Souhan: Park Won't Be Nishioka Part 2

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

And I don't think I've heard that KBO is less of a league than JPPL, just that it is more of a hitter's league, which is what the comparison to average OPS accounts for.

Again, a comparison to average can exaggerate extremes.  An average player gets a boost by league conditions, but a good player can get a boost out of proportion to his relative skill advantage (think Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa in MLB circa 1998-2002).

 

And they are different types of hitters, no one is disputing that.  That's a large part of that relative OPS advantage, Nishioka simply wasn't racking up SLG.  Others have suggested that SLG will translate to MLB better than AVG, and that could be true, but I wouldn't use a reliance on one or the other to exaggerate their past performances relative to league.

[markos]

Was anyone else surprised that he tied the Nishioka deal to the Santana trade rather than the Garza/Bartlett trade? I certainly seems like that deal was much relative to future issues with the shortstop position.

 

Also, I always find it strange so many people, especially prominent media voices like Souhan, are so willing to malign the Smth front office and praise the Ryan front office even though they are basically the exact same group of people. I would really like someone to investigate those four years and figure out what the heck happened. Did Smith not listen to anyone and just do his own thing? Is Ryan just much better at sifting out the bad ideas from the rest of the staff? My personal thought (with no hard evidence, just a theory) is that Ryan was much better at tempering Gardenhire's influence in the front office decisions. This is mostly based on the short period when Ryan was out for medical reasons back in 2014 and there were a few really bizarre roster moves made that spring (like keeping Bartlett as the 25th man on the roster). Anyway, I often wonder what a guy like Mike Radcliff thinks whenever someone trashes the Smith years. I wonder if he is thinks, "Yeah, that guy wouldn't listen to me. Sure glad Terry's back." or, "Yeah, I wish he hadn't listened to me so often. Sure glad he's quietly taking the blame."

[Mike Sixel]

I agree, it's not the money, but what it implies for Sano, Arcia, and Vargas, imo, that is the risk here. 

[ThejacKmp]

You might want to pick up that mic.  Obviously they are different people and very different styles of hitter which influences these numbers, but at a lower level of play (and most consider KBO lower than JPPL), it's much easier to out-perform the league by a wide margin, so these relative differences aren't all that meaningful above their already-understood different hitting profiles.  Also, according to B-Ref, Nishioka was 4.6 years younger than the average JPPL player in his final season there.  Up until that point of his career relative to the KBO, Park was a below league-average hitter overall.

 

Again, different people and very different styles of hitter, and Park should transition better simply because it would be difficult to fail as badly as Nishioka, but I don't think it's wrong to acknowledge they were acquired in a similar manner (same team, same posting system, similar salaries), and faced a similar general transition.

 

I haven't followed the whole thread so just responding to one thing here.

 

I hardly think the fact that they were both obtained in the same posting system is relevant. You wouldn't say that Nick Gordon was a bad draft pick because he was picked under the same rules that got us Chris Parmalee. You also wouldn't say that J.R. Graham is a good signing because the same Rule 5 system gave us Johan Santana. Many good players and many bad players have come through the posting system. This is the fallacy of composition at its worst.

 

Similarly, to say that two players making the same amount are going to have similar results is faulty logic. Robinson Cano and Prince Fielder make the same amount and that doesn't change how I think each of them will do. The salary is irrelevant - guys should be judged on their own merit not similarity of their contracts.

 

Same team has a bit more validity but no team bats 1.000  so it would seem a bit premature to say that because the Twins had one bad experience in the Asian market, the next one will be just as bad. I had a terrible first date when I was 17 but that didn't make me give up dating - I learned, adjusted and did (slightly) better the next time. Hopefully the Twins have done the same.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

My personal thought (with no hard evidence, just a theory) is that Ryan was much better at tempering Gardenhire's influence in the front office decisions.

That's my theory too.  Well, Gardenhire and others (Anderson, Antony, etc.).

 

When you read about Antony's esteem for RBI as a player evaluation tool in 2010, and think back to the Delmon Young trade in 2008 (91 RBI as a rookie!), you can't help but think he was voice that Smith was relying on more than TR ever would, when it came to big decisions.

 

Anderson perhaps butting heads with a young Matt Garza in 2007 too, then Gardenhire bemoaning his lack of speed in the infield at the end of 2010, followed shortly by the trade of JJ Hardy and acquisition of Nishioka.

 

There were probably other voices behind the scenes as well, although I suspect guys like Radcliffe and others probably stuck the draft and minor league side of things.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Holy crap! Souhan used OPS in an article! I demand RBIs to mentioned at least once in a newspaper article! 

[ThejacKmp]

 

Nishioka was coming off back-to-back batting titles in Japan. He was more than a one-year wonder there.

Also... I don't know what evidence there is that scouts like Park better than Nishioka. The contracts aren't that dissimilar, which would lead me to believe that scouts in the know view Park as at least a moderate bust risk.

 

First of all, those contracts were signed five years apart. With baseball inflation, Nishioka's deal is far bigger than Park's. So they aren't similar. I realize that supports your point that Park is a bust risk but just wanted to point out that numbers can't be looked at in a vacuum.

 

Building on that last thought, I think you're looking at it without taking context into consideration:

 

When Nishioka inked his deal, the Twins were new to the posting system. They also had already traded away Hardy (12/9, signed Nishioka 12/16) so they had lost some of that leverage to pull back. They had no other good internal options to use in his place and needed to sign him. Nishioka also made it clear that he was fine staying in Japan if the price wasn't right. Those factors all undoubtedly upped his price as he had all of the leverage.

 

When Park was signed, the Twins were undoubtedly cautious about the system having been burned before and were much more prepared to negotiate. They didn't need Park as they hadn't traded Plouffe yet (nor would they!) and had more than enough internal options to make Park a luxury, not a need. And finally, they had a very clear idea that Park really wanted to come to the U.S. The Twins had all of the leverage and they used it accordingly.

 

My overall point is that you can't just say "similar numbers" and be done. You have to dig deeper.  Inflation tells you one thing and a view of the context of each signing shows you another. The Twins handled each one differently for a number of reasons. That's what business do - they learn from mistakes. Hopefully they've done just that with Park.

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

 
I haven't followed the whole thread so just responding to one thing here.
 
I hardly think the fact that they were both obtained in the same posting system is relevant. You wouldn't say that Nick Gordon was a bad draft pick because he was picked under the same rules that got us Chris Parmalee. You also wouldn't say that J.R. Graham is a good signing because the same Rule 5 system gave us Johan Santana. Many good players and many bad players have come through the posting system. This is the fallacy of composition at its worst.
 
Similarly, to say that two players making the same amount are going to have similar results is faulty logic. Robinson Cano and Prince Fielder make the same amount and that doesn't change how I think each of them will do. The salary is irrelevant - guys should be judged on their own merit not similarity of their contracts.
 
Same team has a bit more validity but no team bats 1.000  so it would seem a bit premature to say that because the Twins had one bad experience in the Asian market, the next one will be just as bad. I had a terrible first date when I was 17 but that didn't make me give up dating - I learned, adjusted and did (slightly) better the next time. Hopefully the Twins have done the same.

 

Together, I think they have some relevance here, as a basis for comparison.  They both involved our international scouts, we got them both by blindly outbidding other MLB teams for them, and after all that, we came to similar financial arrangements with both too.

Obviously, that doesn't mean they are similar players or have the same chances of future success, etc.  But I think it's fair to point out the processes that brought them here are similar.  In fact, controlling for those factors is probably the only way the Twins will learn where they improved (assuming the Park experience goes better than the Nishioka one, which it almost assuredly has to).

[Danchat]

One big difference here is that the Twins didn't trade away a starting position player (and for absolutely nothing, I may also mention). If Park doesn't work out, there are other guys who can fill DH. He won't have to play in the field (outside of some 1B spot starts I suppose), so we don't have to worry about Park learning how to play a position.

 

Basically, the Twins aren't gambling that Park will run away with the DH position in 2016. They basically handed the SS job to Nishioka with no backup plan - then they learned he couldn't even play SS in training camp. That's not going to happen to Park.

[Thrylos]

Gotta love Souhan.  The man who endlessly contradicts himself

 

Starts his writeup with:

 

 

 

Park played in Korea. Nishioka played in Japan. Wikipedia indicates that they are not the same country. The Star Tribune is working to confirm

 

and ends it with

 

 

 

But there’s no more reason to compare Park to Nishioka than there is to compare Joe Mauer and Dave Winfield because they both grew up in St. Paul.

 

 

So either, in his mind Korea and Japan are the same place, or Mauer grew up in a different St. Paul than Winfield...

 

I'd love to see comparisons of Park to someone like Tony Batista, for example, because they have more things in common (hint:  Park is better than Batista) and quit that Asian thing.  And with his last sentence, Souhan really negates the rest of the article.

[ThejacKmp]

 

Together, I think they have some relevance here, as a basis for comparison.  They both involved our international scouts, we got them both by blindly outbidding other MLB teams for them, and after all that, we came to similar financial arrangements with both too.

Obviously, that doesn't mean they are similar players or have the same chances of future success, etc.  But I think it's fair to point out the processes that brought them here are similar.  In fact, controlling for those factors is probably the only way the Twins will learn where they improved (assuming the Park experience goes better than the Nishioka one, which it almost assuredly has to).

 

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Hrbowski]

Nishioka was replacing JJ Hardy, and Park is not.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

What killed Nishioka was the take out slide at second.

[Thrylos]

 

What killed Nishioka was the take out slide at second.

 

Absolutely.  And I cannot believe that nobody of Nishioka's pitching teammates and his manager had the fortitude to make the perpetrator pay.  If it was me, Nick Swisher would be on First base with a new set of teeth on his first PA on every game he faced the Twins.

[spinowner]

 

What killed Nishioka was the take out slide at second.

 

 

Absolutely.  And I cannot believe that nobody of Nishioka's pitching teammates and his manager had the fortitude to make the perpetrator pay.  If it was me, Nick Swisher would be on First base with a new set of teeth on his first PA on every game he faced the Twins.

Actually, no.

Nishioka's injury was his own fault, or more accurately the fault of the Twins on-field coaching staff. Swisher's slide on that play is the same thing that happens in almost every major league game--a hard slide through the base. Swisher felt terrible about it and Gardenhire was quick to absolve Swisher of any blame. Nishioka had not been coached to avoid a break-up slide and instead of jumping out of the way he just stood there. Now, was the coaching staff at fault for assuming a player in the major leagues should know what to do on that play? Maybe, maybe not. Just one more glaring example of how ill-prepared Nishioka was for the majors.

[Thrylos]

 

Actually, no.

Nishioka's injury was his own fault, or more accurately the fault of the Twins on-field coaching staff. Swisher's slide on that play is the same thing that happens in almost every major league game--a hard slide through the base. Swisher felt terrible about it and Gardenhire was quick to absolve Swisher of any blame. Nishioka had not been coached to avoid a break-up slide and instead of jumping out of the way he just stood there. Now, was the coaching staff at fault for assuming a player in the major leagues should know what to do on that play? Maybe, maybe not. Just one more glaring example of how ill-prepared Nishioka was for the majors.

 

Um. No.  Facts:

 

 

 

This is the play.  Nishioka just threw the ball and had touched base a while before.  Look at Swisher's legs.

As I said, the Twins' manager and his players did not have the fortitude to stand up to a dirty slide that pretty much ended Nishioka's career here.

 

Tell me how that is clean, based on the rules announced today.

 

Please.

[spinowner]

 

Um. No.  Facts:

 

 

 

This is the play.  Nishioka just threw the ball and had touched base a while before.  Look at Swisher's legs.

As I said, the Twins' manager and his players did not have the fortitude to stand up to a dirty slide that pretty much ended Nishioka's career here.

 

Tell me how that is clean, based on the rules announced today.

 

Please.

Obviously Swisher's slide was not straight through the base as I thought I recalled. However, he is easily able to touch second base and by the rules and the way the game was played in 2011 this was not considered a dirty play.

This is excerpted from ESPN coverage of the play:
Gardenhire added about Swisher's slide: "Just breaking up a double play. No issues there. [Nishioka] just got caught a little flat-footed and Swisher's a clean player and that's just a good baseball slide trying to break up a double play. There's no issue there."
While Nishioka's day did not end well, he commended Swisher for coming to talk to him in the X-ray room after the game.
"He didn't need to do that," Nishioka said via translation. "I appreciate it. Being the same athlete, I appreciated that he took the time to come over. Swisher didn't do anything that he needed to come over to apologize [for]."

[Thrylos]

 

Obviously Swisher's slide was not straight through the base as I thought I recalled. However, he is easily able to touch second base and by the rules and the way the game was played in 2011 this was not considered a dirty play.

This is excerpted from ESPN coverage of the play:
Gardenhire added about Swisher's slide: "Just breaking up a double play. No issues there. [Nishioka] just got caught a little flat-footed and Swisher's a clean player and that's just a good baseball slide trying to break up a double play. There's no issue there."
While Nishioka's day did not end well, he commended Swisher for coming to talk to him in the X-ray room after the game.
"He didn't need to do that," Nishioka said via translation. "I appreciate it. Being the same athlete, I appreciated that he took the time to come over. Swisher didn't do anything that he needed to come over to apologize [for]."

 

Well...

 

Told you what I think about that manager.  And he could not break a double play, because as you can see the ball is out already...

 

Just a shame all over, because if you look at that picture, you will see Swisher's goal there: Take Nishioka out. Period. At that snapshot the ball was already at the first baseman's glove.

 

No excuses.

 

Glad that Gardy went belly up once more against the Yankees

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Actually, no.

Nishioka's injury was his own fault, or more accurately the fault of the Twins on-field coaching staff. Swisher's slide on that play is the same thing that happens in almost every major league game--a hard slide through the base. Swisher felt terrible about it and Gardenhire was quick to absolve Swisher of any blame. Nishioka had not been coached to avoid a break-up slide and instead of jumping out of the way he just stood there. Now, was the coaching staff at fault for assuming a player in the major leagues should know what to do on that play? Maybe, maybe not. Just one more glaring example of how ill-prepared Nishioka was for the majors.

The only thing I would disagree with you on is the coaches coaching up Nishioka. That spring I heard that Tom Kelly worked countless hours with Nishioka on relearning how to make that play.

[DaveW]

I was at that game and saw the play in real time, Nishioka should/could have gotten out of the way very easily.

I don't really give two damns about the "rules that were announced today" this play happened several years ago and it was a legal play.

 

As far as calling out Gardy for no "payback" I applaud Gardy for that, throwing at another team (especially one that has owned you) is a stupid decision, it can only hurt your own team.

 

Let's say they throw at Swisher or another good Yankee and break his arm, then suddenly Mauer takes one to the dome or arm and gets hurt as well, it's a lose-lose situation at that point.

 

What's hilarious about Thrylos post on this is he condemns a takeout slide, but at the same time advocates a team/pitcher intentionally throwing at and hurting another player.

[Reider]

I understand Souhan wanting to address fans' concerns about Park after the Nishioka experiment, but I'm not factoring the Nishioka situation into this at all. Park is his own person and has his own potential.

 

The way I"m seeing it, is if Park turns out to be a +.800OPS MLB hitter and Arcia has a bounce back season, along with a full season of Sano, Dozier, etc.. this could turn out to be one very exciting year.

[Boom Boom]

First of all, those contracts were signed five years apart. With baseball inflation, Nishioka's deal is far bigger than Park's. So they aren't similar. I realize that supports your point that Park is a bust risk but just wanted to point out that numbers can't be looked at in a vacuum.

 

Building on that last thought, I think you're looking at it without taking context into consideration:

 

When Nishioka inked his deal, the Twins were new to the posting system. They also had already traded away Hardy (12/9, signed Nishioka 12/16) so they had lost some of that leverage to pull back. They had no other good internal options to use in his place and needed to sign him. Nishioka also made it clear that he was fine staying in Japan if the price wasn't right. Those factors all undoubtedly upped his price as he had all of the leverage.

 

When Park was signed, the Twins were undoubtedly cautious about the system having been burned before and were much more prepared to negotiate. They didn't need Park as they hadn't traded Plouffe yet (nor would they!) and had more than enough internal options to make Park a luxury, not a need. And finally, they had a very clear idea that Park really wanted to come to the U.S. The Twins had all of the leverage and they used it accordingly.

 

My overall point is that you can't just say "similar numbers" and be done. You have to dig deeper. Inflation tells you one thing and a view of the context of each signing shows you another. The Twins handled each one differently for a number of reasons. That's what business do - they learn from mistakes. Hopefully they've done just that with Park.

Maybe I wasn't being eloquent enough to express the point I was trying to make.

 

Let's say, hypothetically, that the Twins had never signed Nishioka. In that alternate universe, I would be equally concerned about Park as I am now.

 

It's not because the Twins have been burned on the international market before. It's because Park already has at least one glaring weakness in his game (strikeouts), which is likely to get worse with the higher level of competition in MLB. The relative inexpensiveness of the contract reflects just how much of a bust risk Park was thought to be by other teams on the market, if there were any.

 

In summation, I'm concerned about Park's game not working for him stateside. Which, coincidentally, was a concern the Twins should have had about Nishioka.

[spinowner]

 

I was at that game and saw the play in real time, Nishioka should/could have gotten out of the way very easily.

I don't really give two damns about the "rules that were announced today" this play happened several years ago and it was a legal play.

 

As far as calling out Gardy for no "payback" I applaud Gardy for that, throwing at another team (especially one that has owned you) is a stupid decision, it can only hurt your own team.

 

Let's say they throw at Swisher or another good Yankee and break his arm, then suddenly Mauer takes one to the dome or arm and gets hurt as well, it's a lose-lose situation at that point.

 

What's hilarious about Thrylos post on this is he condemns a takeout slide, but at the same time advocates a team/pitcher intentionally throwing at and hurting another player.

Never have I agreed so much with a Dave W post. Did I wake up on the right planet this morning?

[old nurse]

 

I was at that game and saw the play in real time, Nishioka should/could have gotten out of the way very easily.

I don't really give two damns about the "rules that were announced today" this play happened several years ago and it was a legal play.

 

As far as calling out Gardy for no "payback" I applaud Gardy for that, throwing at another team (especially one that has owned you) is a stupid decision, it can only hurt your own team.

 

Let's say they throw at Swisher or another good Yankee and break his arm, then suddenly Mauer takes one to the dome or arm and gets hurt as well, it's a lose-lose situation at that point.

 

What's hilarious about Thrylos post on this is he condemns a takeout slide, but at the same time advocates a team/pitcher intentionally throwing at and hurting another player.

Yup , payback leads to gang warfare. You get one of mine, I get one of yours and the cycle continues for generations.  Second problem, I was not aware that any Twin starter at that time could really throw that hard to intentionally break an arm.

[ThejacKmp]

 

The relative inexpensiveness of the contract reflects just how much of a bust risk Park was thought to be by other teams on the market, if there were any.

 

The relative inexpensiveness of the contract does not reflect the risk - it reflects that this is a monopsony, with only the Twins able to bid on Park. Park's decisions were to take the Twins lowball offer or go back to Korea and wait for next year. That's why his contract was so low - he wanted to play in MLB and the Twins knew it. It was bad negotiating by his agent and good negotiating by the Twins.

 

Unless you're saying that the posting amount is low. I'm looking back to articles at the time and I'm not seeing much that says it was a low posting amount. Jung-Ho Kang had a $5 million post and the estimates I saw thought that Park would command a $10 million posting fee (and then get a $40 million contract).

 

So I very much disagree with the concept that Park's contract shows that other teams were leery. The Twins won with a bid that was above the expected posting fee and there were a number of teams making bids (alas, we don't know what #2 was but if the market was guessing $10 million you have to think some other team put up that amount). The Twins then negotiated well in a messed up system (so much leverage for the team, so little for the player). Park's contract is a testament to his desire to play in MLB and the Twins desire to not pay him (and plethora of options which made him a luxury and not a necessity), not that he is a bust risk.

[scottz]

Great, now I'm worried that Park won't be able to evade take-out slides at second base when he's turning the double play.

 

I'm also worried that the next time I order bulgogi I'll get yakiniku.

 

So many worries. So, so worried.

[DaveW]

 

Yup , payback leads to gang warfare. You get one of mine, I get one of yours and the cycle continues for generations.  Second problem, I was not aware that any Twin starter at that time could really throw that hard to intentionally break an arm.

http://i.imgur.com/vQzR6nW.gif

[James]

 

The relative inexpensiveness of the contract does not reflect the risk - it reflects that this is a monopsony, with only the Twins able to bid on Park. Park's decisions were to take the Twins lowball offer or go back to Korea and wait for next year. That's why his contract was so low - he wanted to play in MLB and the Twins knew it. It was bad negotiating by his agent and good negotiating by the Twins.

 

Unless you're saying that the posting amount is low. I'm looking back to articles at the time and I'm not seeing much that says it was a low posting amount. Jung-Ho Kang had a $5 million post and the estimates I saw thought that Park would command a $10 million posting fee (and then get a $40 million contract).

 

So I very much disagree with the concept that Park's contract shows that other teams were leery. The Twins won with a bid that was above the expected posting fee and there were a number of teams making bids (alas, we don't know what #2 was but if the market was guessing $10 million you have to think some other team put up that amount). The Twins then negotiated well in a messed up system (so much leverage for the team, so little for the player). Park's contract is a testament to his desire to play in MLB and the Twins desire to not pay him (and plethora of options which made him a luxury and not a necessity), not that he is a bust risk.

Very accurate post.  In fact, many other teams were interested in Park.  There were a number of other teams that put in a bid for Park:

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/latest-byung-ho-park-winning-bid.html

 

I couldn't get a certain number, but it sounds like as many as 16 teams placed a bid on him.  And I can't find the statement, but it sounds like the Twins barely beat out the 2nd place bid.

 

That is in stark contrast to Nishioka, which through all my digging, I could only find confirmation of two teams actually making a bid on him.  The other team was the Red Sox who confirmed a $2MM bid (the Twins won with a $3.5MM bid).  

 

The difference between these two shows tells me a few things:

1). Park has skills that are desirable to several MLB teams.

2). The Twins' FO has a better understanding of foreign posting systems

3). The Twins' talent evaluation system is probably more in line with other teams than it was during the Nishioka fiasco.  

 

Maybe I'm drawing some incorrect conclusions here, but I do feel a lot better knowing that there were several other teams the reportedly put in very similar bids (of course, no numbers were actually released).

[ThejacKmp]

 

Very accurate post.  In fact, many other teams were interested in Park.  There were a number of other teams that put in a bid for Park:

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/latest-byung-ho-park-winning-bid.html

 

I couldn't get a certain number, but it sounds like as many as 16 teams placed a bid on him.  And I can't find the statement, but it sounds like the Twins barely beat out the 2nd place bid.

 

That is in stark contrast to Nishioka, which through all my digging, I could only find confirmation of two teams actually making a bid on him.  The other team was the Red Sox who confirmed a $2MM bid (the Twins won with a $3.5MM bid).  

 

The difference between these two shows tells me a few things:

1). Park has skills that are desirable to several MLB teams.

2). The Twins' FO has a better understanding of foreign posting systems

3). The Twins' talent evaluation system is probably more in line with other teams than it was during the Nishioka fiasco.  

 

Maybe I'm drawing some incorrect conclusions here, but I do feel a lot better knowing that there were several other teams the reportedly put in very similar bids (of course, no numbers were actually released).

 

I do think we would be remiss if we didn't say that the Pirates success with Kang last year probably drove the market on Park at least as much as Park's performance. That's a legitimate worry about Park - if MLB teams are suddenly interested in Korea because of one player turning out well, they run the risk of mistaking a phenomenon for a trend (of course they also have the potential of getting in on a new trend early when its more profitable).

 

But in the end, the size of the commitment makes this a very healthy risk for the Twins. They don't have so much committed to him that it will drastically effect their future spending or make them feel forced to play him if he doesn't warrant it. I don't think he'll have a short leash but with Arcia/Vargas/Kepler in the wings, I don't think he will have a super long leash either. He'll start with a leg up for the DH job but he will have to earn it and continue to earn playing time.

Very excited about this move, it really has very little risk and tons of reward (unlike Nishioka, which had tons of risk along with the reward).

[spinowner]

 

 (of course, no numbers were actually released).

Just like poker. You don't have to show your hand unless you need to prove yours is better than your opponent(s).