Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Larnach optioned; Gordon recalled


 Share

2 hours ago, Linus said:

For the love of god play the kid. Simmons can sit and Cave should sit. Let him play three weeks at SS and see what he has. I don’t trust the brain wizards to determine what he can and can’t do without seeing him do it. 

I think the obvious answer for Simmons still playing is defense that is still quality. We can argue about the value if wins to finish a poor season, but I think it's more about better leather at SS for Ober, Jax and Barnes, and anyone else who gets auditioned with Pineda out. Now I think there is value from that perspective, arguably.

But I am 100% on Gordon getting real time at SS to finish the year. I have no illusions he's going to suddenly morph in to a quality ML SS. But what he CAN DO is show that's he's solid, passable at the spot. That can be important.  The Twins have protected him, and even played him rather extensively at SS in past ST. The kid is a fine athlete with speed that is useful. He seems to have bat to ball skills. He could obviously use some weight/muscle to drive the ball better. IDK, might even give him a little more velocity on this throws. 

It's TIME to see if he can really be a viable utility player, and protected, even if wouldn't open 2022 with the team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Greglw3 said:

I think Byron Buxton and even Torii Hunter were judged great fielders based in significant part on their frequent diving catches.  

It is not the diving catch, it is the RANGE of play that set-up the diving catch.

As an earlier post said, if five out of ten could make the catch without diving, it was exposing a short coming, not a great play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RpR said:

It is not the diving catch, it is the RANGE of play that set-up the diving catch.

As an earlier post said, if five out of ten could make the catch without diving, it was exposing a short coming, not a great play.

Nick Gordon batting 1.000 since his callup.  If I use the RpR Law of Ignoring Sample Size.....we should get his bust ready for Canton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said, Leviathan. If we're concerned about not playing our "best team" in games where the opponent is in a playoff race, as suggested by Morneau on tonight's telecast as a respect for the game thing, then play Gordon at SS the next two days against Cleveland  and put Simmons back in against the Yankees and Boston for 4 of those 7 games. Can't decide if we have an in house replacement for Simmons at SS if we don't play Gordon. He's it for next year unless we want a replay of Polanco at SS. Not me. Polanco plays 2B every day going forward.  Let Gordon play SS at least 25-30 of the remaining 43 games.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, roger said:

Good decision as regards to both players.  What I found interesting this morning reading the Strib over coffee, is that when Gordon entered the game he went in at second and Polo moved to short.  Hmmmh?

Hmmm is right. Last night another example of why we should cut Simmons. Gordon said in the interview he played a lot of short in St Paul while he was down. Got to believe Simmons goes soon. Why not give short to Gordon for the last 40 games?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

One great catch does not a great fielder make.......

No it does not.  However he's also not a horrible/bad OF either.  He may not win many (any?) games with his defense, but he also isn't going to be responsible for the Hindenburg disaster either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with DocBauer - it is obvious that Simmons is playing SS to help evaluate the young pitchers. This decision is easy to support. The usage of Cave is not clear as Gordon is younger and Refsnyder plays younger. Regardless, the Twins will have a different shortstop next season through either a trade or free agency. In the meantime it is good to see a few wins lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

Diving catches, while they look impressive, generally aren't a good measure of defensive ability. It's quite possible a faster, quicker-reacting, or better-positioned defender would have gotten to the ball without the need of making as splashy of a play.

Statcast xBA (Expected Batting Average, formerly Hit Probability) doesn't take direction or positioning into account, so it's not perfect, but a ball hit at that speed and trajectory is overwhelming an out most of the time -- .060 xBA.

Here's the video again, for reference:

https://mlb-cuts-diamond.mlb.com/FORGE/2021/2021-08/14/39e72e2f-c7f58a4b-4d772208-csvm-diamondx64-asset_1280x720_59_4000K.mp4

Looks like you stumbled on a flaw with Statcast with the fact that it, somehow, doesn't take direction into account.  (It doesn't?  That doesn't seem possible to me because I see plenty of positional Statcast data, but ok). 

That ball was perfectly placed for an extra base hit.  You'd have to be a supreme n00b to baseball to not see that.  The .060 number you are citing came from the rear end of a horse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cave--I'm not opposed to moving him out to let others play (although if neither Celestino or Buxton is on the ML roster, I'm not sure if more PA's for Refsnyder is totally worth it).  That said, he had a wRC+ above 100 in both 2018 and 2019, and had a serious back injury this year which I'm sure contributed to his terrible numbers.  He still has an option left, and with three years of arbitration (which will be very inexpensive), he's not a terrible depth option, until such time as Kiriloff, Larnach, Rooker, Celestino, and Martin are all ready to be everyday big league players.

Simmons--I have no idea why we're not auditioning Polanco and Gordon at short.  None.

Donaldson--I don't think it's crazy to believe the market for him might be different in the offseason than it was at the deadline.  Also worth noting that eating $40M to move him is more palatable if Miranda has 6 weeks of consistent playing time OPSing .900; sure it's not great, but you save $10M.  Given that Donaldson clearly isn't healthy, I have no idea why you wouldn't IL him now, let him rest, and bring him back in September.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dodecahedron said:

Looks like you stumbled on a flaw with Statcast with the fact that it, somehow, doesn't take direction into account.  (It doesn't?  That doesn't seem possible to me because I see plenty of positional Statcast data, but ok). 

That ball was perfectly placed for an extra base hit.  You'd have to be a supreme n00b to baseball to not see that.  The .060 number you are citing came from the rear end of a horse.

xBA, etc does not take direction into account. If you hit a 100mph line drive, it doesn't matter which direction in the field of play it goes. Even if it's 2 feet to the side of a defender, it's almost impossible for the defender to grab it. Defenders and batters do not know exactly where their batted balls are going to travel and hard hit balls don't allow for the defender to move much before the ball hits the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bean5302 said:

xBA, etc does not take direction into account. If you hit a 100mph line drive, it doesn't matter which direction in the field of play it goes. Even if it's 2 feet to the side of a defender, it's almost impossible for the defender to grab it. Defenders and batters do not know exactly where their batted balls are going to travel and hard hit balls don't allow for the defender to move much before the ball hits the ground.

xBA is junk, then.  Direction matters.  Bookmark the video of this play if you ever need a reminder.  That ball was hit perfectly.  None of us should even be having this conversation.  A ball hit in that manner to that location is simply not a hit only 6% of the time.  Period, slam dunk, mic drop, whatever you want to call it.  There's literally nothing more to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dodecahedron said:

xBA is junk, then.  Direction matters.  Bookmark the video of this play if you ever need a reminder.  That ball was hit perfectly.  None of us should even be having this conversation.  A ball hit in that manner to that location is simply not a hit only 6% of the time.  Period, slam dunk, mic drop, whatever you want to call it.  There's literally nothing more to say.

Your personal opinion vs. a metric constructed by actual results from literally 10s of thousands of batted balls. I'm not sure which I would rely upon more? It's percentage. You find one or even a hundred examples and it's still statistically insignificant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bean5302 said:

Your personal opinion vs. a metric constructed by actual results from literally 10s of thousands of batted balls. I'm not sure which I would rely upon more?

The fault isn't the metric, the fault is people are using the wrong metric in this conversation.  Directional Statcast metrics exist.  Use those other metrics for a batted ball event like this.  

If you try to build a three dimensional table by only measuring 2 of the dimensions, how likely are you to get it right?  You're trying to make the argument that because I'm saying the table was built wrong, I'm questioning the inches on the ruler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Dodecahedron said:

Lots of throwing errors, but having a poor defender at first, where he was throwing, did not help.

Sano at first, I have seen as often as not, has no hustle, he looks too much like some one who has just hit a home run whose mind is now in la la land

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It blows my mind that people are on here suggesting Brent Rooker has a future in any outfield anywhere. He may be the worst defensive outfielder in major league baseball right now. He's awful. Yes, he made a terrific catch the other night, but, overall, he will give up far more hits than he prevents. 

As for diving catches, if 1 player can run 50 feet and catch a ball while still on his feet while another player runs 20 feet for a ball hit with the same speed and loft and has to dive for it, the player who could cover 50 feet on his feet is drastically better than the player who dove to catch the ball. That catch was fun to see, but Rooker is awful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One good thing that might be about Gordon, he could return the Twins to the day of Carew and Tovar when base stealing was a genuine threat.

With Buxton and him in the line-up , and on base, shifting the fielders would be nullified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

xBA should be used as a comparative tool for how well a player hits a ball. Different player running speeds, etc will impact how well the metric will predict a single result.

It looks like the ball carried for about 4.05 seconds to me. Rooker doesn't have enough run data to really get a good sample, but I think his last year's data of 26.1 ft/sec is probably reasonable. That compares approximately to Jurickson Profar and if I make Jurickson Profar try to catch a ball, he'd hit 90 feet in 4.14 seconds. The median left fielder reaches 90 feet in about 4.00 seconds. Taking the median top speed into consideration at 27.4 feet per second, and tacking on 0.14 seconds to the total, the average left fielder would have covered an additional 4 feet of ground on that ball so it would have been the same as the ball dropping at Rooker's knee from his laid out position, assuming Rooker got an average jump on the ball. That's not necessarily an easy catch for the average left fielder, but it's one the fielder would definitely expected to make if they were standing where Rooker was when the ball was hit.

The dive is only required because Rooker doesn't have the range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the Rooker question--two things can be true at once.  It is true that the catch Rooker made was a great catch, and shows he has some defensive ability.  It is also true that an average or better defender would not have needed to leave their feet to make that catch.  Bad defenders make good or even great plays, and good or great defenders make bad plays.  Saying this one catch proves Rooker is a good defender is as silly as saying Rooker can't make the occasional good defensive play, while being otherwise sub-par.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bean5302:  Do those stats and speed measurements make any allowance for reaction time?  For example, you indicate 90 feet in 4 seconds: is that after he starts to move?

I know from other fields of study that human reaction time can range from .3 to .7 seconds.  Emmerson Fittapaldi was noted to have some of the fastest reaction times ever recorded, a good trait for a race car driver!

If you need to add in reaction time the numbers might change.

Just roughly eyeballing the play, even if Buxton were in left field I believe he would have had to, at a minimum, slide to make that catch.  Probably not full-blown extended leap like Rooker....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Steve71 said:

Bean5302:  Do those stats and speed measurements make any allowance for reaction time?  For example, you indicate 90 feet in 4 seconds: is that after he starts to move?

I know from other fields of study that human reaction time can range from .3 to .7 seconds.  Emmerson Fittapaldi was noted to have some of the fastest reaction times ever recorded, a good trait for a race car driver!

If you need to add in reaction time the numbers might change.

Just roughly eyeballing the play, even if Buxton were in left field I believe he would have had to, at a minimum, slide to make that catch.  Probably not full-blown extended leap like Rooker....

It's based on 90 foot splits on home to first base running without reaction time included. I chose 90 foot times because it is nearly the same amount of time the fly ball in question stayed in the air and it took into consideration acceleration time, not just top speed. As I noted my comment, I assume Rooker had an average reaction time, but reaction time is factored into "jump" time which is the amount of ground a player covers in the correct direction to the ball in the first 1.5 seconds from the ball off the bat. Rooker covers 30.6ft while the average fielder covers 33.0ft in 1.5 seconds. I used Jurickson Profar as the model for Rooker, but Profar covers2 feet more than Rooker on the jump at 32.8 feet in 1.5 sec. If that play was the average reaction time and jump for Rooker, you'd need to give the average left fielder an extra 2 feet on top of the 4 feet I quoted.

Your eyeballs are broken, btw. Buxton covers 5 feet more than Rooker in the first 1.5 seconds alone. We can assume Buxton reaches top speed in 2.0 seconds which means 5 feet + 4.0 ft/sec * 2.0 sec = 13 feet. Now include the speed advantage of Buxton for the 1.50-2.00 seconds of run time and you come up with 15 more feet covered on that play. Buxton makes that catch standing up if the ball is at the wall in foul territory before promptly going to the DL for the rest of the year with a shoulder injury for running into the wall at top speed.

The original comment from the original person starting the conversation was Rooker made a fantastic diving catch. Agreed. Rooker's catch was fantastic and exciting! A later commenter said they didn't want to see Rooker in the field and the original person came back and doubled down saying Rooker made a fantastic catch. It was at this point the conversation turned completely away from the excitement of the catch itself and into whether or not Rooker was good in the field in general.

Then it was a whole bunch of nonsense about how metrics suck and aren't accurate because eyeball this and eyeball that. The ball which was hit spent four seconds in the air. That's why the xBA calculated it's an automatic out 99.4% of the time or whatever. It doesn't matter which direction the ball is hit because the 9 fielders can cover the entire fair ground in 4 seconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Steve71 said:

Just roughly eyeballing the play, even if Buxton were in left field I believe he would have had to, at a minimum, slide to make that catch.  Probably not full-blown extended leap like Rooker....

Based on this, wouldn't that mean that Rooker is just a step or two slower than arguably the fastest guy in baseball?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund
The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premiere Twins community on the internet.

×
×
  • Create New...