Standings

[Mike Sixel]

 

Perhaps I am looking at it differently than you. You're making the argument about the data on a grand scale over the course of 15-20 years. That I can agree with, that out of all potential players selected in that category, they had the best WAR. 

I'm looking at it on a year to year basis. And there's examples of colossal failures where a team selects something called Greg Reynolds and Luke Hochevar over Evan Longoria, Clayton Kershaw, and Max Scherzer. 

Maybe that's where we're disconnecting on this discussion. In theory I agree with your stats, but there's cases every year where a team selects the wrong player. And if it weren't a crapshoot, IMO, each team would know that Clayton Kershaw is going to be the best player, he's going #1 overall, followed by Scherzer and Longoria, etc. etc. 

 

By that logic, pretty much every process is random, and process management is pure bunk......

 

No, your statement about Kershaw is 100% inaccurate. Being right 100% of the time is not required for a process to be in control. By that logic, since sometimes bunting in the first inning works, calling for a bunt is random, and we should never criticize that decision.....I mean, sometimes an airplane crashes, does that mean maintenance is random?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Perhaps I am looking at it differently than you. You're making the argument about the data on a grand scale over the course of 15-20 years. That I can agree with, that out of all potential players selected in that category, they had the best WAR. 

I'm looking at it on a year to year basis. And there's examples of colossal failures where a team selects something called Greg Reynolds and Luke Hochevar over Evan Longoria, Clayton Kershaw, and Max Scherzer. 

Maybe that's where we're disconnecting on this discussion. In theory I agree with your stats, but there's cases every year where a team selects the wrong player. And if it weren't a crapshoot, IMO, each team would know that Clayton Kershaw is going to be the best player, he's going #1 overall, followed by Scherzer and Longoria, etc. etc. 

That's the problem with looking at individual players. You're using selection bias to form an opinion.

 

There's a huge middle ground between "draft perfectly based on future outcome" and "complete randomness".

 

And the draft resides somewhere between those two points and more toward "draft perfectly" than "random", as shown in those data tables.

 

That doesn't mean it's impossible for Mike Trout to be selected in the 20s but it means you're more far likely to get Bryce Harper at #1 than Mike Trout at #22.

[Vanimal46]

 

That's the problem with looking at individual players. You're using selection bias to form an opinion.

 

There's a huge middle ground between "draft perfectly based on future outcome" and "complete randomness".

 

And the draft resides somewhere between those two points and more toward "draft perfectly" than "random", as shown in those data tables.

 

That doesn't mean it's impossible for Mike Trout to be selected in the 20s but it means you're more far likely to get Bryce Harper at #1 than Mike Trout at #22.

Okay, it took me a bit, but your last sentence finally got me to see the light. 

[markos]

 

Perhaps I am looking at it differently than you. You're making the argument about the data on a grand scale over the course of 15-20 years. That I can agree with, that out of all potential players selected in that category, they had the best WAR. 

I'm looking at it on a year to year basis. And there's examples of colossal failures where a team selects something called Greg Reynolds and Luke Hochevar over Evan Longoria, Clayton Kershaw, and Max Scherzer. 

Maybe that's where we're disconnecting on this discussion. In theory I agree with your stats, but there's cases every year where a team selects the wrong player. And if it weren't a crapshoot, IMO, each team would know that Clayton Kershaw is going to be the best player, he's going #1 overall, followed by Scherzer and Longoria, etc. etc. 

I'm probably reading too much into this, but you seem to be implying that any decision with variable future outcomes is - by definition - a crapshoot.

 

For me, a "crapshoot" is a situation where the probability of success/failure is essentially identical between all your available choices, and therefore there is no penalty for selecting randomly. So games like roulette and the powerball both fall under the category of "crapshoot". The draft is very different - there is no way a team with the first pick would be better off (or even just as good) by just randomly pulling a name out of a hat. There is some gray area in between here, even with the draft. As pointed out by others, there is probably some point in the draft (pick 30? pick 50? pick 100?) where it does become significantly more uniform in expected results, and much closer to what I would consider a crapshoot. But the top of the draft, at least for me, is not.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'm probably reading too much into this, but you seem to be implying that any decision with variable future outcomes is - by definition - a crapshoot.

 

For me, a "crapshoot" is a situation where the probability of success/failure is essentially identical between all your available choices, and therefore there is no penalty for selecting randomly. So games like roulette and the powerball both fall under the category of "crapshoot". The draft is very different - there is no way a team with the first pick would be better off (or even just as good) by just randomly pulling a name out of a hat. There is some gray area in between here, even with the draft. As pointed out by others, there is probably some point in the draft (pick 30? pick 50? pick 100?) where it does become significantly more uniform in expected results, and much closer to what I would consider a crapshoot. But the top of the draft, at least for me, is not.

Ironically, craps isn't entirely random. That point has not been lost on me in this discussion.

 

The likelihood of rolling a seven is far higher than rolling a two.

 

I'm saying this because I enjoy confusing the situation.

[bluechipper]

 

Well if your scouting department consistently misjudges talent and wastes high draft picks on guys like Kohl Stewart #4 (wildly overrated soft tossing righty) and Tyler Jay #6 (a career RP whom the Twins were attempting to convert into a starter and apparently have given up on), yeah it doesn't matter if we have the #4 or #10. 

I don't think either one of those things is true.

[Riverbrian]

If the season would have started on July 1st... We'd be leading the AL Central!!! 

 

Let the youngsters learn how to win baseball games. Draft Position be Damned!!! 

 

Spend all energy trying to figure out how to get decent pitching in 2017 to support them. 

 

[Mike Sixel]

I'm not sure this is a team of youngsters......

 

the OF? Sure.

the INF? not so much. Sano is young.

SP? kind of, depends on how you feel about Gibson being "young" I guess

RP? Not really young, but not really old

 

It's more of a balanced team, imo. It's probably a team in transition...

[Brock Beauchamp]

Well if your scouting department consistently misjudges talent and wastes high draft picks on guys like Kohl Stewart #4 (wildly overrated soft tossing righty) and Tyler Jay #6 (a career RP whom the Twins were attempting to convert into a starter and apparently have given up on), yeah it doesn't matter if we have the #4 or #10.

Whoa there, tiger.

 

1. Kohl Stewart may be many things but "soft-tossing" isn't one of them.

 

2. Tyler Jay is not a reliever. The Twins moved him to the bullpen to manage his workload for the last month of the season.

[Craig Arko]

 

Ironically, craps isn't entirely random. That point has not been lost on me in this discussion.

 

The likelihood of rolling a seven is far higher than rolling a two.

 

I'm saying this because I enjoy confusing the situation.

So, yeah. Finding the correct model to use for the distribution is most of the battle.

[Major League Ready]

 

I'm not sure this is a team of youngsters......

 

the OF? Sure.

the INF? not so much. Sano is young.

SP? kind of, depends on how you feel about Gibson being "young" I guess

RP? Not really young, but not really old

 

It's more of a balanced team, imo. It's probably a team in transition...

True but let's take optimistic point of view.  The difference makers going forward should be the young guys.  It would be really big if Berrios and Buxton come relatively close to their projections.

[laloesch]

 

I don't think either one of those things is true.

 

Really?  Kohl Stewart tops out around 90-91 mph on his fastball and is averaging 4.8k per 9 in Chattanooga which is a BIG RED FLAG.  

 

Tyler Jay couldn't make it past the 5th inning beginning back in early June and saw his ERA balloon to 7.20.  He has not started a game in almost a month now and is now relieving.  Not promising for two very high first round picks.

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Kohl Stewart tops out around 90-91 mph on his fastball 

No.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=sa737436&position=P

 

"Stewart sits 91-94 and hits 95 mph often with a fluid, simple delivery and a short stride, though some scouts think he’ll settle with a 55 fastball at maturity."

[bluechipper]

 

Really?  Kohl Stewart tops out around 90-91 mph on his fastball and is averaging 4.8k per 9 in Chattanooga which is a BIG RED FLAG.  

 

Tyler Jay couldn't make it past the 5th inning beginning back in early June and saw his ERA balloon to 7.20.  He has not started a game in almost a month now and is now relieving.  Not promising for two very high first round picks.

I think Stewart throws harder than that, at least he has in the past. I've never heard him described as a soft tosser.

 

Tyler Jay is on an innings limit. He had a 3.33 combined ERA in his first full year starting, with an 8.3 K/9. Not too bad.

[Mike Sixel]

 

True but let's take optimistic point of view.  The difference makers going forward should be the young guys.  It would be really big if Berrios and Buxton come relatively close to their projections.

 

100% on board with this.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Really?  Kohl Stewart tops out around 90-91 mph on his fastball and is averaging 4.8k per 9 in Chattanooga which is a BIG RED FLAG.  

 

Tyler Jay couldn't make it past the 5th inning beginning back in early June and saw his ERA balloon to 7.20.  He has not started a game in almost a month now and is now relieving.  Not promising for two very high first round picks.

 

Uh, jay is at his innings' limit, almost......they moved him to the pen for that reason. 

[jud6312]

 

Uh, take out the best players from one sample, and then compare? The whole point of #1 or 2 is better is that you get a shot at the generational players you don't otherwise get. Taking those players out, is really flawed. Awful even.

Actually, I didn't take them out. The 26.22 number that I posted is the number with Jr., Chipper and A-Rod - just noting that the distance narrows quite a bit when taking 3 all-time greats out of the equation.

 

And if #1 gives out such "generational talent" why is it that there's one #1 overall pick in the Hall of Fame?

[Mike Sixel]

 

Actually, I didn't take them out. The 26.22 number that I posted is the number with Jr., Chipper and A-Rod - just noting that the distance narrows quite a bit when taking 3 all-time greats out of the equation.

 

And if #1 gives out such "generational talent" why is it that there's one #1 overall pick in the Hall of Fame?

 

Well, I'm sure KGJ and Chipper will change that number, and Arod would if it weren't for "PED are evil" crowds.

 

Also, drafting has improved a lot over the years, from what studies show. 

 

If your measure is HoF, well, I can't help you. the HoF is not exactly great at picking players......

 

If the WAR numbers don't convince you, nothing will. some people just believe in anecdotes. 

[jud6312]

Hmm, wonder which All-Star(s) were selected at #10 to skew the number higher than the people selected at #4 overall? 

The #10 with the highest WAR in those 25 draft years is Robin Ventura at 56, second is Eric Chavez at 37.4, third is Madison Bumgarner at 28. There are/were 6 others with career WAR above 20.

 

The top 3 taken at #4 are Ryan Zimmeran at 34.2, Alex Fernandez at 28.9 and Kerry Wood at 27.7. No other #4 picks have or yet have a career WAR over 20.

 

 

 

 

[jud6312]

 

Well, I'm sure KGJ and Chipper will change that number, and Arod would if it weren't for "PED are evil" crowds.

 

Also, drafting has improved a lot over the years, from what studies show. 

 

If your measure is HoF, well, I can't help you. the HoF is not exactly great at picking players......

 

If the WAR numbers don't convince you, nothing will. some people just believe in anecdotes. 

Again, that 26.22 number INCLUDES those 3 players. I even said in my original post that there's a difference between 1 and 15, but it's not as big of a gap from 4 to 10.

 

I'm getting the impression you just enjoy arguing. So, I guess, have fun with that.

[laloesch]

 

No.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=sa737436&position=P

 

"Stewart sits 91-94 and hits 95 mph often with a fluid, simple delivery and a short stride, though some scouts think he’ll settle with a 55 fastball at maturity."

 

Soooo he occasionally hits 94-95, but usually tops out in the low 90's.  Not a strikeout pitcher but a groundball pitcher due to lack of movement on his FB. 

[Vanimal46]

 

The #10 with the highest WAR in those 25 draft years is Robin Ventura at 56, second is Eric Chavez at 37.4, third is Madison Bumgarner at 28. There are/were 6 others with career WAR above 20.

 

The top 3 taken at #4 are Ryan Zimmeran at 34.2, Alex Fernandez at 28.9 and Kerry Wood at 27.7. No other #4 picks have or yet have a career WAR over 20.

Fortunately the Twins are going to help skew the #4 pick in the right direction when Kohl Stewart comes up and achieves 748 WAR 

EDIT: The first part is sarcasm, clearly. But I do appreciate you doing the research for the discussion. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Soooo he occasionally hits 94-95, but usually tops out in the low 90's.  Not a strikeout pitcher but a groundball pitcher due to lack of movement on his FB. 

That's not how it works.

 

You said "tops out". Kohl Stewart sits at 91-94. He tops out around 96-97 and pretty routinely hits 95.

 

You also said "tops out at 90-91". In no scouting report have I ever seen the number "90" referenced in regard to Stewart's fastball except when he was suffering from velocity issues a few years back.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Again, that 26.22 number INCLUDES those 3 players. I even said in my original post that there's a difference between 1 and 15, but it's not as big of a gap from 4 to 10.

 

I'm getting the impression you just enjoy arguing. So, I guess, have fun with that.

 

No, I just figured when you said only 1 number 1 was in the HoF, you took that to mean that number 1 picks weren't that valuable. I just failed to read correctly......

[Comrade Bork]

Wait a second. Back to the original subject of standings, did I really read that if the twins finish the rest of the season at 3 games over .500 we will end the Season with only 90 losses?!? 0_o Thats like... Within reach!

[HitInAPinch]

So, at some point, are we expecting a mea culpa from Molitor for the team's winning?

[jimbo92107]

If you mean "fix their 2020 catching situation", then that might be possible.

 

But any 2017-2018 fix is going to have to come from outside the organization. Even collegiate catchers spend a fair amount of time in the minors, as it's hardest job on the diamond.

Plus, it is possible to win a championship without a great catcher. Even Kurt Suzuki's wet noodle arm has not prevented the Twins from winning games after the All Star game. Frankly, Juan Centeno is good enough, despite his problems blocking dirt balls. Centeno's arm is much better than Zuki's, and his bat ain't bad. If Suzuki goes away, you've still got a decent cadre of defensive talent at catcher. Murphy, Turner and Garver will suffice if the Twins cannot land a star catcher. Defense first at that position. 

[laloesch]

 

That's not how it works.

 

You said "tops out". Kohl Stewart sits at 91-94. He tops out around 96-97 and pretty routinely hits 95.

 

You also said "tops out at 90-91". In no scouting report have I ever seen the number "90" referenced in regard to Stewart's fastball except when he was suffering from velocity issues a few years back.

 

With all due respect we disagree then.  I misused the term "tops out."   That said, I have read Zero scouting reports that say he "routinely hits 95."  That i am sure of.  All the reports i've read say he "routinely" hits low 90's and occasionally 94/95. He's also been described as a ground ball pitcher due to lack of movement on his FB.  This might be part of the reason he's only averaging 4.8 k/ per 9 in Chattanooga plus smaller sample size.

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

With all due respect we disagree then.  I misused the term "tops out."   That said, I have read Zero scouting reports that say he "routinely hits 95."  That i am sure of.  All the reports i've read say he "routinely" hits low 90's and occasionally 94/95.

Well, I quoted one just two responses ago:

 

Fangraphs:
"Stewart sits 91-94 and hits 95 mph often with a fluid, simple delivery and a short stride, though some scouts think he’ll settle with a 55 fastball at maturity."

 

From Bleacher Report:

"Most natural arm strength among 2013 prep prospects; plus velocity; consistently registers in the 91-95 mph range on a downhill plane; has touched 97"

 

From Keith Law:

"He hit 96 mph and sat 92-94 consistently, showing a plus slider at 85-88, a hard curveball at 79-82, and even a few changeups at 83-84 with decent arm speed."

 

I'm not just making this stuff up. Stewart sits low to mid 90s, edges toward upper 90s on occasion.

[laloesch]

 

Well, I quoted one just two responses ago:

 

Fangraphs:
"Stewart sits 91-94 and hits 95 mph often with a fluid, simple delivery and a short stride, though some scouts think he’ll settle with a 55 fastball at maturity."

 

From Bleacher Report:

"Most natural arm strength among 2013 prep prospects; plus velocity; consistently registers in the 91-95 mph range on a downhill plane; has touched 97"

 

From Keith Law:

"He hit 96 mph and sat 92-94 consistently, showing a plus slider at 85-88, a hard curveball at 79-82, and even a few changeups at 83-84 with decent arm speed."

 

I'm not just making this stuff up. Stewart sits low to mid 90s, edges toward upper 90s on occasion.

 

I'm not sure why we are disagreeing then.