Article: Cardinals "Very Much In" on Brian Dozier

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

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.

It's not a factor unless it changes the amount of return we are looking for in Dozier.  And frankly, it shouldn't.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

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. 

No, definitely not... But I'm not sure 20% is that far off the mark.

 

Think about it this way: is it unreasonable that if you ran five simulations with this team, one of out five times they end up over 80 wins?

 

Given the explosive talent of Berrios, Buxton, and Sano with the interesting talent of Polanco, Rosario, Kepler, etc., a one in five chance of hanging in the WC picture isn't absurd.

 

But you don't plan on the one out of five chance. You plan on the four out of five chance.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

No, definitely not... But I'm not sure 20% is that far off the mark.

 

Think about it this way: is it unreasonable that if you ran five simulations with this team, one of out five times they end up over 80 wins?

 

Given the explosive talent of Berrios, Buxton, and Sano with the interesting talent of Polanco, Rosario, Kepler, etc., a one in five chance of hanging in the WC picture isn't absurd.

 

But you don't plan on the one out of five chance. You plan on the four out of five chance.

Yeah, by that criteria, I'd bet virtually every team, every season has at least a similar chance to hang in the WC picture.  It can't be enough to move the needle on planning.

[Mike Sixel]

 

No, definitely not... But I'm not sure 20% is that far off the mark.

 

Think about it this way: is it unreasonable that if you ran five simulations with this team, one of out five times they end up over 80 wins?

 

Given the explosive talent of Berrios, Buxton, and Sano with the interesting talent of Polanco, Rosario, Kepler, etc., a one in five chance of hanging in the WC picture isn't absurd.

 

But you don't plan on the one out of five chance. You plan on the four out of five chance.

 

If anyone thinks they have a 25% or 20% or 10% chance of making the playoffs, you should be in Vegas. Because they have much larger odds than that.

 

Yes, I think if you ran 1000 simulations, they'd make the playoffs around 2-3% of the time. Maybe 5, but that seems high to me.

[drjim]

 

If anyone thinks they have a 25% or 20% or 10% chance of making the playoffs, you should be in Vegas. Because they have much larger odds than that.

 

Yes, I think if you ran 1000 simulations, they'd make the playoffs around 2-3% of the time. Maybe 5, but that seems high to me.

 

I don't think Vegas runs straight playoff odds. They run over/under and league champions and world series.

 

Best I could find is 65/1 to win the pennant, so 1.5%. That strikes me as about a 10% chance to make the playoffs. Which I would say is about 20% to be in contention.

 

http://www.vegasinsider.com/mlb/odds/futures/

 

But in reality it's pretty academic. Plan on the 4 out of 5, but also don't make a bad trade.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I don't think Vegas runs straight playoff odds. They run over/under and league champions and world series.

 

Best I could find is 65/1 to win the pennant, so 1.5%. That strikes me as about a 10% chance to make the playoffs. Which I would say is about 20% to be in contention.

 

http://www.vegasinsider.com/mlb/odds/futures/

 

But in reality it's pretty academic. Plan on the 4 out of 5, but also don't make a bad trade.

 

we certainly agree on that last point.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

If anyone thinks they have a 25% or 20% or 10% chance of making the playoffs, you should be in Vegas. Because they have much larger odds than that.

But that's not what was said. There's a significant gap between "in the playoffs" and "in the playoff hunt".

 

It's the difference between as many as 5-7 wins on the season. An 83 win team is often "in the hunt" until early to mid September.

 

The 2015 Twins were in the hunt until the last series of the season and ended up with 83 wins.

[Mike Sixel]

 

But that's not what was said. There's a significant gap between "in the playoffs" and "in the playoff hunt".

 

It's the difference between as many as 5-7 wins on the season. An 83 win team is often "in the hunt" until early to mid September.

 

The 2015 Twins were in the hunt until the last series of the season and ended up with 83 wins.

 

I'll give you 4:1 odds right now, Brock, they aren't an 83 win team. PM me if interested.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I'll give you 4:1 odds right now, Brock, they aren't an 83 win team. PM me if interested.

hell, I'll take 80

[gocgo]

 

But that's not what was said. There's a significant gap between "in the playoffs" and "in the playoff hunt".

 

It's the difference between as many as 5-7 wins on the season. An 83 win team is often "in the hunt" until early to mid September.

 

The 2015 Twins were in the hunt until the last series of the season and ended up with 83 wins.

Predicting baseball is pretty tough to do.  That's why hope springs eternal in March.  Sometimes, a dribbler, a dink, and a dying quail are the difference between a loss and a win while a rocket up the middle turns into a double play and a loss.  Sure, the laws of averages should catch up with a team, but they don't always.  The reality is that the Twins will need some breaks, some luck, some guys to over perform just to play meaningful games in September.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

hell, I'll take 80

Is this becoming a limbo? "How low can you go?"

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Is this becoming a limbo? "How low can you go?"

So let me get this straight: some folks say the Twins have "no chance" to contend in 2017, but to those same folks, 80 wins is a bit worrisome?

[Oxtung]

 

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

 

Many people would argue that is exactly what trading Dozier for prospects is.....

[TheLeviathan]

 

Many people would argue that is exactly what trading Dozier for prospects is.....

 

Hope for luck is better than near certain doom.....so, sure, if that's how you want to put it.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Many people would argue that is exactly what trading Dozier for prospects is.....

 

No, prospects are potential future MLB starters, not hope. An organization pays scouts, lots of scouts, to analyze and asses ball players. 

 

Prospects aren't hope, they are assets, that can gain or lose value, just like Dozier. 

 

So, no, that's just not true at all. Prospects aren't about hope, they are about managing assets. 

[Doomtints]

Bill James wrote that if someone is an elite talent in the minors, he almost always works out in the MLB.  The Kevin Sloweys who dominate the minors but have short MLB careers are rare.  And even Slowey put together 3 good years before the Twins tried to change him, all in spite of him having a fastball that your grandma could hit.

 

De Leon is dominating the minors.  I'm wondering if some of you arguing against him being enough have actually looked at his stats.  

 

Anyway, the point is, prospects are not gambles.  Analytics has proven that top talent in the minors reliably becomes top talent in the majors.  The problem is that we often think of "top talent" based on scouting articles, not metrics, so we argue needlessly about what "top talent" actually is.  

Edited January 5, 2017 by Doomtints

[Jacksson]

Can we evaluate the success of the following trades for pitching talent:?

Wilson Ramos for Matt Capps.

Denard Span for Alex Meyer

Ben Revere for Trevor May & Vance Worley

 

Wasn't it the case that Meyer and May would be hard throwing "studs" for us?  Where are we now?

[gunnarthor]

 

Can we evaluate the success of the following trades for pitching talent:?

Wilson Ramos for Matt Capps.

Denard Span for Alex Meyer

Ben Revere for Trevor May & Vance Worley

 

Wasn't it the case that Meyer and May would be hard throwing "studs" for us?  Where are we now?

Capps performed as expected.  Worley was much worse than I thought he'd be.  I liked May, others thought he'd be a bullpen arm.  I think he should be a starter. As a prospect, I think he was fine.  Meyer didn't work out for whatever reason you want to make - injury, misuse by staff, demeanor etc.  

[nicksaviking]

 

Can we evaluate the success of the following trades for pitching talent:?

Wilson Ramos for Matt Capps.

Denard Span for Alex Meyer

Ben Revere for Trevor May & Vance Worley

 

Wasn't it the case that Meyer and May would be hard throwing "studs" for us?  Where are we now?

 

The team has different talent evaluators now. And for the record, I think a lot of May still.

 

Either way, just because you struck out last at bat it doesn't mean you should keep it on your shoulder the rest of your career. You got to keep taking hacks, it'll payoff eventually.

[Twins33]

 

The team has different talent evaluators now. And for the record, I think a lot of May still.

 

Either way, just because you struck out last at bat it doesn't mean you should keep it on your shoulder the rest of your career. You got to keep taking hacks, it'll payoff eventually.

Right. Falvey and Levine shouldn't be judge for things that Ryan or Smith did. They should be judge for what they do. We have no idea how good or bad they are at trading. They haven't made one yet.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Can we evaluate the success of the following trades for pitching talent:?

Wilson Ramos for Matt Capps.

Denard Span for Alex Meyer

Ben Revere for Trevor May & Vance Worley

 

Wasn't it the case that Meyer and May would be hard throwing "studs" for us?  Where are we now?

Capps was a bad deal, but irrelevant to the current conversation.

 

May was a buy-low candidate, his modest prospect stock was weak at the time.  Worley was kind of a buy low in the same package, he had already started to fade and had an injury.

 

Meyer was on the rise, and a good argument why it's best not to trade a controllable asset 1-for-1 for a single prospect.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Capps was a bad deal, but irrelevant to the current conversation.

 

May was a buy-low candidate, his modest prospect stock was weak at the time.  Worley was kind of a buy low in the same package, he had already started to fade and had an injury.

 

Meyer was on the rise, and a good argument why it's best not to trade a controllable asset 1-for-1 for a single prospect.

 

That, and as Bonnes pointed out, there has been exactly one SP as tall as Meyer that has ever been any good.....

 

Oh, and Meyer is still a prospect, let's see what he does for the next few years before saying he's never going to be good. I still think they messed with his head pretty good the last few years....but as Bonnes points out....

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

That, and as Bonnes pointed out, there has been exactly one SP as tall as Meyer that has ever been any good.....

 

Oh, and Meyer is still a prospect, let's see what he does for the next few years before saying he's never going to be good. I still think they messed with his head pretty good the last few years....but as Bonnes points out....

Yeah, the only outright bust from that group was Worley but May came along in the deal so it was still pretty reasonable.

 

Capps was a dumb trade but Matt Capps was exactly who we expected him to be in 2010.

 

Worley was a bust.

 

May for Revere straight-up may end up being a fair swap.

 

Meyer was buggered by the front office. He was a risk and maybe not a smart risk but the front office and coaching staff did that guy absolutely zero favors in the way they managed him.

[Oxtung]

Hope for luck is better than near certain doom.....so, sure, if that's how you want to put it.

So if we hope that Dozier goes on a hot streak and maintains value then it is "certain doom". However, if we hope that a prospect haul to pan out that's ok.

 

Seems like a double standard to me...

[Oxtung]

No, prospects are potential future MLB starters, not hope. An organization pays scouts, lots of scouts, to analyze and asses ball players. 

 

Prospects aren't hope, they are assets, that can gain or lose value, just like Dozier. 

 

So, no, that's just not true at all. Prospects aren't about hope, they are about managing assets.

 

Mike I'm not sure what you are arguing here. My IRA is an asset too, I sure as hell hope it continues to grow though.

[TheLeviathan]

 

So if we hope that Dozier goes on a hot streak and maintains value then it is "certain doom". However, if we hope that a prospect haul to pan out that's ok.

Seems like a double standard to me...

 

I'm telling you hoping for a hot streak AND a totally out of character mid-season haul is probably just being silly.  Again, there is over a decade of evidence that hoping for a big haul from a hitter is folly.  Not to mention the gamble that Dozier will choose to not suck to start the year.

 

Hoping for highly rated prospects to pan out is not in the same league.  That's not a double standard, that's just recognizing probabilities. 

[USAFChief]

Anyway, the point is, prospects are not gambles.  Analytics has proven that top talent in the minors reliably becomes top talent in the majors.  The problem is that we often think of "top talent" based on scouting articles, not metrics, so we argue needlessly about what "top talent" actually is.

 

I disagree strongly with sentences 1 and 2. Very strongly.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by sentence 3.

[Doomtints]

 

I disagree strongly with sentences 1 and 2. Very strongly.

I'm not sure what you mean by sentence 3.

 

Read up.  Bill James proved it with numbers.

 

Like I said, the perception is different because people judge minors talent on what pundits state rather than their actual metrics.  Bill James can't measure the rubbish from the mouths of pundits.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Bill James wrote that if someone is an elite talent in the minors, he almost always works out in the MLB.  The Kevin Sloweys who dominate the minors but have short MLB careers are rare.  And even Slowey put together 3 good years before the Twins tried to change him, all in spite of him having a fastball that your grandma could hit.

 

De Leon is dominating the minors.  I'm wondering if some of you arguing against him being enough have actually looked at his stats.  

 

Anyway, the point is, prospects are not gambles.  Analytics has proven that top talent in the minors reliably becomes top talent in the majors.  The problem is that we often think of "top talent" based on scouting articles, not metrics, so we argue needlessly about what "top talent" actually is.  

 

Slowey's problem wasn't the Twins changing him, it was a line drive to his wrist.

[ashbury]

Slowey's problem wasn't the Twins changing him, it was a line drive to his wrist.