Article: Twins Acquire Jake Odorizzi From Rays For Jermaine Palacios

[tarheeltwinsfan]

 

This also opens up room to give Lewis to start in FSL with Javier in Cedar Rapids.

Good point.

[birddog]

I love the trade. Is Odorizzi a #1? Probably not especially in a deep rotation, but with the Twins he steps right in and makes us better. He goes from a team that struggles to score runs to a team that will give him close to 5 runs a game and allow him to challenge hitters. Playing for a winning, exciting team in one of the classic stadiums in baseball has to be so more beneficial than playing before sparse crowds in the worst stadium in baseball.

 

I wish Palacios luck with his new team. I loved his speech after the trade thanking God and the Twins. I hope he becomes a good MLer, and Odorizzi becomes a major factor in the Twins pursuit of first place in our division. Now if the Twins need to drop someone off the 40-man to add Anibal, let it be Anibal.

[Mr. Brooks]

Career BAPIP isn't a valid comparison because it's an average. I might consider a BAPIP trend over the past couple of years. Regardless, Gibson's BAPIP has been nowhere near Odorizzi's,

Ok, here is Odorizzi's babip by season:

 

.295

.271

.271

.227

 

One of these clearly looks like an outlier.

And, like I said, an absurd babip like .227 isn't sustainable, by anyone, not even the best pitchers in the history of baseball.

Clayton Kershaw's career lowest babip? .251 (career. 270).

 

Even between all time great pitchers, and fringe #5 starters, you'd only expect a sustainable difference of .25 to .30 points. So, yeah *most* of the time balls in play are going to result in outs at *roughly* the same rate, regardless of pitcher.

[bcs4]

 

Again......what? I'm not even sure how to respond to this post.

 

BABIP is about as benign a stat that exists. It simply measures how many balls that are put into play actually drop for hits. There is no weighting. No cherry picking some hits but not others; all hits are equal before the stat.

 

BABIP does not project anything. It is measuring what did happen not what will.

 

Well, I wrote it as well as I could. I'd say it's only use is in projection.

[Squirrel]

 

Of course they say that. They aren't going to go to press and say they traded for a mediocre player

Still, does it matter whether or not they truly believe it? Even if true, that he's better than any of us project and they see something no one else does, he's still behind Lewis, Gordon and Javier in our system. I think it was a good 1 for 1 trade. We got a better pitcher than what we've slotted into our 4-5 positions last year and they got a prospect they value. Win - win. Yes, he's not the front-end starter the team needs, imo, but he will slot in better than some of the 4-5s we put out there last year. So while it's not addressing what I would say it our top need, it does address a need, imo. It will strengthen the starting rotation, albeit not the levels we ultimately will need.

[Mr. Brooks]

It's probably relevant to note that Palacios was one of 21 Twins prospects given a grade of B- by Sickles. That's more B- or better prospects than you find in even the consensus top system in baseball, Atlanta (but who has LOTS more elite prospects). Palacios would crack the Top 10 prospects in the White Sox's vaunted system.

 

Putting in this context, the trade may look a bit more balanced.

Yes, my whole point is that it's a very fair trade. In fact, if I had to lean one way, I'd say the Rays got the better deal.

I don't understand why people are saying we fleeced them, or they must have been drunk to make this trade.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I have the feeling that the reports coming out on that signing must be in conflict in some way. Unlike some other sports, a major league contract is by its nature guaranteed.

Only partially guaranteed, in some cases. Like arbitration eligible players, and apparently Sanchez's deal, whenever it becomes official.

[bcs4]

 

Ok, here is Odorizzi's babip by season:

.295
.271
.271
.227

One of these clearly looks like an outlier.
And, like I said, an absurd babip like .227 isn't sustainable, by anyone, not even the best pitchers in the history of baseball.
Clayton Kershaw's career lowest babip? .251 (career. 270).

Even between all time great pitchers, and fringe #5 starters, you'd only expect a sustainable difference of .25 to .30 points. So, yeah *most* of the time balls in play are going to result in outs at *roughly* the same rate, regardless of pitcher.

 

I never said it's sustainable. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one too.

[Squirrel]

 

Yes, my whole point is that it's a very fair trade. In fact, if I had to lean one way, I'd say the Rays got the better deal.
I don't understand why people are saying we fleeced them, or they must have been drunk to make this trade.

I don't think we fleeced them ... and I haven't seen that from very many posters, in fact I think I read those words from one or two, and good for them on their opinion, so it is by far from a lot ... but I call it a win because we got something that makes us stronger without giving up much from the perspective of our own system. While we didn't get a front-end starter, which I think we need to make it deep into the playoffs, Odorizzi will slot well for us and be better than most of the 4-5s we put out there last year. Shoring up the back end of the rotation does make us stronger, albeit not strong enough. This was a good trade. And what we gave up is our 4th best SS prospect. Palacios was never going to be a starting ss for us because we have better. So I call it pretty even and good for us.

[Mr. Brooks]

Shared this on Twitter after a quick glance, somebody can feel free to double check my math:

 

Jake Odorizzi's .227 BABIP was very low last season, but I'm not too concerned.

It looks like there were 414 balls put in play off him. Had his BABIP been at his career mark, .269, just 17 more hits would've fallen in. Fly ball pitchers tend to have lower BABIPs.

That .269 career mark includes last year's .227. If you are going to attempt this exercise, shouldn't you use his career babip prior to 2017? Also, 17 more hits is pretty significant.

That's the difference between a .300 hitter, and a .265 hitter.

Guys are in the HOF because 17 more hits per year dropped in, compared to the other guy.

 

Finally, does any pitcher, even the best you can come up with, tend to sustain that low of a babip, fly ball pitcher or otherwise?

[Mr. Brooks]

We also have no idea of how the Rays value Palacios. Agree to disagree.

I've been responding to people claiming we fleeced the Rays. If the Rays place a high value on Palacios, then we didn't fleece them. That's all I'm saying.

[Mike Sixel]

Still, does it matter whether or not they truly believe it? Even if true, that he's better than any of us project and they see something no one else does, he's still behind Lewis, Gordon and Javier in our system. I think it was a good 1 for 1 trade. We got a better pitcher than what we've slotted into our 4-5 positions last year and they got a prospect they value. Win - win. Yes, he's not the front-end starter the team needs, imo, but he will slot in better than some of the 4-5s we put out there last year. So while it's not addressing what I would say it our top need, it does address a need, imo. It will strengthen the starting rotation, albeit not the levels we ultimately will need.

Agreed. And I've said as much. It's a nice trade, that had to be made, because their other options are bad options at this time.

[Mr. Brooks]

He had back and hamstring issues. Back issues started at Spring Training. That made him make mechanical adjustments that hurt his pitching. He went to the DL, rested his back and then returned. Took him about another month to fix his mechanics.

Check his September numbers.

I checked them. 26 innings at a .143 babip. What are we supposed to glean from that?

[Mr. Brooks]

I never said it's sustainable. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one too.

If you don't think it's sustainable, then what exactly are we disagreeing about?

[Doomtints]

Odorizzi had a decent start last year but was terrible from midseason on. (And "midseason" is being generous). Of his 28 starts, 18 were bad outings (3 or more runs or lasting less than 6 innings).

 

Teams expect more than 150 innings from their #3 pitchers. This is no #3. If he performs at his potential he is a #4. If he continues his slide, well....

 

It's weird how the Twins get tunnel vision on certain players, particularly pitchers. This isn't the first time Odorizzi has come up in conversation.

Some are suggesting Odorizzi can play better with a better defense behind him. According to his BABIP, he was extremely lucky last year when it comes to defense, luckier than any Twins pitcher. The dude allowed 59 home runs over the past two years! His failures are all on him.

 

Rays fans are happy to see him go. I suspect we have been Miloned.

Edited February 18, 2018 by Doomtints

[Oxtung]

 

Well, I wrote it as well as I could. I'd say it's only use is in projection.

 

Again, it's not a projection. There are systems that do project, like Steamer, ZIPS, PECOTA, but this isn't one of them. Humans also project. I think there are some very valid arguments about whether people are accurately projecting future BABIP. But that is a human projection not the stats.

 

[Riverbrian]

 

Spent some time reviewing speculation on Odorizzi's trade value over the last few months and feel this deal is far less than the pundits expected and we should be thrilled with the cost. I see several comparisons to Gibson here. I like Gibson and hope he turned the corner last year. However, I have grown tired of seeing Twins pitchers with Opponents Batting Average hovering at or near 300. Gibson: 2016 .298 2017 .292, 2017 before and after all star break .317 /.262. Odorizzi 2016 .241 2017 .220, 2017 before and after all star break .249/.176. I understand the concerns around other advanced metrics, and his walks are up, but I like this move a lot. Gibson 60 walks last year, Odorizzi 61. 

 

Welcome to Twinsdaily

[jkcarew]

 

...he's still behind Lewis, Gordon and Javier in our system. I think it was a good 1 for 1 trade.

Yep.  I think most (including me) that feel like Palacios is being under-valued in some of the reaction, still would have made the same 'choice' regarding which of the four to trade for Odorizzi...and absolutely would have pulled the trigger on this deal.

 

Whether we end up being right about that...whether it end's up being a good trade...I'll tell you in three years

[Mr. Brooks]

I don't think we fleeced them ... and I haven't seen that from very many posters, in fact I think I read those words from one or two, and good for them on their opinion, so it is by far from a lot ... but I call it a win because we got something that makes us stronger without giving up much from the perspective of our own system. While we didn't get a front-end starter, which I think we need to make it deep into the playoffs, Odorizzi will slot well for us and be better than most of the 4-5s we put out there last year. Shoring up the back end of the rotation does make us stronger, albeit not strong enough. This was a good trade. And what we gave up is our 4th best SS prospect. Palacios was never going to be a starting ss for us because we have better. So I call it pretty even and good for us.

Even if only 2 or 3 are using words like fleeced and drunk, many others are making it clear they think it was pretty one sided (in the Twins favor).

 

And, we don't know that he makes us stronger. Last year he was a 0 WAR player. If he continues his downward trend, he could actually cost us wins over whoever he replaces.

 

Hoping last year is correctable is a fair optimism, in fact it's been my stated hope. But, it's far from a sure thing that he's going to be a useful starting pitcher for us.

[Oxtung]

 

Odorizzi had a decent start last year but was terrible from midseason on. (And "midseason" is being generous). Of his 28 starts, 18 were bad outings (3 or more runs or lasting less than 6 innings).

 

Teams expect more than 150 innings from their #3 pitchers. This is no #3. If he performs at his potential he is a #4. If he continues his slide, well....

 

It's weird how the Twins get tunnel vision on certain players, particularly pitchers. This isn't the first time Odorizzi has come up in conversation.

Some are suggesting Odorizzi can play better with a better defense behind him. According to his BABIP, he was extremely lucky last year when it comes to defense, luckier than any Twins pitcher. The dude allowed 59 home runs over the past two years! His failures are all on him.

The game is rapidly changing and this doesn't appear to be true any more. Last year Odorizzi's 143 IP was the 86 most in baseball. So he was exactly a #3 from an IP perspective.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

So let me get this straight. You like the Sanchez pick up, but are worried Odorizzi is on a downward trend?

[Squirrel]

 

Even if only 2 or 3 are using words like fleeced and drunk, many others are making it clear they think it was pretty one sided (in the Twins favor).

And, we don't know that he makes us stronger. Last year he was a 0 WAR player. If he continues his downward trend, he could actually cost us wins over whoever he replaces.

Hoping last year is correctable is a fair optimism, in fact it's been my stated hope. But, it's far from a sure thing that he's going to be a useful starting pitcher for us.

Saying that it was a good trade isn't making it one-sided. I, frankly, don't really care what Tampa got out of it, we didn't give up a lot to get what I think is better than what we've had. That's improvement at a good cost, imo. Yeah, Odorizzi could really suck this year and Palacios could rock it ... or the opposite could happen. I'm not going to rate the trade today what could be tomorrow. Of course, when tomorrow gets here, I might rate the trade today differently. But for right now, I think it quite okay.

[Doomtints]

 

The game is rapidly changing and this doesn't appear to be true any more. Last year Odorizzi's 143 IP was the 86 most in baseball. So he was exactly a #3 from an IP perspective.

 

Doesn't matter. Teams still expect more from their #3 pitchers.

[terrydactyls]

The one thing I love about all the new sabermetric quantifiers is that now everyone gets to pick one the "proves" his position on a topic. To me, it's the argument equivalent of a participation medal. Everyone gets to be a winner. In ancient times (the 20th century), we all had to discuss a topic using ERA, WHIP, Batting Average, Home Runs, etc. It was a simpler time.

 

P.S. I like the trade.

[Oxtung]

 

Doesn't matter. Teams still expect more from their #3 pitchers.

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

[Doomtints]

 

 

And, we don't know that he makes us stronger. Last year he was a 0 WAR player. If he continues his downward trend, he could actually cost us wins over whoever he replaces.
 

 

0 WAR is an AAA player, or in other words a below average MLB player. He is already costing teams wins.

[AZTwin]

The one thing I love about all the new sabermetric quantifiers is that now everyone gets to pick one the "proves" his position on a topic. To me, it's the argument equivalent of a participation medal. Everyone gets to be a winner. In ancient times (the 20th century), we all had to discuss a topic using ERA, WHIP, Batting Average, Home Runs, etc. It was a simpler time.

 

P.S. I like the trade.

Wish we could just go back to wins and losses

[Darius]

Really nice trade.

 

Moving to the AL Central out of the AL East will help him out. Moving to Target Field from the Thunderdome will help. I think he could be really good here.

 

I don't mind a rotation of Santana, Berrios, Odorizzi, Gibson, Mejia/Gonsalves/Romero/Sanchez for the bulk of the season. I don't think it's unlikely that'll be pretty good. I'd like to throw a Cobb or Lynn in there, but that's not happening.

[Twinfan & Dad]

Even if only 2 or 3 are using words like fleeced and drunk, many others are making it clear they think it was pretty one sided (in the Twins favor).

And, we don't know that he makes us stronger. Last year he was a 0 WAR player. If he continues his downward trend, he could actually cost us wins over whoever he replaces.

Hoping last year is correctable is a fair optimism, in fact it's been my stated hope. But, it's far from a sure thing that he's going to be a useful starting pitcher for us.

 

Like most trades only time will tell who got the better end of the trade. I believe Falvey is a capable and bright baseball mind. I believe any decisions that are made by him are to make the Twins a better team. I believe that he has more information than any of us to make these decisions. I believe he is a better GM than any of us. Some posters might not agree with these beliefs by the sound of it!

[Mike Sixel]

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/jake-odorizzi-is-probably-an-adjustment-away/