Eddie Rosario's leash

[Mike Sixel]

 

He only has 11 attempts all year. That doesn't sound like a case of a manager sending him Willy nilly at every chance he gets.

 

I agree it's not willy nilly but 11 attempts is actually quite a few compared to most MLB players these days. Which is unreal in some ways.

[gunnarthor]

 

This is what most have failed to realize. The improvements at the plate are great but he's taken most of it away with his bad defense and poor decision making. 

That's only true if you believe that WAR calculations on defense and base running are both measured accurately and valued accurately.

 

"Well, my math skills are limited and my data-processing skills are essentially nonexistent. The younger guys are way, way beyond me in those areas. I’m fine with that, and I don’t struggle against it, and I hope that I don’t deny them credit for what they can do that I can’t.

 

"But because that is true, I ASSUMED that these were complex, nuanced, sophisticated systems. I never really looked; I just assumed that the details were out of my depth. But sometime in the last year I was doing some research that relied on these WAR systems, so I took a look at them, and ... they’re not very impressive. They’re not well thought through; they haven’t made a convincing effort to address many of the inherent difficulties that the undertaking presents. They tend to get so far into the data, throw up their arms and make a wild guess. I don’t know if I’m going to get the time to do better of it, or if it will be left to others, but ... we’re not at anything like an end point here. I assumed that these systems were a lot better than they actually are."  -- Bill James

[Mike Sixel]

 

That's only true if you believe that WAR calculations on defense and base running are both measured accurately and valued accurately.

 

"Well, my math skills are limited and my data-processing skills are essentially nonexistent. The younger guys are way, way beyond me in those areas. I’m fine with that, and I don’t struggle against it, and I hope that I don’t deny them credit for what they can do that I can’t.

 

"But because that is true, I ASSUMED that these were complex, nuanced, sophisticated systems. I never really looked; I just assumed that the details were out of my depth. But sometime in the last year I was doing some research that relied on these WAR systems, so I took a look at them, and ... they’re not very impressive. They’re not well thought through; they haven’t made a convincing effort to address many of the inherent difficulties that the undertaking presents. They tend to get so far into the data, throw up their arms and make a wild guess. I don’t know if I’m going to get the time to do better of it, or if it will be left to others, but ... we’re not at anything like an end point here. I assumed that these systems were a lot better than they actually are."  -- Bill James

 

that's no argument to ignore baserunning and defense. 

 

Also, when was that written? 

 

While I agree we don't have a precise measure......it is still better than ignoring everything but offense in measuring value. And no, eyeballing doesn't work, since fans don't see every single play of every single game, so while they think they have context, they don't.

[Mr. Brooks]

Yeah WAR isn't perfect, but its still far better than the "eye test", IMO.

For now it's what we have, so it's all I can go by.

I assume the FO has internal metrics, but they don't show those to me, so I can't say how they match up with bWAR.

[Mike Sixel]

I really don't want another thread to be about WAR and its value.

 

The point people were trying to make is that you can't ignore some of the stuff he does other than offense. Personally, I think he's been better than I thought as a hitter, and worse than I thought as a fielder and base runner. Let's hope he improves those two, and keeps on hitting.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Rosario is currently sitting with a 1.6 fWAR. Is that going to win any awards? No, but it's more in line with what I've seen from the guy using the eye test. He makes too many mistakes but has countered that with a hot bat.

 

But the defensive metrics are giving me pause across the board. According to DRS, Rosario is -10 runs on the season. That's a pace of roughly -14 runs over a full season. Rosario was +11 runs in 2015 and +2 runs in 2016.

 

Maybe he's that bad this season and I'm just not seeing it. Or maybe we're seeing a Buxton effect here. The more Buxton plays, the worse Rosario looks by the numbers.

 

In short, I'm not going to discount the defensive metrics on Rosario but I'm not buying into them wholesale, either. This could easily be a Grossman situation all over again; the metrics absolutely skewering a guy in a single season for no apparent reason.

 

On the topic of Grossman, he's been more valuable defensively than Rosario this season according to DRS. That... doesn't really jibe with me.

[Rosterman]

In the current Twins young outfield situation, they go with Eddie. He is far from perfect and inconsistent. You can find someone to run better (Granite), field better (probably anyone, and he does give you some hits. But you are not sure where to bat him in the lineup. He can kill the guy batting in front or in back.

 

Is he a proper bench bat? No, because he is a free swinger.

 

If you had a replacement for him in the field, would he be better at DH than Grossman, or Vargas, or even Palka or Park from the minors? 

 

The bigger question: what does MLB think of him. Are ANY teams clamoring to have him on their roster? At some point, for his skill level, he will become too expensive, even to keep as a 4th outfielder.

 

But he is only 25. Will he step up his act, work extra hard with the coaches, become a shining light in the Twins outfield? Or will he be passed by such names as Kril, Rook or Wade in two years.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

But he is only 25. Will he step up his act, work extra hard with the coaches, become a shining light in the Twins outfield?

I'm a little baffled by the board's general attitude toward Rosario. The guy is poised to take the team lead in OPS, for crying out loud.

 

What do we expect the guy to do? He was a good prospect in the minors. He has weaknesses but so does every "good" prospect, which is why they're not called "great" or "elite" prospects.

 

Ride out the season with Eddie in left. If you get a great offer for him in the offseason that improves the 2018 squad, you strongly consider pulling the trigger. If not, you pencil him into LF for 2018 and go fix some of the actual problems on this team, of which there are several.

[Mr. Brooks]

Rosario is currently sitting with a 1.6 fWAR. Is that going to win any awards? No, but it's more in line with what I've seen from the guy using the eye test. He makes too many mistakes but has countered that with a hot bat.

 

But the defensive metrics are giving me pause across the board. According to DRS, Rosario is -10 runs on the season. That's a pace of roughly -14 runs over a full season. Rosario was +11 runs in 2015 and +2 runs in 2016.

 

Maybe he's that bad this season and I'm just not seeing it. Or maybe we're seeing a Buxton effect here. The more Buxton plays, the worse Rosario looks by the numbers.

 

In short, I'm not going to discount the defensive metrics on Rosario but I'm not buying into them wholesale, either. This could easily be a Grossman situation all over again; the metrics absolutely skewering a guy in a single season for no apparent reason.

 

On the topic of Grossman, he's been more valuable defensively than Rosario this season according to DRS. That... doesn't really jibe with me.

Maybe instead of defensive metrics skewering a guy for no apparent reason, maybe, against traditional thought, defense can slump.

Because I watched Grossman last year, and he looked every bit as awful as the metrics said he did.

And I've watched Rosario this year, and he looks like a poor defender. He does it in a much different way than Grossman does, but still bad nonetheless.

 

Maybe we just have to get used to the idea that guys can have year to year swings on defense, just like they do on offense.

[Mr. Brooks]

I'm a little baffled by the board's general attitude toward Rosario. The guy is poised to take the team lead in OPS, for crying out loud.

 

What do we expect the guy to do? He was a good prospect in the minors. He has weaknesses but so does every "good" prospect, which is why they're not called "great" or "elite" prospects.

 

Ride out the season with Eddie in left. If you get a great offer for him in the offseason that improves the 2018 squad, you strongly consider pulling the trigger. If not, you pencil him into LF for 2018 and go fix some of the actual problems on this team, of which there are several.

I'm fine going with Rosario again as a starter next year, if that's the way they go. Simply because he's still so young, has some nice tools, and showed some pedigree in the minors.

 

But, I think you absolutely can try to improve that spot if you want, without it interfering with the more important improvements this team needs.

I'd sure as heck hope these new guys can walk AND chew gum at the same time.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Maybe instead of defensive metrics skewering a guy for no apparent reason, maybe, against traditional thought, defense can slump.

Because I watched Grossman last year, and he looked every bit as awful as the metrics said he did.

And I've watched Rosario this year, and he looks like a poor defender. He does it in a much different way than Grossman does, but still bad nonetheless.

 

Maybe we just have to get used to the idea that guys can have year to year swings on defense, just like they do on offense.

It's possible. It's also possible the metrics are incomplete and/or wrong. I legitimately do not know which side to favor.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I'm a little baffled by the board's general attitude toward Rosario. The guy is poised to take the team lead in OPS, for crying out loud.

 

What do we expect the guy to do? He was a good prospect in the minors. He has weaknesses but so does every "good" prospect, which is why they're not called "great" or "elite" prospects.

 

Ride out the season with Eddie in left. If you get a great offer for him in the offseason that improves the 2018 squad, you strongly consider pulling the trigger. If not, you pencil him into LF for 2018 and go fix some of the actual problems on this team, of which there are several.

 

Is anyone saying otherwise on that last part?

[Brock Beauchamp]

Is anyone saying otherwise on that last part?

I'm still seeing the term "fourth outfielder" thrown around often enough.

 

I'm not sure this is who Rosario is going forward but right now he looks pretty damned good and he's the starting LF until he proves otherwise.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I'm still seeing the term "fourth outfielder" thrown around often enough.

I'm not sure this is who Rosario is going forward but right now he looks pretty damned good and he's the starting LF until he proves otherwise.

 

fair, I've only skimmed this thread.....and been off for a few days, and didn't see that.

 

He looks like a legit OF right now, just needs to clean up some mental aspects.

[Mr. Brooks]

I'm still seeing the term "fourth outfielder" thrown around often enough.

 

I'm not sure this is who Rosario is going forward but right now he looks pretty damned good and he's the starting LF until he proves otherwise.

Well this is an old thread. I'm not sure I've seen anyone say 4th outfielder since he starting hitting like Babe Ruth, at least not on this site.

[USAFChief]

I'm still seeing the term "fourth outfielder" thrown around often enough.

 

I'm not sure this is who Rosario is going forward but right now he looks pretty damned good and he's the starting LF until he proves otherwise.

As someone who felt Rosario was a good 4th outfielder earlier this season, I certainly am will h to admit he has looked like a legit starter for months now.

 

And personally, I don't pay any attention to defensive metrics, so that isn't going to sway me. It's more the sometimes goofy decisions than defensive ability, IMO, and that can be fixed. He's got plenty of range and arm.

 

Here's hoping he continues to improve as a hitter.

[gunnarthor]

 

Yeah WAR isn't perfect, but its still far better than the "eye test", IMO.
For now it's what we have, so it's all I can go by.
I assume the FO has internal metrics, but they don't show those to me, so I can't say how they match up with bWAR.

I'm not sure WAR is the best, at all. And it's not like it's only WAR v. eye test. We can look at a lot of stats - OPS+, wOBA, WPA - to try and figure out a player's contribution. Not sure why we've decided that WAR is the end all, be all. A decade ago, it was win shares. For awhile it was OPS+/ERA+.

 

And teams do have internal WAR systems. A few years ago, Posnanski reported that the A's system had Cabrera ahead of Trout when fWAR and bWAR had Trout far ahead. Cabrera won the MVP.

 

In any event, jaykay's post indicated that Rosario's offensive contributions were nearly completely negated by his defense/baserunning.  That's different from what you and Mike are suggesting.  One suggests a value (nearly equal to his offense) the other suggests that it's bad but doesn't set a determined value. 

[gunnarthor]

 

Maybe instead of defensive metrics skewering a guy for no apparent reason, maybe, against traditional thought, defense can slump.
Because I watched Grossman last year, and he looked every bit as awful as the metrics said he did.
And I've watched Rosario this year, and he looks like a poor defender. He does it in a much different way than Grossman does, but still bad nonetheless.

Maybe we just have to get used to the idea that guys can have year to year swings on defense, just like they do on offense.

There was an article in hardball times or baseball analysts a while back that suggested that defensive stats had trouble when a team had three good OFers. The stats would invariably suggest that one outfielder was worse than he was. They didn't know all the reasons but some had to do with a rangy OFer (in this case Buxton) making catches in the other OFers zone. Additionally, shifting (at the time not as common) might impact how people were weighed.  

 

I think that has to be at least some of the problems in Eddie's dWAR calculations. He's having a bad year but there is no way he's as bad as Delmon Young or Hammer were but, according to dWAR, he's going to come out somewhere close to -2.0 this year.

[Mike Sixel]

 

There was an article in hardball times or baseball analysts a while back that suggested that defensive stats had trouble when a team had three good OFers. The stats would invariably suggest that one outfielder was worse than he was. They didn't know all the reasons but some had to do with a rangy OFer (in this case Buxton) making catches in the other OFers zone. Additionally, shifting (at the time not as common) might impact how people were weighed.  

 

I think that has to be at least some of the problems in Eddie's dWAR calculations. He's having a bad year but there is no way he's as bad as Delmon Young or Hammer were but, according to dWAR, he's going to come out somewhere close to -2.0 this year.

 

I agree with this post......all of it. We are still working on publicly available measures for defense.

[Doomtints]

 

That's only true if you believe that WAR calculations on defense and base running are both measured accurately and valued accurately.

 

"Well, my math skills are limited and my data-processing skills are essentially nonexistent. The younger guys are way, way beyond me in those areas. I’m fine with that, and I don’t struggle against it, and I hope that I don’t deny them credit for what they can do that I can’t.

 

"But because that is true, I ASSUMED that these were complex, nuanced, sophisticated systems. I never really looked; I just assumed that the details were out of my depth. But sometime in the last year I was doing some research that relied on these WAR systems, so I took a look at them, and ... they’re not very impressive. They’re not well thought through; they haven’t made a convincing effort to address many of the inherent difficulties that the undertaking presents. They tend to get so far into the data, throw up their arms and make a wild guess. I don’t know if I’m going to get the time to do better of it, or if it will be left to others, but ... we’re not at anything like an end point here. I assumed that these systems were a lot better than they actually are."  -- Bill James

 

Bill James, as usual, states exactly what some of us were thinking about baseball metrics. What you find in these calculations are artificial constants and assumptions which help certain types of hitters/defenders and hurt others, regardless of results.

[Doomtints]

When I started looking at WAA (wins above the average player) instead of WAR (wins above the theoretical base level player) I noticed quickly that for some positions WAA is lower than WAR, and this isn't a fluke but is a common occurance. This is, of course, a mathematical absurdity and a shows a flaw in the system. I have since abandoned WAR altogether (not that I was a huge proponent of it in the first place) and I only use WAA. I only care if a player is above average at his position anyway, whether or not he is "replacement level" is a useless thing to measure for any team in serious contention.

[Doomtints]

Rosario = AL Player of the week.

 

4 HR, 1.484 OPS.

[70charger]

 

Rosario = AL Player of the week.

 

4 HR, 1.484 OPS.

 

That should buy him an extra week or two of leash, right?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

There was an article in hardball times or baseball analysts a while back that suggested that defensive stats had trouble when a team had three good OFers. The stats would invariably suggest that one outfielder was worse than he was. They didn't know all the reasons but some had to do with a rangy OFer (in this case Buxton) making catches in the other OFers zone. Additionally, shifting (at the time not as common) might impact how people were weighed.  

 

I think that has to be at least some of the problems in Eddie's dWAR calculations. He's having a bad year but there is no way he's as bad as Delmon Young or Hammer were but, according to dWAR, he's going to come out somewhere close to -2.0 this year.

This is far from scientific but I just went and checked DRS for the 2014 Royals outfield.

 

Cain: +23

Gordon: +26

Dyson: +13

Aoki: -7

 

So Aoki is the odd guy out here, obviously (and was definitely not a bad defender by eyeball tests of the time). Here are his DRS numbers by year:

 

2012 Brewers: +2

2013 Brewers: +10

2014 Royals: -7

2015 Giants: -1

2016 Mariners: -4

2017 Split: +2

 

Again, doesn't really tell anything and that steep drop off is interesting but it's not as if he played next to some slouch in 2013. Gomez was wandering CF for the Brewers but Braun was in LF (and even he posted a +3 DRS that season). Was Gomez shading left and giving Aoki room to field? Dunno. Not exactly conclusive but somewhat interesting, anyway.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

When I started looking at WAA (wins above the average player) instead of WAR (wins above the theoretical base level player) I noticed quickly that for some positions WAA is lower than WAR, and this isn't a fluke but is a common occurance. This is, of course, a mathematical absurdity and a shows a flaw in the system. I have since abandoned WAR altogether (not that I was a huge proponent of it in the first place) and I only use WAA. I only care if a player is above average at his position anyway, whether or not he is "replacement level" is a useless thing to measure for any team in serious contention.

 

Personally, I'd love to see this. Can you show your work? 

[Mr. Brooks]

I wasn't that high on Rosario at the beginning of the season. Thought of him more as a 4th OF.

 

I was wrong. Rosario is a capable MLB OF and has the chance to be a well above average hitter and above average fielder. I do not understand why people here want to trade him. He is a MUCH, MUCH better player than Granite is now or likely will ever be. Granite will never be a starter for the Twins because his lack of power makes him a bad bet as a corner OF and Buxton is much better in CF. Rosario is also playing better than Kepler this year. He is arguably having the best overall year of our OFs. Trade him ? Why?

 

We need to deal with the real problems on this team - better pitching and a RH DH/1B. Rosario i snt the problem - he's part of the solution.

Rosario is playing better than Kepler on offense, but defense and base running count too.

Kepler has nearly three times the bWAR as Rosario.

I get not every one cares about that, but the point remains that defense matters too.

[Willihammer]

I don't think there's any question the defense has taken a step back this year. But the tools are still there, he just has to play better.

[gunnarthor]

 

I don't think there's any question the defense has taken a step back this year. But the tools are still there, he just has to play better.

Yeah, ignoring how we measure it, we all saw that he can play exceptional defense. He isn't this year. I'm not sure why. I do think players can have down years. A nagging injury, a bad week, lost confidence etc could all be factors that have played into this. But he certainly has the talent to be a good LFer, perhaps even a top 5 LF in the AL. But he should be at least average.

[Squirrel]

Rosario was named AL PoW.

http://m.twins.mlb.com/news/article/248394620/twins-eddie-rosario-named-al-player-of-week/

[ghostrunner]

 

I don't think there's any question the defense has taken a step back this year. But the tools are still there, he just has to play better.

 

Defensive metrics are a function of range and arm, right?  I think part of the problem for Rosario is that teams don't run on him.  I don't think he dropped from 32 Assist in 2015 to 20 in 2016 to 6 this year because his arm got weaker or something.