Clutch Gordon, Baseball Superstar

[Brock Beauchamp]

15 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Beau Burrows had every opportunity to prove he wasn't a major league pitcher for the reasons in bold. I don't understand the hesitation with internal options that are likely on the roster "bubble." 

Beau Burrows started one game and appeared in relief in four others. Nick Gordon is going to finish the season with over 200 PAs.

Never mind that when the Twins claimed Burrows, their requirement to make the roster was “alive and can throw a baseball 60.5 feet”. 

[RpR]

11 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Gordon has an OPS of .585 against LHP (only 42 PAs but his MiLB track record also indicates a significant deficit against LHP).

Arraez has a career .646 OPS against LHP.

	OPS	PA	R	HR	RBI	SB	AVG	OBP	SLG
Since 2019vs Left	.649	237	22	0	19	0	.250	.359	.290
Since 2019vs Right	.793	689	99	6	57	4	.321	.372	.421
2021vs Left	.621	105	8	0	7	0	.231	.324	.297
2021vs Right	.742	342	45	2	31	2	.297	.360	.382
	.
He cannot hit leftys.
								.

[jorgenswest]

I think we end the season with enough confidence that Gordon can come off the bench in an up the middle role as well as provide some speed off the bench. Seems like that is a positive development. Perhaps their handling of him this year assisted in that progress.

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

8 hours ago, RpR said:

	OPS	PA	R	HR	RBI	SB	AVG	OBP	SLG
Since 2019vs Left	.649	237	22	0	19	0	.250	.359	.290
Since 2019vs Right	.793	689	99	6	57	4	.321	.372	.421
2021vs Left	.621	105	8	0	7	0	.231	.324	.297
2021vs Right	.742	342	45	2	31	2	.297	.360	.382
	.
He cannot hit leftys.

And Gordon is even worse, which is my point.

[terrydactyls]

20 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Gordon has an OPS of .585 against LHP (only 42 PAs but his MiLB track record also indicates a significant deficit against LHP).

Arraez has a career .646 OPS against LHP.

Why do you let facts get in the way of uninformed opinion? ???

[gunnarthor]

I'm happy for Gordon. Earlier this year, I thought he'd be DFA'd after the season, now I think, like many, he'll be a solid bench option for the Twins. He's looked better in the OF than I thought. Best of luck to him.

[Brock Beauchamp]

7 minutes ago, gunnarthor said:

He's looked better in the OF than I thought.

Frankly, I'm shocked how completely okay he looks in the OF. He still often takes bad jumps but that's just an experience thing. I think he can be a legit second (more optimally third) option for CF.

[Squirrel]

23 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Frankly, I'm shocked how completely okay he looks in the OF. He still often takes bad jumps but that's just an experience thing. I think he can be a legit second (more optimally third) option for CF.

That was a criticism of Buxton, too, when he first came up ... bad jumps, bad paths to the ball, etc ... but his speed made up for it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

11 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

That was a criticism of Buxton, too, when he first came up ... bad jumps, bad paths to the ball, etc ... but his speed made up for it.

It was especially a complaint with Aaron Hicks, who was considered an above average CF in the minors and was flat-out bad in Minnesota for awhile.

[Squirrel]

Just now, Brock Beauchamp said:

It was especially a complaint with Aaron Hicks, who was considered an above average CF in the minors and was flat-out bad in Minnesota for awhile.

Just goes to show that prospects aren't finished when they come up, that there is still more to learn at the highest level of baseball and maybe we need to temper our expectations and patience just a little. Rookies need to gain experience, plain and simple. I've actually been very pleasantly surprised with Gordon and think he has a place on this team next year. I want to see what he does with this year's experience under his belt. He has made a good case for himself.

[KirbyDome89]

16 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Beau Burrows started one game and appeared in relief in four others. Nick Gordon is going to finish the season with over 200 PAs.

Never mind that when the Twins claimed Burrows, their requirement to make the roster was “alive and can throw a baseball 60.5 feet”. 

Gordon is on pace to nearly double his PAs in September vs July or August. 

Was the trio of Simmons/Astudillo/Cave just too vital for the future? Were there not enough PAs between 3 IF spots and all 3 OF spots to get on the field consistently for a team 15+ GB in the division? What's the argument here? If you can pick up another team's cast off, a team who also isn't in a position to be giving up usable arms, with the spin of pedigree/previous draft position, then it shouldn't take the calendar flipping to September for Gordon to get consistent playing time.

[Brock Beauchamp]

21 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Gordon is on pace to nearly double his PAs in September vs July or August. 

Was the trio of Simmons/Astudillo/Cave just too vital for the future? Were there not enough PAs between 3 IF spots and all 3 OF spots to get on the field consistently for a team 15+ GB in the division? What's the argument here? If you can pick up another team's cast off, a team who also isn't in a position to be giving up usable arms, with the spin of pedigree/previous draft position, then it shouldn't take the calendar flipping to September for Gordon to get consistent playing time.

From the beginning of June through the end of August, Nick Gordon played 47 games in Minnesota.

During that same span, the Twins played 77 games. 

Through those three months, Gordon posted an OPS of .585.

So the Twins were playing roughly a 70 OPS+ player in over 60% of their overall games. Would I have played Gordon more often? Sure, and I've said as much multiple times... but let's stop pretending that he was anything but awful for quite some time and the Twins were still playing him more often than not. Are we really upset whether the Twins worked him into nine extra games over three months? The guy is a LHB who is epically terrible against LHP. He's going to be shielded more than other players - resulting in fewer PAs - and that's the right thing to do. He's not going to be a 600 PA player, probably ever.

Situations like these make me roll my eyes, frankly. If they play Gordon and he sucks, they made a mistake by playing him. If they don't play Gordon and he sucks, they didn't give him enough time to develop. If they play Gordon somewhere between those points and he ends up succeeding, they didn't play him early enough, often enough.

At what point can we just be happy that a player looks like he's going to become more than we thought he'd become just two months ago? Why does there always have to be a blame element involved in every situation?

[TheLeviathan]

26 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

From the beginning of June through the end of August, Nick Gordon played 47 games in Minnesota.

During that same span, the Twins played 77 games. 

Through those three months, Gordon posted an OPS of .585.

So the Twins were playing about a 70 OPS+ in over 60% of their overall games. Would I have played Gordon more often? Sure, and I've said as much multiple times... but let's stop pretending that he was anything but awful for quite some time and the Twins were still playing him more often than not. Are we really upset whether the Twins worked him into nine extra games over three months?

Situations like these make me roll my eyes, frankly. If they play Gordon and he sucks, they made a mistake by playing him. If they don't play Gordon and he sucks, they didn't give him enough time to develop. If they play Gordon somewhere between those points and he ends up succeeding, they didn't play him early enough, often enough.

At what point can we just be happy that a player looks like he's going to become more than we thought he'd become just two months ago? Why does there always have to be a blame element involved in every situation?

First, I think using games played over plate appearances is an unfair shift from the point and masks the issue.  Many of those were late inning replacements that yielded few PAs.

I agree with your conclusion, but I think many of us who said he should have been getting playing time regardless of performance.  I didn't care how he performed as much as I cared he was riding the bench while marginally less awful players did not.

[KirbyDome89]

16 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

From the beginning of June through the end of August, Nick Gordon played 47 games in Minnesota.

During that same span, the Twins played 77 games. 

During that span, Gordon also posted an OPS of .585.

So the Twins were playing about a 70 OPS+ in over 60% of their overall games. Would I have played Gordon more often? Sure, and I've said as much multiple times... but let's stop pretending that he was anything but awful for quite some time and the Twins were still playing him more often than not.

Situations like these make me roll my eyes, frankly. If they play Gordon and he sucks, they made a mistake by playing him. If they don't play Gordon and he sucks, they didn't give him enough time to develop. If they play Gordon somewhere between those points and he ends up succeeding, they didn't play him early enough, often enough.

At what point can we just be happy that a player looks like he's going to become more than we thought he'd become just two months ago? Why does there always have to be a blame element involved in every situation?

How many of those games did he come in late and get 1 or 0 PAs? 

If they play him and he sucks they lose nothing. Maybe they gain draft position; at minimum they have a better idea of whether or not he deserves a 40 man spot. There's literally no downside. Do we need to pretend that he wasn't being used inconsistently/sporadically, or that priority wasn't being given to guys that have no value moving forward in a lost season? The latter is why an element of blame exists.

[KirbyDome89]

1 minute ago, TheLeviathan said:

First, I think using games played over plate appearances is an unfair shift from the point and masks the issue.  Many of those were late inning replacements that yielded few PAs.

I agree with your conclusion, but I think many of us who said he should have been getting playing time regardless of performance.  I didn't care how he performed as much as I cared he was riding the bench while marginally less awful players did not.

Ninja'd

[Brock Beauchamp]

37 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

How many of those games did he come in late and get 1 or 0 PAs? 

If they play him and he sucks they lose nothing. Maybe they gain draft position; at minimum they have a better idea of whether or not he deserves a 40 man spot. There's literally no downside. Do we need to pretend that he wasn't being used inconsistently/sporadically, or that priority wasn't being given to guys that have no value moving forward in a lost season? The latter is why an element of blame exists.

But we're ending up at the point where he's basically guaranteed a 40-man spot any way; in the end, your complaints are that the front office didn't reach the conclusion as immaculately as you'd like.

When put that way, it seems like a pretty absurd thing to criticize, doesn't it?

[KirbyDome89]

30 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

But we're ending up at the point where he's basically guaranteed a 40-man spot any way; in the end, your complaints are that the front office didn't reach the conclusion as immaculately as you'd like.

When put that way, it seems like a pretty absurd thing to criticize, doesn't it?

If he injured in St. Paul after being optioned in August he very well may have been a roster casualty. Just because they eventually made the right call doesn't mean there wasn't an opportunity cost for continuing to sink innings into guys with zero value. 

[TheLeviathan]

34 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

But we're ending up at the point where he's basically guaranteed a 40-man spot any way; in the end, your complaints are that the front office didn't reach the conclusion as immaculately as you'd like.

When put that way, it seems like a pretty absurd thing to criticize, doesn't it?

I care because a good process is better than a good result.  The former yields many of the latter while the latter, by itself, could simply be a fluke.

[Brock Beauchamp]

4 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

If he injured in St. Paul after being optioned in August he very well may have been a roster casualty. Just because they eventually made the right call doesn't mean there wasn't an opportunity cost for continuing to sink innings into guys with zero value. 

If he was injured in August, he’s almost surely off the roster because that’s what happens to guys on their last shot with a team.

We can “if” the situation all day long but the end result is that it didn’t matter one damned bit, which is so often the case in these situations. I cannot count how much howling I’ve seen over the management of the Oswaldo Arcias of the world over the years, almost all of it resulting in none of it mattering in the end. 

[KirbyDome89]

1 minute ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

If he was injured in August, he’s almost surely off the roster because that’s what happens to guys on their last shot with a team.

We can “if” the situation all day long but the end result is that it didn’t matter one damned bit, which is so often the case in these situations. I cannot count how much howling I’ve seen over the management of the Oswaldo Arcias of the world over the years, almost all of it resulting in none of it mattering in the end. 

All the more to give him a shot at consistent playing time right?

Sure, you can play the results, but I'm arguing that the process is more important, and that's where the criticism lies. 

[KirbyDome89]

6 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I care because a good process is better than a good result.  The former yields many of the latter while the latter, by itself, could simply be a fluke.

Damn.....again

[Brock Beauchamp]

8 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I care because a good process is better than a good result.  The former yields many of the latter while the latter, by itself, could simply be a fluke.

You’re assuming they don’t have a different process in place that we don’t see.

In the end, I think my point is that thoughtful discussion happens more often with the statement “that’s not how I would have done that” versus “they’re wrong for doing it that way”, particularly in situations where there are so many variables in play, many of which we cannot see. Or that there is only a single correct path to take to reach the same conclusion.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

Just now, KirbyDome89 said:

All the more to give him a shot at consistent playing time right?

Sure, you can play the results, but I'm arguing that the process is more important, and that's where the criticism lies. 

Again, another assumption that the only processes that exist are the ones we see. 

[KirbyDome89]

Just now, Brock Beauchamp said:

Again, another assumption that the only processes that exist are the ones we see. 

So they needed to play him sporadically and then send him down to prep him for a larger innings load in September? They couldn't cut into innings for Astudillo, Simmons, or Cave? They couldn't find room for Gordon on the field? What's the meta arugment?

[Brock Beauchamp]

16 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

So they needed to play him sporadically and then send him down to prep him for a larger innings load in September? They couldn't cut into innings for Astudillo, Simmons, or Cave? They couldn't find room for Gordon on the field? What's the meta arugment?

Maybe they were 100% convinced they were retaining Gordon in June. Maybe they are 100% convinced they will not keep him today. Maybe they prioritized players in a certain order for reasons we don't see like health, attitude, chance of release, or any number of reasons.

Again, we can "if" this situation all day long but in the end, it didn't matter one damned bit. Gordon ended up performing somewhere around his 90th percentile outcome, a borderline best-case outcome.

We can talk about process until we're blue in the face but, again, what we're really arguing is "this is the way I wanted it to happen". What makes my opinion about process - remember, I also wanted to see Gordon play and said so many times - more correct than the process used by the front office, especially when their process resulted in a near best-case outcome?

We have spilled far more digital ink complaining about the processes of the Joe Bensons and Oswaldo Arcias of the world than we EVER do the Akil Baddoos of the world, which is a good reminder that we don't know **** and should always keep that in mind.

[jorgenswest]

Simmons is among the elite defenders this year according to outs above average. I think that defense at a key position is beneficial to young pitchers and their development. Nothing else is more important for this team. Certainly not the development of a utility player.

Gordon has also progressed into what looks like a reliable bench piece. I don’t know what he was doing on those frequent days where he didn’t get in the game but he must have been working hard in the cage as well as learning the OF. This seems like a small success story to me.

[KirbyDome89]

11 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Maybe they were 100% convinced they were retaining Gordon in June. Maybe they are 100% convinced they will not keep him today. Maybe they prioritized players in a certain order for reasons we don't see like health, attitude, chance of release, or any number of reasons.

Again, we can "if" this situation all day long but in the end, it didn't matter one damned bit. Gordon ended up performing somewhere around his 90th percentile outcome, a borderline best-case outcome.

We can talk about process until we're blue in the face but, again, what we're really arguing is "this is the way I wanted it to happen". What makes my opinion about process - remember, I also wanted to see Gordon play and said so many times - more correct than the process used by the front office, especially when their process resulted in a near best-case outcome?

We have spilled far more digital ink complaining about the processes of the Joe Bensons and Oswaldo Arcias of the world than we EVER do the Akil Baddoos of the world, which is a good reminder that we don't know **** and should always keep that in mind.

That's not really disputing the opportunity cost of benching Gordon or the lack of one for prioritizing him over guys that won't be here next year. You're playing the results and and invoking my least favorite meta argument of all time; "the FO knows more than us."

[Brock Beauchamp]

8 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

You're playing the results and and invoking my least favorite meta argument of all time; "the FO knows more than us."

First, the front office *does* know more than us and that's indisputable.

Second, I'm not entirely playing results. I'm open to the idea that the route the front office took with Gordon could be the reason he's playing so much better right now. Maybe the front office did exactly what Nick Gordon needed to succeed. 

Or maybe they just got lucky.

Or, more likely, it's somewhere in between.

The thing is, I don't really know and neither do you. In the end, we almost always judge by results, we just like to spend a lot of time in the middle pretending we don't (or even that we have an informed opinion in the first place).

[KirbyDome89]

9 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

First, the front office *does* know more than us and that's indisputable.

Second, I'm not entirely playing results. I'm open to the idea that the route the front office took with Gordon could be the reason he's playing so much better right now. Maybe the front office did exactly what Nick Gordon needed to succeed. 

Or maybe they just got lucky.

Or, more likely, it's somewhere in between.

The thing is, I don't really know and neither do you. In the end, we almost always judge by results, we just like to spend a lot of time in the middle pretending we don't (or even that we have an informed opinion in the first place).

It's a fan site. We're all formulating opinions based on what we see/read. We all understand we aren't privy to info that the FO is. Every argument made on this forum is couched within that context. "The FO knows more than us," is a sidestep. 

The guy barely hit above .200 in that AAA stint in August. I think it's reach to say that the inconsistency with the major league team was what turned him around. 

Sure, sometimes we do, and that's fine, but a line drive and a bloop single aren't the same. We can look beyond just the results here. 

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

You’re assuming they don’t have a different process in place that we don’t see.

In the end, I think my point is that thoughtful discussion happens more often with the statement “that’s not how I would have done that” versus “they’re wrong for doing it that way”, particularly in situations where there are so many variables in play, many of which we cannot see. Or that there is only a single correct path to take to reach the same conclusion.  

I didn't make that assumption, I only observed that Nick Gordon spent large amounts of time where he wasn't getting to consistently face pitching this year.  That's what I don't like.

I agree "Twins aRe StuPId" is a bad argument.  But I also don't think dismissing reasonable criticism just because the result wasn't terrible is fair either.  Past managers and players have remarked on how important it was for them to have consistent opportunity and trust from the organization as they worked themselves into being big league players.  It makes sense and I've taken those comments as useful for how teams need to operate.  In a down year, plate appearances have the potential to be real investments in the future and I'm going to continue to criticize when I don't think those investments are well made.

I'm glad this one worked out so far, I'm hoping this isn't the path we consistently take.