1072 innings (~120 games) at SS.  His ranking is among SS with 500 PA or 1000 innings is  

 

18th (of 37 qualifiying) WAR (2.5)

19th (of 33) in DRS (-5)

9th (of 33) in UZR/150 (4.3)

 

This about league average, maybe just a touch below which would suggest that with Escobar at SS this is not the Twins greatest area of need.  

[d-mac]

 

Substitute Punto for Santana and Gardy for Paulie. And then be thankful we're not contending with all that rubbish about Paulie's little favorites and compromising photos. Yet. Better that people blame it all on Ryan.

 

At least when Punto was used properly he was valuable: Plus defender at 3 positions (and plus-plus at 3rd), had speed and was a good base stealer, and drew enough walks to maintain a solid OBP for someone with 0 power and marginal ability to hit for average. Santana is a complete liability. 

[markos]

 

For the record, in no way am I criticizing the front office for starting the season with Santana. I would have done the same in their place.

 

On the other hand, by mid-May at the very latest, it was apparent Santana needed a reboot. Any playing time Santana received after May 15-ish was a mistake, and a big one.

Your argument depends a lot on the benefit of hindsight.

 

Santana started the season 0-12, but then for the next 30 game through May 15th, he had a .680 OPS. Not great, but certainly not terrible. Escobar, over that exact same timeframe, had a .600 OPS. Escobar is a better bet defensively, But I think it was close enough that it was NOT completely apparent on May 15th that Escobar was the right choice and Santana needed a reboot. 

 

After May 15th, Santana did turn into a dumpster fire, and had a meager .305 OPS for the next three weeks, at which point the Twins sent him to the minors. Maybe they should have sent him down a week sooner, but the team was winning during that stretch, and it seems rather impulsive to send someone down after a bad week.

 

So I'm arguing that May 15th only makes sense if you know the future. With hindsight, yes, that is obviously the day that Santana should have been sent down. However, I don't blame the Twins for using him through June 1st. And therefore I don't think his limited playing time after that date has been a big mistake. You are talking about 24 starts scattered over 2 months, during which he had a .524 OPS. Using Escobar instead for those games (assuming he is a ~.700 OPS player) is maybe one win improvement. Maybe? Probably less. Of all the bad things that have happened to this team since June 1, starting Danny Santana 24 times is pretty low on the list.

[70charger]

I don't get that many things right, so I'm going to gloat a bit. I wanted Escobar to stay at short, and Santana to stay at CF and push out Schafer. At this point, Santana/Schafer would have been a wash, but Escobar certainly would have been better than Santana at short. When it looked like the Twins were absolutely set on Santana starting the season at short, I didn't complain too much - might as well try the young guys, right? - but when people still maintain Escobar is nothing but a utility guy, I have to take exception. Every year he's been given the chance, he's been an average or so shortstop, and has outperformed much more highly touted and highly paid players. 

 

None of the post hoc rationalizations as to why Escobar actually isn't a major league capable shortstop ever held water with me. After a few years of proof, isn't what he's actually shown himself capable of equal to what we can conclude he's capable of?

[Brock Beauchamp]

Your argument depends a lot on the benefit of hindsight.

 

Santana started the season 0-12, but then for the next 30 game through May 15th, he had a .680 OPS. Not great, but certainly not terrible. Escobar, over that exact same timeframe, had a .600 OPS. Escobar is a better bet defensively, But I think it was close enough that it was NOT completely apparent on May 15th that Escobar was the right choice and Santana needed a reboot.

 

After May 15th, Santana did turn into a dumpster fire, and had a meager .305 OPS for the next three weeks, at which point the Twins sent him to the minors. Maybe they should have sent him down a week sooner, but the team was winning during that stretch, and it seems rather impulsive to send someone down after a bad week.

 

So I'm arguing that May 15th only makes sense if you know the future. With hindsight, yes, that is obviously the day that Santana should have been sent down. However, I don't blame the Twins for using him through June 1st. And therefore I don't think his limited playing time after that date has been a big mistake. You are talking about 24 starts scattered over 2 months, during which he had a .524 OPS. Using Escobar instead for those games (assuming he is a ~.700 OPS player) is maybe one win improvement. Maybe? Probably less. Of all the bad things that have happened to this team since June 1, starting Danny Santana 24 times is pretty low on the list.

It's not hindsight. Maybe it wasn't May 15th, maybe it was May 25th, but I started calling for the removal of Santana around that time.

 

He wasn't only bad with the bat, he was terrible with the glove as well. He was killing a team that quickly became a contender and surely helped the Twins lose a few games they sure could use in the win column today.

 

On top of the bad stats, Santana looked lost at the plate. The pitcher could have rolled the ball to the plate and Danny had a 40% chance of swinging at it. It was obvious he wasn't suffering from a tough stretch of play; his fundamental approach was broken.

 

And young players with broken approaches need to fix their problems in the minors, especially on a contending team.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Also, I just checked... Santana's OPS on May 15 was .616.

 

By the end of May, it was just .549 with a ridiculous two (!) BB in 172 PAs.

 

That's a player who is floundering badly and needs to be demoted.

 

The Twins did demote him... But then they inexplicably called him back up and played him almost every day for five weeks and June and July.

 

Defensively, Santana has a wince-inducing -14 DRS in just 568 innings this season. UZR is equally dismissive of his play in the field.

[Rosterman]

He is still only 26.

 

He proved himself last season.

 

He was willing to take a backseat to Santana this season.

 

He will play where/whenever they want. Does it galdly.

 

He plays best at shortstop.

 

He is the right age to be the stopgap, still, if you want to age Polanco another season at AAA and look at Gordon or Javier 3-4 years down-the-line.

 

You have one more year of cheapness before he becomes too expensive to be a utility guy. If he does produce again next seaon, he will be a tradable commodity...still young, still with some control.

[drjim]

 

Also, I just checked... Santana's OPS on May 15 was .616.

 

By the end of May, it was just .549 with a ridiculous two (!) BB in 172 PAs.

 

That's a player who is floundering badly and needs to be demoted.

 

The Twins did demote him... But then they inexplicably called him back up and played him almost every day for five weeks and June and July.

 

Defensively, Santana has a wince-inducing -14 DRS in just 568 innings this season. UZR is equally dismissive of his play in the field.

 

I think this can all be an argument that the Twins handled the situation OK.

 

Seems he got demoted about the right time, maybe a week/10 days late - gave him time to reboot in the minors and then gave him one more extended look. When he didn't improve they moved on.

 

Santana has tools and upside that some patience is defendable and I hope they give him another long look next year if they don't acquire a SS from outside the org.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I think this can all be an argument that the Twins handled the situation OK.

How so? Even if you give them a pass for the first (bad) stint of play, how do you explain the five week redux we watched in June and July?

 

And it's not like Santana was out there providing awesome defense while we suffered through his struggles at the plate. He was equally awful on the defensive side of the ball.

 

He didn't get to the point of being one of the worst players in baseball as rated by WAR through bad luck or bad plate appearances. He was a terrible player in every facet of the game.

 

Also, he was doing all of that on a team that spent June and July holding down a playoff position.

[markos]

 

Also, I just checked... Santana's OPS on May 15 was .616.

 

I never said it wasn't. I said that after his 0-12 start to the season, he had a .680 OPS through May 15th. 

 

"The Twins did demote him... But then they inexplicably called him back up and played him almost every day for five weeks and June and July."

 

He was the starting shortstop 16 times in the 30 games during that stretch, plus 3 games at CF. That is hardly every day.

 

"Defensively, Santana has a wince-inducing -14 DRS in just 568 innings this season. UZR is equally dismissive of his play in the field."

 

From above, he only played ~144 innings at SS during that June-July stretch. Pro-rate the DRS, that is -3.5 runs. 

 

Again, the improvement of moving from Santana to Escobar for 16 games might, maybe, in the best of circumstances, be 1 win. Maybe. Probably way less than that. So I just don't believe that calling up Santana again in June was some massive mistake that caused the Twins to fall out of contention. Mistake? Yes. Season altering mistake? No.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Santana did look OK in his first few weeks in Rochester, but not so good to earn a quick ticket back.  Again, he came back up when Buxton got hurt, seems like really convenient timing to say he had earned another look at SS at that exact time (especially when they used him at SS first, then a couple games in CF just before Hicks came back, then back at SS).

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

 

So I just don't believe that calling up Santana again in June was some massive mistake that caused the Twins to fall out of contention. Mistake? Yes. Season altering mistake? No.

Shifting goalposts?  Did anyone say that?  You could make the same claim ("didn't cost them the season") about almost any move, that's just the nature of the game.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I never said it wasn't. I said that after his 0-12 start to the season, he had a .680 OPS through May 15th. 

 

"The Twins did demote him... But then they inexplicably called him back up and played him almost every day for five weeks and June and July."

 

He was the starting shortstop 16 times in the 30 games during that stretch, plus 3 games at CF. That is hardly every day.

 

"Defensively, Santana has a wince-inducing -14 DRS in just 568 innings this season. UZR is equally dismissive of his play in the field."

 

From above, he only played ~144 innings at SS during that June-July stretch. Pro-rate the DRS, that is -3.5 runs. 

 

Again, the improvement of moving from Santana to Escobar for 16 games might, maybe, in the best of circumstances, be 1 win. Maybe. Probably way less than that. So I just don't believe that calling up Santana again in June was some massive mistake that caused the Twins to fall out of contention. Mistake? Yes. Season altering mistake? No.

Season altering mistake? No, probably not... but if you add a bunch of medium-sized mistakes together - as we've witnessed the Twins do over the past three months - you leave a bunch of wins on the table.

 

It's really easy to say "Santana only cost one win" and you know what, a team that isn't making other mistakes up and down the roster can probably swallow that lost game. The Twins aren't that "one mistake" team. They're a flawed team with some pretty glaring holes that could have been patched with internal solutions.

 

The Twins kept playing Santana. He kept playing horribly. They lost games in part because he was so horrible.

[nicksaviking]

Personally, I've been banging the drum all season about putting future development over winning now.  Playing Santana and sacrificing production under my personal philosophy may have been justified. 

 

However clearly the team did not share this philosophy as veterans were given the edge over prospects in every other situation, including Vargas and Arcia who were quickly banished despite looking much more useful.  The Santana situation just did not mesh with what the team was doing at the time.

 

And even while I've been wearing a billboard that says "All prospects, All the Time" I was ready to replace Santana with Escobar back in May as well.

[drjim]

 

How so? Even if you give them a pass for the first (bad) stint of play, how do you explain the five week redux we watched in June and July?

 

And it's not like Santana was out there providing awesome defense while we suffered through his struggles at the plate. He was equally awful on the defensive side of the ball.

 

He didn't get to the point of being one of the worst players in baseball as rated by WAR through bad luck or bad plate appearances. He was a terrible player in every facet of the game.

 

Also, he was doing all of that on a team that spent June and July holding down a playoff position.

 

He went into the season as the starting SS. They gave him two legitimate shots at it and then moved on. I'm not going to argue he performed well, but I would argue that if you think someone has the job you give them a legit chance before you move on. They gave him a chance, they moved on, hence handling him OK.

 

In the bigger picture I was absolutely supportive this season of erring on the side of development for a player if you think he has a future at an organization position of need.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I agree the Twins should show patience with developing players.

 

But being one of the worst players in all of baseball is well beyond the argument of "player development".

 

And if we're so interested in player development, why didn't Arcia get a shot at the majors after his great July? Why haven't we seen Vargas since the demotion? Those players should get a longer leash to develop at the MLB level, too (both players have posted vastly superior numbers to Santana in their respective MiLB careers).

[drjim]

 

Personally, I've been banging the drum all season about putting future development over winning now.  Playing Santana and sacrificing production under my personal philosophy may have been justified. 

 

However clearly the team did not share this philosophy as veterans were given the edge over prospects in every other situation, including Vargas and Arcia who were quickly banished despite looking much more useful.  The Santana situation just did not mesh with what the team was doing at the time.

 

And even while I've been wearing a billboard that says "All prospects, All the Time" I was ready to replace Santana with Escobar back in May as well.

 

They handled Vargas almost the same way they handled Santana. Gave him until mid-May, a quick minor league reboot, another handful of games without improvement and then sent him back down.

 

Arcia is his own unique circumstances.

[Brock Beauchamp]

They handled Vargas almost the same way they handled Santana. Gave him until mid-May, a quick minor league reboot, another handful of games without improvement and then sent him back down.

 

Arcia is his own unique circumstances.

Vargas was raking when they demoted him, IIRC.

 

And he's raking again. Why does Santana get so many failed opportunities while other players succeed in the minors yet don't get another opportunity?

 

And to further this point, what about Escobar's development? The guy was worth 2 1/2 wins last season in partial play. Why didn't the Twins prioritize him earlier in the season? He's only 26 years old.

 

edit: Vargas had an .893 OPS over his final ten games with the Twins.

[Twins7]

Vargas was raking when they demoted him, IIRC.

And he's raking again. Why does Santana get so many failed opportunities while other players succeed in the minors yet don't get another opportunity?

And to further this point, what about Escobar's development? The guy was worth 2 1/2 wins last season in partial play. Why didn't the Twins prioritize him earlier in the season? He's only 26 years old.

 

edit: Vargas had an .893 OPS over his final ten games with the Twins.

 

Vargas was replaced by Sano, which I think was totally justified in hindsight... Sano's arguably been the best hitter on the team.

 

http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_28416286/twins-send-kennys-vargas-all-way-back-double

 

Arcias been blocked by Sano, Rosario, hicks, Buxton, and hunter. And maybe Vargas. Mauer in the mix too. When all of these guys are around, tough to get Vargas and Arcia in the lineup. There's just more of a log-jam at Arcia and Vargas's position than at SS. Not sure why you're getting so worked up over giving Santana an extra few weeks at SS, even if he was brutally bad. We have two prospects at SS, both got an opportunity. Maybe Santana was kept two or three weeks too long... Big deal.

[drjim]

 

Vargas was raking when they demoted him, IIRC.

And he's raking again. Why does Santana get so many failed opportunities while other players succeed in the minors yet don't get another opportunity?

And to further this point, what about Escobar's development? The guy was worth 2 1/2 wins last season in partial play. Why didn't the Twins prioritize him earlier in the season? He's only 26 years old.

 

edit: Vargas had an .893 OPS over his final ten games with the Twins.

 

The Vargas production was beat to death. In short I think it was deceiving and masked a much bigger issue that was evident in his recall.

 

And on the bigger point, come on, you don't differentiate between a SS and two bats with no defensive value?

 

The bigger issues with Arcia and Vargas, above all, is they got passed up by better players.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Not sure why you're getting so worked up over giving Santana an extra few weeks at SS, even if he was brutally bad. We have two prospects at SS, both got an opportunity. Maybe Santana was kept two or three weeks too long... Big deal.

Jorge Polanco received all of 12 PAs before being demoted. I don't call that "an opportunity".

 

Again, Santana wasn't merely bad, folks... He compiled a -1.2 WAR in just 260 plate appearances. He was awful and played for a contending team while other - better - options sat on the bench.

 

If Santana was the only mistake the Twins made this year, I'd say "harrumph" and get on with my day.

 

But that's not the case. They made mistake after mistake after mistake and now we're watching a team with a record under .500.

 

One bee sting isn't too bad. It hurts a little but you'll get over it.

 

100 will probably kill you.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

And on the bigger point, come on, you don't differentiate between a SS and two bats with no defensive value?

Not to be curt, but...

 

Santana has defensive value?

[Twins7]

Jorge Polanco received all of 12 PAs before being demoted. I don't call that "an opportunity".

 

Again, Santana wasn't merely bad, folks... He compiled a -1.2 WAR in just 260 plate appearances. He was awful and played for a contending team while other - better - options sat on the bench.

 

If Santana was the only mistake the Twins made this year, I'd say "harrumph" and get on with my day.

 

But that's not the case. They made mistake after mistake after mistake and now we're watching a team with a record under .500.

 

One bee sting isn't too bad. It hurts a little but you'll get over it.

 

100 will probably kill you.

I was referring to Escobar as the other prospect, but fair enough.

 

I'd argue that the twins were over .500 late in July largely because milone, pelfrey, and Gibson all had sub-3 eras for long stretches. And, Boyer and Thompson were excellent in the 7th and 8th innings. I think these guys regressing had a lot more to do with our fall than week to week management of the roster... The only real mistakes, in hindsight, that i can remember is choosing Santana over Escobar for so long, sticking with Boyer in high leverage situations, and not replacing hunter with hicks when buxton came back (going with a Rosario-hicks-buxton OF). Oh, and batting Mauer so high for so long... What am I missing (besides not trading for Tulo or price or hamels, which is its own can of worms)?

[drjim]

Not to be curt, but...

 

Santana has defensive value?

Yes he does, potentially at multiple positions.

[Mike Sixel]

Negative value is still value, Brock.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Yes he does, potentially at multiple positions.

Defensively, he has potential, not value.

 

At least at short. I really couldn't care less if he has value in CF because the Twins now have three guys with more value at the position.

[drjim]

 

Defensively, he has potential, not value.

At least at short. I really couldn't care less if he has value in CF because the Twins now have three guys with more value at the position.

 

That's fair, potential is a good way to put it. Certainly has the tools to translate into value above and beyond anyone on the roster and probably the organization.

 

I think he gets one more shot at SS and then falls back into a utility guy that can play multiple positions. He can run and has a really strong arm, that can play at multiple spots and that ultimately will have value.

[70charger]

 

That's fair, potential is a good way to put it. Certainly has the tools to translate into value above and beyond anyone on the roster and probably the organization.

 

I think he gets one more shot at SS and then falls back into a utility guy that can play multiple positions. He can run and has a really strong arm, that can play at multiple spots and that ultimately will have value.

 

Has he ever played 2B or 3B? 

[Brock Beauchamp]

That's fair, potential is a good way to put it. Certainly has the tools to translate into value above and beyond anyone on the roster and probably the organization.

 

I think he gets one more shot at SS and then falls back into a utility guy that can play multiple positions. He can run and has a really strong arm, that can play at multiple spots and that ultimately will have value.

I'm not calling Santana a bust or anything. He can turn into a nice player, I merely think he deserved about half the plate appearances he received this season and that Molitor's stubbornness hurt the team.

[John Kelsey]

The Santana dilemma this season was totally inexcusable. I started multiple threads on it and littered many threads with my complaints while he was playing so I won't go into more detail but.....the fact that he was starting over Escobar was absolutely ridiculous and really tainted my opinion of Molitor as a manager.