Brian Dozier - Run Scoring machine!

[slash129]

I saw that Brian Dozier is one run away from scoring 100 runs for the 4th consecutive season.

 

That would be the first time a Twins (or Senators) player has ever done that.

 

There were a few three-in-a-rows, but never four in a row.

 

It was interesting how some of the previous streaks were broken or didn't get to four:

 

Chuck Knoblauch was traded to the Yankees after a 3 year streak, and he went on to get two more in a row with the Bombers.

 

Heinie Manush was traded by the Saint Louis Browns to the Washington Senators after scoring 26 runs for the Browns.  He scored 74 with the Senators and then added three more seasons in a row of 100 runs.  He got the four year streak, but not all with the Senators.

 

Sam Rice came up two runs short of extending his streak to four seasons in 1926.

 

Goose Goslin came up four runs short in 1927.

 

Buddy Lewis came up 13 runs short in 1939, but then he came back and scored 101 in 1940.

 

Dozier has six games to get one run.  Hopefully, it will come with a lead-off blast tonight in Cleveland!

 

[Jerr]

 

I saw that Brian Dozier is one run away from scoring 100 runs for the 4th consecutive season.

 

That would be the first time a Twins (or Senators) player has ever done that.

 

There were a few three-in-a-rows, but never four in a row.

 

It was interesting how some of the previous streaks were broken or didn't get to four:

 

Chuck Knoblauch was traded to the Yankees after a 3 year streak, and he went on to get two more in a row with the Bombers.

 

Heinie Manush was traded by the Saint Louis Browns to the Washington Senators after scoring 26 runs for the Browns.  He scored 74 with the Senators and then added three more seasons in a row of 100 runs.  He got the four year streak, but not all with the Senators.

 

Sam Rice came up two runs short of extending his streak to four seasons in 1926.

 

Goose Goslin came up four runs short in 1927.

 

Buddy Lewis came up 13 runs short in 1939, but then he came back and scored 101 in 1940.

 

Dozier has six games to get one run.  Hopefully, it will come with a lead-off blast tonight in Cleveland!

So, glad he was not traded!!! Love the guy!!!

[jimbo92107]

Next guy to score 100 + runs in a season will be Byron Buxton, batting leadoff, where he belongs.

[Doubles]

I condone any and all Heinie Manush references.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Next guy to score 100 + runs in a season will be Byron Buxton, batting leadoff, where he belongs.

I do not want to see Buxton leading off. Too much power, same as Dozier.

[ToddlerHarmon]

 

I do not want to see Buxton leading off. Too much power, same as Dozier.

 

Our best candidate to lead off, besides maybe all-OBP Mauer, would be Polanco.  Good plate discipline and speed, not much power.  That of course supposes he keeps up his second-half pace next year.

 

[Doubles]

25 of Dozier's 32 dingers have come with nobody on base.  

 

Shouldn't he be batting lower in the order?  Especially on a team with no conventional 3-hitter?  

 

[jimbo92107]

 

I do not want to see Buxton leading off. Too much power, same as Dozier.

I know what you mean, but he's a Ricky Henderson now, with even more speed. Not just a power hitter, but the best base stealer in the major leagues. You want him to get as many AB's as possible. If Polanco or Granite or somebody has a better OBP and also is a great base stealer, then I agree completely, bat Buxton 2 or 3. But Buxton's steal percentage has become unreal, other-worldly. They simply can't get throw him out anymore with technique added to his amazing speed. He has defeated the geometry of the game. It's quite possible that over the next few years Buxton could break all the base-stealing records. You've got to bat him early, it means dozens more runs per season. 

 

Also, I'm assuming Dozier will be gone by next season. I could be wrong about that, but with Gordon coming up soon, the middle infield is going to be a logjam, and young guys usually replace veterans. But if they do keep Doz, imagine him batting with Buxton on base. All his first at-bat homers and hits, suddenly you have Buxton on first or second, magnifying Dozier's potential. Better still, with Buxton on first, the pitcher has to worry about Buxton stealing, so his attention will be split, which means more cookies for Dozier. No downside. 

[SweetOne69]

 

25 of Dozier's 32 dingers have come with nobody on base.  

 

Shouldn't he be batting lower in the order?  Especially on a team with no conventional 3-hitter?  

While that may be true, 15 of those 25 came when he was leading off an inning so it wouldn't matter where he was batting in the order.

[DocBauer]

What I find so compelling is all the complex and varied arguments you can make regarding a potential lineup.

 

Why not Grossman and Mauer hitting 1-2? Get those guys ON ahead of Dozier and Sano's power. Of course, Polanco coukd also be good in one of those spots, as could Buxton. Of course looks really nice in the 3 spot right now and he hit there a lot in the minors. And if Polanco doesn't hit in one of the first 3 spots, he coukd slide all the way to 8-9 and be priduvtive and help turn the lineup over.

 

I could still see Kepler emerge as a #3 hitter. Molitor tried Buxton there...too early...but what about next year?

 

And this doesn't take in to account an upgrade at DH before next season. Whew!

[Thrylos]

 

I saw that Brian Dozier is one run away from scoring 100 runs for the 4th consecutive season.

 

That would be the first time a Twins (or Senators) player has ever done that.

 

Given  that 2 of those seasons were a 92 loss and an 103 loss seasons, that shows that the metric itself is useless to predict what it matters (team success.)

[Doomtints]

Heinie Manush's antics in the WS give him a pass. For anything.

 

"I didn't lay a hand on the umpire, but I did grab that bow tie and pulled it two feet away from his neck and then I let it snap right back into his gullet. . . . Even before he could recover his breath his thumb went up and I was out."

[GP830]

And there is it.

[snepp]

Congrats Brian, got himself a little slice of Twins history.

[kab21]

 

Given  that 2 of those seasons were a 92 loss and an 103 loss seasons, that shows that the metric itself is useless to predict what it matters (team success.)

Nobody claimed that it was a reason for or against team success. Dozier has been a very good player on a bad team for awhile and now he is a very good player on a good team.

And no I am not using runs scored as a measure of Dozier being a very good player. He has been a very good player according to almost all metrics although I am sure you can find something that says he hasn't.

[stringer bell]

Congratulations to Brian Dozier. I wasn't going to write anything after last year crediting him with joining the 100 RBI-100 runs scored club. He was at 99 ribbies with more than a week to go in the season and never got another RBI in '16.

[prouster]

Given that 2 of those seasons were a 92 loss and an 103 loss seasons, that shows that the metric itself is useless to predict what it matters (team success.)

More runs doesn't predict success?

[slash129]

Best homer since Thome off Thorton!!

[Doomtints]

More importantly, if he is scoring runs this means people behind him are getting him across the plate. Seeing as he leads off, this means the bottom of the order is hitting the ball.

 

Also, he is the only player in the league to score 100 runs over the past 4 consecutive years.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

 

More runs doesn't predict success?

so much for Pythag

[Doomtints]

 

More runs doesn't predict success?

 

Ask the Texas Rangers. They plated 800+ runs for 13 years straight. Missed the playoffs 10 times, lost in the first round the other 3. Swept twice.

 

The Twins have plated 800+ runs six times, yielding 3 playoff appearances and winning one playoff game total.

 

If you count the Senators, the franchise scored 800+ runs 15 times.  The nine Senators 800+ run seasons were all in the 1920s-1930s. The Senators had two WS appearances for all of those 9 years and no championships.

 

Like the old saying in the NFL, offense is nice but it's defense that wins championships. 

 

The highest scoring Twins team to win a championship was the 87 squad, and they had a negative run differential (though by the end of the year they were pitching fairly well). The 91 team was not far behind.

 

The top scoring Twins team overall was in 1996, and we are all familiar with that era of Twins baseball.

[big dog]

If given the choice between a player scoring more runs and scoring fewer runs...I'm going to have to go with more runs.

 

I didn't realize 100 runs in sequential years was that uncommon- thanks for the initial post.  Kirby only topped 100 three times in his career.  Harmon only twice (though he was in the high 90s a few times as well).  Rod just once (with a 98 and a 97), all in many more years.

[Doomtints]

 

If given the choice between a player scoring more runs and scoring fewer runs...I'm going to have to go with more runs.

 

I didn't realize 100 runs in sequential years was that uncommon- thanks for the initial post.  Kirby only topped 100 three times in his career.  Harmon only twice (though he was in the high 90s a few times as well).  Rod just once (with a 98 and a 97), all in many more years.

 

You will win 100% of the time if you don't let the other team score. You can plate 5-6 runs a game and still finish 20 games back.

 

The Indians just set a win streak record because they have pitching in a year when most teams have great hitting but poor pitching.

 

So do you field a team with pitchers who don't give up home runs + elite defenders, or stack the lineup with power bats? Obviously you need a bit of both, but the fielding and pitching has to be there.

[prouster]

Ask the Texas Rangers. They plated 800+ runs for 13 years straight. Missed the playoffs 10 times, lost in the first round the other 3. Swept twice.

 

The Twins have plated 800+ runs six times, yielding 3 playoff appearances and winning one playoff game total.

 

If you count the Senators, the franchise scored 800+ runs 15 times. The nine Senators 800+ run seasons were all in the 1920s-1930s. The Senators had two WS appearances for all of those 9 years and no championships.

 

Like the old saying in the NFL, offense is nice but it's defense that wins championships.

 

The highest scoring Twins team to win a championship was the 87 squad, and they had a negative run differential (though by the end of the year they were pitching fairly well). The 91 team was not far behind.

 

The top scoring Twins team overall was in 1996, and we are all familiar with that era of Twins baseball.

I was being cheeky. This is a Dozier thread, after all. I've noticed those go downhill pretty fast.

[stringer bell]

Without getting too curmudgeonly, we keep score in baseball by the number of runs scored, not the spin rate of a curve ball or exit velocity of a batted ball. Scoring more runs in a game wins that game every time, so while it isn't the latest craze, I always see how many runs scored and driven in a player has.

 

Add those two numbers and subtract the number of homers hit (it's both a run scored and RBI) and any player who produces more than one run a game is a pretty valuable offensive player. Dozier has produced 159 runs this year. Last year, he produced 161.

[Oldgoat_MN]

 

I know what you mean, but he's a Ricky Henderson now, with even more speed. Not just a power hitter, but the best base stealer in the major leagues. You want him to get as many AB's as possible. If Polanco or Granite or somebody has a better OBP and also is a great base stealer, then I agree completely, bat Buxton 2 or 3. But Buxton's steal percentage has become unreal, other-worldly. They simply can't get throw him out anymore with technique added to his amazing speed. He has defeated the geometry of the game. It's quite possible that over the next few years Buxton could break all the base-stealing records. You've got to bat him early, it means dozens more runs per season. 

 

Also, I'm assuming Dozier will be gone by next season. I could be wrong about that, but with Gordon coming up soon, the middle infield is going to be a logjam, and young guys usually replace veterans. But if they do keep Doz, imagine him batting with Buxton on base. All his first at-bat homers and hits, suddenly you have Buxton on first or second, magnifying Dozier's potential. Better still, with Buxton on first, the pitcher has to worry about Buxton stealing, so his attention will be split, which means more cookies for Dozier. No downside. 

I like all your comments except the one about Gordon.

The average OPS in MLB is .751. Gordon posted an OPS of .749 in AA. He did well in a league where he was 3 years younger than average, but he will probably need a full year in AAA.

Which is fine. He is only 21 years old.

[kab21]

 

I like all your comments except the one about Gordon.

The average OPS in MLB is .751. Gordon posted an OPS of .749 in AA. He did well in a league where he was 3 years younger than average, but he will probably need a full year in AAA.

Which is fine. He is only 21 years old.

I agree that the Gordon hype this year has outpaced realistic expectations. He is a very good prospect but he might not be an option next year for a significant role.

 

I think Dozier remains with the Twins next year unless the new FO finds a way to get a blown away offer. I just don't think that they will downgrade the team at any position now that they have made the playoffs and many young players are stepping up (continued playoff contention). Trading Dozier last offseason made sense coming off a 100 loss season with questions everywhere. Now it doesn't really.

 

The other factor is that the MI loses some of its depth if Escobar needs to play 3B due to Sano playing less there. We don't know the FO's plans for next year regarding Sano. Is he a 120 games at 3B player? Or more? Or less?