Fangraphs (and other national publications) on the Twins

[Mike Sixel]

 

Trevor May did a Q&A session at MLBTradeRumors.com a few days ago. He answered questions such as what it's like to be traded, organizations babying pitchers, dealing with TJS, etc. 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/09/mlbtr-mailbag-with-guest-host-trevor-may.html

 

I loved some of those answers!

 

And, he lives just 45 minutes away.

[PseudoSABR]

 

If you add the words "moving to" before "the Twins" in that response, there is no accusation of anything. How much wording precision do you expect out of these quick chat comments? The context of the question was, is Littell's record interesting (i.e. meaningful)? And the answer is not really, and his post-trade performance took some of the potential wind out of those figurative sails.

Here's Sullivan's sentence:  "I don't know what the Twins have done to him, but it's not great."   That sentence makes the Twins the subject of "doing" something "not great" to "him."  

 

Your post reminds me of  the old defense lawyer trick, which claims "the victim was shot" rather than "someone (the defendant?) shot the victim." Passive voice tends to write agency right out of the English language.  Bad things were done, but by whom, who can say. 

 

I just don't think that's a typo or word omission.  Maybe he was joking, or being hasty with his reasoning, but what he wrote says what it says.  I really like Jeff Sullivan's writing and analysis, but I think--like a lot of analytical writers--shaking the (deserved) Twins-bias caused by the Terry Ryan Front Office is difficult despite the regime-change, and probably manifests in things like these chats.   

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

Here's Sullivan's sentence: "I don't know what the Twins have done to him, but it's not great." That sentence makes the Twins the subject of "doing" something "not great" to "him."

 

Your post reminds me of the old defense lawyer trick, which claims "the victim was shot" rather than "someone (the defendant?) shot the victim." Passive voice tends to write agency right out of the English language. Bad things were done, but by whom, who can say.

 

I just don't think that's a typo or word omission. Maybe he was joking, or being hasty with his reasoning, but what he wrote says what it says. I really like Jeff Sullivan's writing and analysis, but I think--like a lot of analytical writers--shaking the (deserved) Twins-bias caused by the Terry Ryan is difficult despite the regime-change, and probably manifests in things like these chats.

Thank you. On top of removing agency from the player (and where your lawyer analogy falls a bit short) is the use of "did". That's not passive. That's declaring an act perpetrated by someone (in this case, named).

 

Again, without evidence. With no bias, that statement would have read much more benign and would have pointed out a deficiency in peripheral stats, not an accusation of wrong doing.

 

Doubly so in seven ****ing starts. Fangraphs writers know better than that, which is my real point. Are they attention grabbing ESPN talking heads? Are they Souhan? Or are they Fangraphs writers?

 

I expect better of them because I know they're better, particularly in a situation that was so easily avoidable (and should have been avoidable by default minus bias).

[Mike Sixel]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dan-szymborski-fangraphs-chat-91317/

 

2:00The Average Sports Fan: Will the Twins be able to hold on for the 2nd wildcard?
2:00Dan Szymborski: It’s getting closer – two games is significant with this amount of time remaining.
2:01Dan Szymborski: It’s enough that it makes them vs. the field a coin flip or so.

 

2:05Wild card: How many wins will the second AL wild card team have? Who will it be?
2:05Dan Szymborski: Probably the team that wins 85 gets the wild card
2:05Dan Szymborski: Twins the favorite

 

2:09Off season: How should teams think about selling in the off season, considering a team like the Twins going worst to playoffs. They held onto Dozier when many said they should take the best offer, and he’s leading them to the playoffs. Lessons for other “non contenders” in the off season?
2:09Dan Szymborski: No.
2:10Dan Szymborski: If the Twins getting a wild card is a lesson, then why would Royals, Rays, Orioles, etc. not be?

 

2:18TwinkiePower: Joe Mauer & Byron Buxton: Gold Glove Odds?
2:18Dan Szymborski: Buxton’s are very good.
2:19Dan Szymborski: The process still isn’t perfect, but we’re actually getting generally better choices with less of an incumbent discount.
2:19Dan Szymborski: Mauer, harder to tell.

 

2:30TwinkiePower: One of the knocks against Joe Mauer has been that he’s taking up a lineup spot at 1B that’s normally reserved for a traditional power hitter. Considering his resurgence this season and the fact that just about everyone signed this season to perform that role has underwhelmed, are we going to see a shift in common wisdom on the value of players with power hitting and not much else?
2:30Dan Szymborski: No.  Because you still need to do a *lot* of other stuff to make up for the lack of power.
2:31Dan Szymborski: Without power, Mauer’s had to hit .300 *and* walk enough to have a .380 OBP *and* play good D, just to be an above-average 1B.

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

There was also a very long conversation about Dan's rather strong thought about how to make chili (or, more accurately, how not to).

[Monkeypaws]

I wonder if "Dan" has watched Mauer actually play first base.

[Mr. Brooks]

I wonder if "Dan" has watched Mauer actually play first base.

Why? It doesn't sound like he's disputing that Mauer has played well defensively.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I wonder if "Dan" has watched Mauer actually play first base.

 

why is Dan in quotes?

[drivlikejehu]

 

Thank you. On top of removing agency from the player (and where your lawyer analogy falls a bit short) is the use of "did". That's not passive. That's declaring an act perpetrated by someone (in this case, named).

Again, without evidence. With no bias, that statement would have read much more benign and would have pointed out a deficiency in peripheral stats, not an accusation of wrong doing.

Doubly so in seven ****ing starts. Fangraphs writers know better than that, which is my real point. Are they attention grabbing ESPN talking heads? Are they Souhan? Or are they Fangraphs writers?

I expect better of them because I know they're better, particularly in a situation that was so easily avoidable (and should have been avoidable by default minus bias).

 

You've put much, much more time into this issue than Sullivan had available to answer in the chat setting, by a factor of hundreds if not thousands. It's flat out impossible to meet your standard here in that setting.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

I wonder if "Dan" has watched Mauer actually play first base.

 

He's probably seen a couple nice plays, and not much else.

 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Mauer is playing better first base than Hrbek or Dougie M ever did, imo

[jimmer]

 

Mauer is playing better first base than Hrbek or Dougie M ever did, imo

Better than Hrbek for sure, he's about even with Doug M. Doug M was a beast defender.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

Better than Hrbek for sure, he's about even with Doug M. Doug M was a beast defender.

I had to double check, but Doug M did win a gold glove in 2001. I think Mauer wins it this year. 

[Mike Sixel]

I think Mauer has a great shot this year.

[jimmer]

 

I think Mauer has a great shot this year.

me 2. he's the best defensive 1B I've seen in the AL this year.

[prouster]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dan-szymborski-fangraphs-chat-91317/

 

2:30TwinkiePower: One of the knocks against Joe Mauer has been that he’s taking up a lineup spot at 1B that’s normally reserved for a traditional power hitter. Considering his resurgence this season and the fact that just about everyone signed this season to perform that role has underwhelmed, are we going to see a shift in common wisdom on the value of players with power hitting and not much else?

2:30Dan Szymborski: No. Because you still need to do a *lot* of other stuff to make up for the lack of power.

2:31Dan Szymborski: Without power, Mauer’s had to hit .300 *and* walk enough to have a .380 OBP *and* play good D, just to be an above-average 1B.

This makes me wonder (without any real conviction) whether our default mode of talking about player value should be as an overall profile where defensive value is joined to offensive value. Doesn't Mauer provide an example where the sum is lesser than its parts? He may win a gold glove and OPS over .800, yet he's "slightly above average". If we seaparate his performance on each side of the ball, then I think he suddenly looks a lot more valuable. Have we deluded ourselves into believing the myth of overall player value, which is actually a fiction masquerading as quantitative fact?

[70charger]

 

This makes me wonder (without any real conviction) whether our default mode of talking about player value should be as an overall profile where defensive value is joined to offensive value. Doesn't Mauer provide an example where the sum is lesser than its parts? He may win a gold glove and OPS over .800, yet he's "slightly above average". If we seaparate his performance on each side of the ball, then I think he suddenly looks a lot more valuable. Have we deluded ourselves into believing the myth of overall player value, which is actually a fiction masquerading as quantitative fact?

 

Eh. Only if you separate them into two and only two pieces. I think the point of the response, which was largely fair, was that he's had to really make up for a lack of power, which is only one component of offense, with good contact and on-base. On top of that, he's playing great defense at a position where it isn't as important as others, and he's being compared offensively to those who also play that position. If he were OPSing 800 and playing gold glove defense at short, he wouldn't be "above average," he'd be "amazing." 

 

Player evaluation needs a pretty holistic view: all players have some things they do well and other they don't. We also have to fit players into the proper context to determine their overall worth. It's too simplistic to take just two components and say that the sum is less than the parts.

[Thrylos]

 

Trevor May did a Q&A session at MLBTradeRumors.com a few days ago. He answered questions such as what it's like to be traded, organizations babying pitchers, dealing with TJS, etc. 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/09/mlbtr-mailbag-with-guest-host-trevor-may.html

 

They need an editor badly...

[prouster]

Eh. Only if you separate them into two and only two pieces. I think the point of the response, which was largely fair, was that he's had to really make up for a lack of power, which is only one component of offense, with good contact and on-base. On top of that, he's playing great defense at a position where it isn't as important as others, and he's being compared offensively to those who also play that position. If he were OPSing 800 and playing gold glove defense at short, he wouldn't be "above average," he'd be "amazing."

 

Player evaluation needs a pretty holistic view: all players have some things they do well and other they don't. We also have to fit players into the proper context to determine their overall worth. It's too simplistic to take just two components and say that the sum is less than the parts.

I agree in general. I sometimes thinks it's useful, though, to question some of the assumptions that are baked into statistical analysis (especially sabermetrics), which people sometimes treat as objective truths. For example, that home runs are valuable is self evident, but the extent to which they're valuable isn't. Part of that judgment depends on the context in which a player hits his homers, and part depends on the biases of individual evaluators. So yeah, I just think it's worth pointing out that these stats are actually narratives we tell ourselves and not objective statements of fact.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

why is Dan in quotes?

 

Might be referring to an old BYTO poster who absolutely adored Mauer.

[Monkeypaws]

 

Why? It doesn't sound like he's disputing that Mauer has played well defensively.

I don't get that vibe from the quote. Perhaps in context it makes sense.

 

why is Dan in quotes?

 

Cuz "Dan" ain't my buddy, that's why :-D

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

You've put much, much more time into this issue than Sullivan had available to answer in the chat setting, by a factor of hundreds if not thousands. It's flat out impossible to meet your standard here in that setting.

No, it's really not. In a professional setting, I type a lot of things to a lot of people. I somehow manage to not throw anyone under the bus unless I intend to throw them under a bus.

[drivlikejehu]

 

No, it's really not. In a professional setting, I type a lot of things to a lot of people. I somehow manage to not throw anyone under the bus unless I intend to throw them under a bus.

 

I doubt it's really a sensible comparison, but even if it is, the way you type things at work would be a complete flop for an internet sports chat medium.

 

You're attaching an importance to the chats that just isn't there. It's a casual internet conversation, it doesn't actually matter, and being boring on purpose to avoid offending people like you would be counter-productive overall.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I doubt it's really a sensible comparison, but even if it is, the way you type things at work would be a complete flop for an internet sports chat medium.

 

You're attaching an importance to the chats that just isn't there. It's a casual internet conversation, it doesn't actually matter, and being boring on purpose to avoid offending people like you would be counter-productive overall.

Where we disagree is that taking pointless shots at organizations is the only way to be entertaining.

[drjim]

I find the chats useful to find out which national guys really know their stuff and which fall into repeating lazy narratives.

[drivlikejehu]

 

Where we disagree is that taking pointless shots at organizations is the only way to be entertaining.

 

I thought it was pretty clearly tongue-in-cheek. Regardless, your comments on this are not too far off from "Keith Law hates my team" sort of stuff . . . there are posters on this site that act like Falvey is a mentally-handicapped mole in the employ of Cleveland, so off-hand chat comments from people trying to cover 30 teams just don't seem worthy of such righteous condemnation.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I thought it was pretty clearly tongue-in-cheek. Regardless, your comments on this are not too far off from "Keith Law hates my team" sort of stuff . . . there are posters on this site that act like Falvey is a mentally-handicapped mole in the employ of Cleveland, so off-hand chat comments from people trying to cover 30 teams just don't seem worthy of such righteous condemnation.

I notice that with all the people disagreeing with my opinion on the chat, no one actually seems to want to debate whether the comment was dumb.

 

Yet I'm the one projecting a "Keith Law hates my team" vibe. By saying Sullivan's comment was dumb. Not Sullivan, just the comment.

 

And no one seems to disagree with me on that.

[drivlikejehu]

 

I notice that with all the people disagreeing with my opinion on the chat, no one actually seems to want to debate whether the comment was dumb.

 

Yet I'm the one projecting a "Keith Law hates my team" vibe. By saying Sullivan's comment was dumb. Not Sullivan, just the comment.

 

And no one seems to disagree with me there.

 

I don't agree about the comment because I don't think he was being literal. But sure, your wildly excessive reaction to it did kind of overshadow the underlying topic, which by itself was barely even worth making this thread. I won't comment on it further though, since [a] it's so irrelevant as to arguably be off-topic or even against site rules and  I have no right to tell you to placidly accept the fact that Jeff Sullivan Hates the Twins.

[70charger]

 

I agree in general. I sometimes thinks it's useful, though, to question some of the assumptions that are baked into statistical analysis (especially sabermetrics), which people sometimes treat as objective truths. For example, that home runs are valuable is self evident, but the extent to which they're valuable isn't. Part of that judgment depends on the context in which a player hits his homers, and part depends on the biases of individual evaluators. So yeah, I just think it's worth pointing out that these stats are actually narratives we tell ourselves and not objective statements of fact.

 

Well that I can agree with. These stats certainly shouldn't be dogma.

[Squirrel]

Mod note: Please move on as this is turning into bickering. Someone said something. Someone disagreed. And someone disagreed with the disagreeing. You all have made your points so let's not sidetrack this thread any further.