Article: Cardinals "Very Much In" on Brian Dozier

[drjim]

Without serious pitching reinforcements I think I have better odds of achieving time travel than the Twins competing with Dozier performing.

I'm not sure it's that dire. I expect them to add a flyer arm and a legit RP and possibly a representative 4th OF.

 

They are probably a 74-75ish true talent team with a unusally large beta. Probably makes them about a 20-25% chance to be in the playoff hunt.

[Doomtints]

 

The problem is, the odds of De Leon turning into an ace are also slightly north of 0%.

 

So? Four out of the five slated starters on the Twins could have a negative WAR next year. If you replace a -1 pitcher with a +3 pitcher, you just improved by 4 WAR -- roughly what one should expect from Dozier in any future year. And this calculation doesn't even add in the fact that Polanco is probably good for 3 WAR as well. 

[Oxtung]

 

Maybe. I don't know enough to project that.

But I'd rather gamble on DeLeon than bleed out Dozier for a few more 90 loss seasons.

Or you the Twins could take the middle option and reassess the trade market this July and again in December and if need be the following July again.

 

Last July he might very well have been a toxic asset; now here we are six months later talking about a top of the line pitching prospect as a return. We have no idea what his worth will be six months from now let alone 18. 

[TheLeviathan]

Or you the Twins could take the middle option and reassess the trade market this July and again in December and if need be the following July again.

 

Last July he might very well have been a toxic asset; now here we are six months later talking about a top of the line pitching prospect as a return. We have no idea what his worth will be six months from now let alone 18.

 

No, I don't know, but it is vastly more probable he has less value. Id call it a near certainty.

[TheLeviathan]

I'm not sure it's that dire. I expect them to add a flyer arm and a legit RP and possibly a representative 4th OF.

They are probably a 74-75ish true talent team with a unusally large beta. Probably makes them about a 20-25% chance to be in the playoff hunt.

We lost 103 games and will return virtually the same pitching staff. We may improve to a 90 loss team with luck....but that's still a 90 loss team. by the time we get this thing righted he's going to have dramatically less value.

[Oxtung]

 

No, I don't know, but it is vastly more probable he has less value. Id call it a near certainty.

 

So you don't know but it's a near certainty? I don't see how both of those could be true.

 

Either way I don't agree with your assessment for two reasons. First, I think it is just as likely he goes on a hot streak to start the season and has a .900 OPS in July. Second, the premise that he is at "peak value" is predicated on the idea that his HR binge has somehow changed GM's perceptions of Dozier. I think the discussions here, the reported offer and common sense suggest that is false. Dozier is viewed as he always has been; a player that will likely give you 3-5 WAR each year for the next two seasons.

[drjim]

We lost 103 games and will return virtually the same pitching staff. We may improve to a 90 loss team with luck....but that's still a 90 loss team. by the time we get this thing righted he's going to have dramatically less value.

Not a believer in pythag or base runs I take it.

 

If they keep Dozier statistical projections will have them at 74ish to start the season. Doesn't matter what the record was last year.

 

And at least 3 of the other teams in the division will be worse.

[Mr. Brooks]

Not a believer in pythag or base runs I take it.

 

If they keep Dozier statistical projections will have them at 74ish to start the season. Doesn't matter what the record was last year.

 

And at least 3 of the other teams in the division will be worse.

Am I reading this right? You are saying the Twins will finish 2nd in the division at worst?

[drjim]

Am I reading this right? You are saying the Twins will finish 2nd in the division at worst?

Wrote that poorly. 3 of the teams in the division will be worse than last year entering the season, not necessarily worse than the Twins, but I do think at least 50/50 the Whiteys are worse to start the season.

[TheLeviathan]

 

So you don't know but it's a near certainty? I don't see how both of those could be true.

 

Either way I don't agree with your assessment for two reasons. First, I think it is just as likely he goes on a hot streak to start the season and has a .900 OPS in July. Second, the premise that he is at "peak value" is predicated on the idea that his HR binge has somehow changed GM's perceptions of Dozier. I think the discussions here, the reported offer and common sense suggest that is false. Dozier is viewed as he always has been; a player that will likely give you 3-5 WAR each year for the next two seasons.

 

How in the heck is that contradictory?  Yes, I'm acknowleding it's not a 100% certainty (because he could, conceivably, his 100 straight home runs to start the year, it's just bloody unlikely), but it's as close to that as I can imagine.  

 

I would suggest to you that he goes on some binge early in the season is not "as likely" as my suggestion that he ages and has less team control.  It also flies in the face of how valued position players have been mid-season the last five years. 

 

So if you're correct that his second half didn't impact his value, then his age and contract are even larger factors and make it even more important to deal him now.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Not a believer in pythag or base runs I take it.

If they keep Dozier statistical projections will have them at 74ish to start the season. Doesn't matter what the record was last year.

And at least 3 of the other teams in the division will be worse.

 

Even if I believe in base runs it's still a 90 loss team who has only one meaningful starter that it could hope improves dramatically.  Retaining Dozier means we also field half an infield with some serious question marks as well.  (And Dozier is not stud himself)

[USAFChief]

Even if I believe in base runs it's still a 90 loss team who has only one meaningful starter that it could hope improves dramatically. Retaining Dozier means we also field half an infield with some serious question marks as well. (And Dozier is not stud himself)

Trading Dozier for De Leon leaves you with one extra iffy starter, with an innings limit to boot, and Escobar at shortstop.

[ewen21]

 

I'm pushing back on the perception that the Twins future hinges on this trade being made immediately or they are doomed because his value will fall. Or the idea that the Twins pitching will be solved if only they can get an ace out of this deal.

.

Oh please. This is an opportunity for the Twins. They had one with Perkins a few years ago and they extended him in a move that was tone deaf.

 

I think the push back on the Twins is the market. Dozier had 3 amazing months. Have we forgotten how terrible was during the two half seasons prior?

 

Dozier is no sure thing and this 103 loss team stands to gain nothing by having him stick around for two years. Get the best deal you can without the silly posturing

[ewen21]

We lost 103 games and will return virtually the same pitching staff. We may improve to a 90 loss team with luck....but that's still a 90 loss team. by the time we get this thing righted he's going to have dramatically less value.

Hello?

[TheLeviathan]

 

Trading Dozier for De Leon leaves you with one extra iffy starter, with an innings limit to boot, and Escobar at shortstop

 

It means you have one young starter to build around and a chance to play Polanco at his natural position with a glove-first guy at short.

 

We simply will not contend for anything without adding talented pitchers.  That is going to have to happen via trading and drafting. So why not use your highest value asset that also has minimal chance of being here much longer? 

 

That's what smart teams do, play the highest probabilities.  Recognize what you are and don't pretend to be anything else.  Not dealing Dozier means we had to settle for a much worse probability of immediate and future success.  

Edited January 1, 2017 by TheLeviathan

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

 

So is Mike Trout but not even he can carry a team to the playoffs. An Ace might bring 3 extra wins a year more than a back of the rotation pitcher. The Twins need 30. While an Ace would be great and everyone wants one the Twins future hinges on the young pitchers and hitters already in the organization.

Hyping the Dozier trade up by saying the Twins future depends on it forces a scenario where they are desperate, unable to walk away and as a result accept a lesser return because they absolutely must trade him.

To be clear I think they should trade him but if the return isn't adequate then keep him and live to play another day. That is not failure.

 

I'd argue this is a flaw of WAR in that it doesn't adjust for the real value that shut down starting pitching brings.  I get that they show up once every 5 days, but to have someone that (once every 5 days) will essentially carry a team on his shoulder is impressive.  I get that SPs have a bad day from time to time.  But I think people fail to understand just how valuable top end SPs are.  Even Trout cannot carry a team on his shoulders once every 5 days, and while once and a while he can single handedly win a game, that doesn't happen 40 games a season.  I'm not saying a guy like Kershaw will do that 40 games a season, but he will do it far more than a guy like Trout. You can only hope that Trout does it when Kershaw isn't pitching or when Kershaw has a bad game... but a guy like Kershaw is priceless. My point is this:  an ace brings far more than 3 extra wins, and I think WAR is flawed for that reason. It undervalues starting pitching.

 

As to your conclusion... I'm 100% with you.  Trade Dozier if it makes sense... and making sense implies getting some SP options we don't have now.

[Doomtints]

 

I'd argue this is a flaw of WAR in that it doesn't adjust for the real value that shut down starting pitching brings.  I get that they show up once every 5 days, but to have someone that (once every 5 days) will essentially carry a team on his shoulder is impressive.

 

Yep.

 

WAR is a great shorthand stat. But you always gotta dig in more to get the full story. It's like saying, "I made $50,000 last year." That's nice. but maybe you dig in more and find that you made $100/hr selling widgets and $8/hr shining shoes. Before you can make a smart decision about where you should be spending more time next year, you have to look at more than just the $50,000 number at the top. WAR is one of these top level numbers that is a helpful starting point but all of the underlying data is hidden.

There is no doubt that some players, particularly elite starting pitchers, can provide more value than their WAR numbers indicate. If you never bother to look at the underlying stats, you will never know what's truly going on. 

Edited January 1, 2017 by Doomtints

[jimmer]

There isn't a player in MLB I would take over Trout. Most valuable player in the game.  

 

Pitchers still need the catcher to help manage the game plan, the defense to field the ball and the offense to score runs for him.

 

No one player carries a team, regardless of position, regardless of the traditional thinking we've been taught.

Edited January 2, 2017 by jimmer

[TheLeviathan]

No one player carries a team, that's true.  But I might argue no single player, each game, has more to say about the outcome than the starting pitcher.

[jimmer]

 

No one player carries a team, that's true.  But I might argue no single player, each game, has more to say about the outcome than the starting pitcher.

for the 30 or so games he plays for however many innings he throws, true.  the best throw maybe 15-16% of a teams innings in a season.

Edited January 2, 2017 by jimmer

[Mike Sixel]

 

I'm not sure it's that dire. I expect them to add a flyer arm and a legit RP and possibly a representative 4th OF.

They are probably a 74-75ish true talent team with a unusally large beta. Probably makes them about a 20-25% chance to be in the playoff hunt.

 20% likely to be in the playoff hunt? No chance. Wow. Based on what, and if you really believe that, you should be in Vegas betting for sure. 

[drjim]

20% likely to be in the playoff hunt? No chance. Wow. Based on what, and if you really believe that, you should be in Vegas betting for sure.

They are probably about a 74ish true talent team. Slightly more than one standard deviation from that, especially considering their high beta, would put them in the low 80s and playoff contention. 20% chance of being in contention sounds about right.

Edited January 4, 2017 by drjim

[drjim]

They are probably about a 74ish true talent team. Slightly more than one standard deviation from that, especially considering their hogh beta, would put them in the low 80s and playoff contention. 20% chance of being in contention sounds about right.

And that's not saying 20% chance to make playoffs, only to be in contention. I would put odds right now of playoffs as less than 10%.

 

But this is baseball and they have superstar upside on a couple of guys. That is enough that they will always have a floor of 10% to make the playoffs.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I'd note to look at 2015... largely the same team. One played meaningful games into September.  One didn't.  There's enough talent on the team where being in contention is possible.  Yes, it's unlikely.  That's why we are talking about trading Dozier.

 

Keep in mind when Johan was traded, these same discussions were going on. Turns out that trading him was the wrong call. We could have used him. Not saying this is that same team, but I am saying that it is possible we end up in the same place, especially if we don't take value for Dozier.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I'd note to look at 2015... largely the same team. One played meaningful games into September.  One didn't.  There's enough talent on the team where being in contention is possible.  Yes, it's unlikely.  That's why we are talking about trading Dozier.

 

Keep in mind when Johan was traded, these same discussions were going on. Turns out that trading him was the wrong call. We could have used him. Not saying this is that same team, but I am saying that it is possible we end up in the same place, especially if we don't take value for Dozier.

 

That team was very lucky in 2015, can luck happen again? Sure. Can every player get better and healthy? Sure. 

 

But, imo, a huge corporation shouldn't bet its future on luck. 

[drjim]

 

That team was very lucky in 2015, can luck happen again? Sure. Can every player get better and healthy? Sure. 

 

But, imo, a huge corporation shouldn't bet its future on luck. 

 

I wouldn't bet on 20% either, but it is still part of the equation if the offer for Dozier just isn't there.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I wouldn't bet on 20% either, but it is still part of the equation if the offer for Dozier just isn't there.

 

Of course it is part of the equation. Everything is, that's what is so hard about building an organization. LOTS of variables, many outside of your control.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Keep in mind when Johan was traded, these same discussions were going on. Turns out that trading him was the wrong call. We could have used him. Not saying this is that same team, but I am saying that it is possible we end up in the same place, especially if we don't take value for Dozier.

Of course it's possible that the Twins contend in 2017, but you can't act solely on what is possible, you have to take into account what is probable.  The 2008 Twins were probable contenders, simply on the basis of returning the same young club that won 96 games in 2006.  The 2015 Twins winning 83 games doesn't help the probability for 2017 quite so much, plus there's that 59 win season last year and four straight 90 loss seasons before that... simply put, it's not probable.

[TheLeviathan]

Operating based on probabilities has the highest probability of success.  "Well, you never know!  I might get lucky" is about the worst possible rationale I can think of.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Of course it's possible that the Twins contend in 2017, but you can't act solely on what is possible, you have to take into account what is probable.  The 2008 Twins were probable contenders, simply on the basis of returning the same young club that won 96 games in 2006.  The 2015 Twins winning 83 games doesn't help the probability for 2017 quite so much, plus there's that 59 win season last year and four straight 90 loss seasons before that... simply put, it's not probable.

 

I'm not disagreeing, but I do think drjim is right here in that at one point it factors into things, especially if the return for Dozier isn't what we want.