Escobar

[IdahoPilgrim]

I never claimed Florimon doesn't have the tools to be a good defender.

But tools don't mean jack if you don't use them.

Stop telling me why he CAN be good, or why he SHOULD be good, and tell me what data shows that he IS good, defensively, as the Twins org. and many media members claim.

Again, there is a HUGE difference between having the tools, and actually being good.

Because regardless of how full Pedro's toolbox is, through the sample size we have so far, he has been a downright terrible defender.

 

Doesn't it depend on what you are basing your opinion? While I know there is an ongoing debate about this in baseball, there is not a universally accepted definition of how we define "good" in baseball, i.e. not everybody looks at the same statistics, or even primarily uses statistics. Until that happens, then everybody's assessment (mine, yours, the organization's, the media, etc) is ultimately opinion, incapable of proof to those who use a different metric upon which to base their opinion.

[jokin]

What a troll. Mr. Brooks and jorgenswest were engaged in an intelligent discussion. They both presented reasonable backup for their positions. You came along, eager to get your digs in and once again added nothing but a steaming pile of nothingness. jorgenswest and Mr. Brooks presented information and humbly drew reasonable conclusions. Riverbrian humbly offered his own observations. I complimented jorgenswest and challenged you about another of your snarky comments.

 

 

What did you add to this thread, jokin, other arrogant incendiary comments?

 

Uhh, I'll try again. Mr Brooks asked where the mythmaking happened on how Florimon got the label as a great defensive SS. I responded that the Twins FO has been high on him since he was acquired a year ago and have clearly pushed for him as the only legitimate candidate for the job once Dozier had his setback.

 

Then, seemingly out of left field, we had this "arrogant incendiary comment":

 

Originally Posted by birdwatcher Nice backup, jorgenswest. It supports what Riverbrian and others see. Well, except for the mythbuilders in the front office, who are just making stuff up all the time. According to jokin.

 

 

and then this:

 

Again, I didn't express an opinion, jokin. I'll leave that to experts like you.

 

To which I responded with this clearly not arrogant incendiary comment:

 

"Jorgenwest's evidence supports what we all see in his areas of deficiency- and what the FO has chosen to either- outright ignore- or expect significant improvement over what his career has been thus far.

 

Can you deny the fact that the Twins made the decision- right or wrong- come hell or high water- on Florimon as THE starting SS for opening day, 2013- back in the late summer of 2012- all based on a rather erratic set of performances in the field and a continued very anemic bat?"

 

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe I "presented reasonable backup to my position."

[jokin]

Doesn't it depend on what you are basing your opinion? While I know there is an ongoing debate about this in baseball, there is not a universally accepted definition of how we define "good" in baseball, i.e. not everybody looks at the same statistics, or even primarily uses statistics. Until that happens, then everybody's assessment (mine, yours, the organization's, the media, etc) is ultimately opinion, incapable of proof to those who use a different metric upon which to base their opinion.

 

SB, between the number of routine fielding plays botched and continual low relays to first that fail the eye test, I gotta think that between these facts available to all of us and our own lying eyes, Mr Brooks's fielding percentages numbers and Jorgenwests scouting reports, we have a SS who clearly posesses good tools- but has yet to put it all together as a consistently acceptable MLB no-bat, good-glove SS- and the clock is ticking on a career 7-year minor leaguer for putting it all together sooner rather than later.

[Riverbrian]

SB, between the number of routine fielding plays botched and continual low relays to first that fail the eye test, I gotta think that between these facts available to all of us and our own lying eyes, Mr Brooks's fielding percentages numbers and Jorgenwests scouting reports, we have a SS who clearly posesses good tools- but has yet to put it all together as a consistently acceptable MLB no-bat, good-glove SS- and the clock is ticking on a career 7-year minor leaguer for putting it all together sooner rather than later.

 

I agree with this... I think he can do it... But the window for doing it would be fairly small in my world with Escobar and Carroll hanging around.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Punto age 23 and entering age 24 as Escobar is this year.

 

AAA 229/327/298

 

Carroll age 23

 

A+. 243/319/295

 

By 23, Escobar was in the majors. His 22 year old full season in AAA was 266/303/354.

 

This is somewhat misleading, as Punto and Carroll both had arguably their absolute worst MiLB seasons at age 23. Escobar's age-22 season you use for comparison was almost exactly in line with his career averages to date.

 

But even then, look at those OBPs -- Punto and Carroll, in arguably their worst seasons, were still getting on base better than Escobar. (Florimon is not much better than Escobar in that regard either.)

 

Not only that, but take a look at their strikeout numbers. Carroll and Punto did not strike out much, and both had seasons where they walked more than they struck out -- Carroll did so consistently, Punto was always close (aside from that age-23 season, when his K rate spiked). Florimon and Escobar have terrible K/BB rates.

 

Can they develop into decent MLB hitters despite this? Sure, but I wouldn't bet on it. Escobar's chances are better than Florimon's, but that's almost entirely due to his younger age, rather than anything specific in his performance to date.

 

(Hopefully Danny Santana can keep developing offensively; otherwise, his offensive profile right now looks very similar to Florimon and Escobar at the same ages...)

[cmathewson]

---

 

I agree with this. I am bit unsure why so many seem to think Florimon can't become more consistent. 26 isn't too old to improve, especially in areas such as consistency. Ryan was quoted as saying that Escobar's best position was 2B. That probably doesn't mean he can't be a very good SS, just that like Punto before him, his tools fit better at 2B.

 

I think Florimon has all the tools to be an excellent SS. He will have to be, because he will have to improve a lot to be useful offensively.

 

I agree with this. The same people who complain about the revolving door at shortstop also bitch about every shortstop we run through the position. In order for Florimon to develop, they have to give him a chance to iron out the wrinkles.

 

The other thing that bugs me is focus on errors. The more balls you get to, the more errors you make, statistically. The stronger your arm, the more errors you make. Even with the errors, you get more outs. Very few shortstops in history have had the combination of range and sure handedness. Normally, you pick one or the other. Given the choice, I'll take range and arm.

 

He's had a little more than two months of experience--not nearly enough to draw any numerical conclusions. In that time, I've seen him make plays that I hadn't since since Guzman was young. I've also seen him get out of whack with his throws. But he has a chance to be a very good defensive shortstop if they just show a little patience with him.

 

As for Escobar, I see great improvement in him this year. And he's definitely better with the stick than Florimon. But he doesn't have the range. So give Florimon a chance to fix some things before you replace him. If he doesn't, you've got a nice plan B waiting in the wings.

[TheLeviathan]

I agree with this. The same people who complain about the revolving door at shortstop also bitch about every shortstop we run through the position. In order for Florimon to develop, they have to give him a chance to iron out the wrinkles.

 

It's hard to take apart so many things that seem baffling in one post. I'm just going to suggest that people who "bitch" about the Twins SS woes have a pretty good reason to do so - they've been pretty consistently awful for quite some time. And the team seems to have a penchant for getting rid of guys that might actually break that trend.

 

Just to pick on two things:

 

1) Pedro Florimon is 26 and has had 7 years in the minor leagues. If a wrinkle that is still in his game is butchering routine plays -I'm a bit concerned by how long we should wait to get that ironed out.

 

2) It's a cliche, but it's true - giving teams extra outs hurts. We just won a game thanks to that in fact. If Florimon was airmailing throws from short LF because he was getting to that ball - I think we can all live with that. When he plays kick the can with a routine ground ball on a regular basis - that's a totally different thing.

[beckmt]

Florimon had a bad day. Today he looked just fine. He is young and under pressure to produce now. Twins are still making plays they have lacked the past couple of years and that will lead to improvement. It is early, but the Tigers and Baltimore on the road on not easy teams. Twins season will be determined by how well they do against other clubs that started as equal or worse.

[snepp]

The same people who complain about the revolving door at shortstop also bitch about every shortstop we run through the position.

 

Boy, that's a real doozy.

 

You're going to have a hard time supporting this one, given that it's about as wrong as can possibly be.

[cmathewson]

Boy, that's a real doozy.

 

You're going to have a hard time supporting this one, given that it's about as wrong as can possibly be.

 

People bitched about Bartlett and he was fine until they traded him. Some people (though fewer) bitched about Hardy and he was more than fine until they traded him. They also tried Castro, Everette, Harris, Cabrera, Punto, and Carroll there. None of them were close to good enough as regulars. I heard less bitching about those guys, because they were proven, sure-handed players. But they nonetheless sucked as regulars at the stage in their careers when we tried them, because they lacked the range and athleticism required for the position.

 

They also had the disaster with Nishioka/Casilla. No on liked that deal, in the end, but it was lauded as a bold move to finally stop the revolving door.

 

The only way to break the cycle is to develop someone. The Twins have two candidates for that until Santana shows up in a couple of years. Both have promising tools. Neither has had an opportunity. Let's see what they can do before we right them off.

 

Is that clear enough for you? Tell me how that's wrong.

[big dog]

Florimon's accuracy is not consistent enough, but he's really impressed me with the strength of his throws. I don't think Escobar gets nearly as much velocity, though his throws have also been pretty good. Florimon has shown enough ability to give him a chance to settle down and get rid of the inconsistency. Escobar will also get his chances. I don't think either one has had enough of a chance to show that they deserve the job full-time, but rotating them isn't going to give either one of them a decent chance to perform without always having to look over a shoulder and worry about getting yanked. I think giving the job to one for a while and hoping he earns a shot to keep it makes sense, and Florimon's tools are pretty appealing.

[Brock Beauchamp]

People bitched about Bartlett and he was fine until they traded him. Some people (though fewer) bitched about Hardy and he was more than fine until they traded him.

 

I don't remember anyone bitching about those two guys.

 

And if they did, I would have dismissed them out of hand as idiots.

[Otto von Ballpark]

People bitched about Bartlett and he was fine until they traded him. Some people (though fewer) bitched about Hardy and he was more than fine until they traded him.

 

Twins FANS bitched about Bartlett? Not buying that. There was a metric ton of fan bitching when Castro won the job over Bartlett in 2006. And a fair amount of complaint from stat-minded fans when Bartlett was traded after 2007 without a ready replacement. (Still perhaps Bill Smith's worst move of many: casting aside two useful players who were in Gardy's doghouse.)

 

And the Hardy acquisition was almost universally loved by Twins fans, even if he didn't set the world on fire in his time with the team. Many fans also didn't like trading him a year later, although that was more because the return was so little (Jim Hoey?) when it should have been doubting the Twins' Japanese scouting acumen.

 

By your standards, "Twins fans" have bitched about every single player ever. It's not a terribly useful definition. Bartlett and Hardy were not bitched about by any kind of consensus of Twins fans, not by a long shot.

[fairweather]

SS should be Esco's job. Florimon did nothing to earn it. I feel the same about 2B. I would start Carroll over Dozier, but at least Dozier is playing well enough for me to wonder.

[Brock Beauchamp]

SS should be Esco's job. Florimon did nothing to earn it. I feel the same about 2B. I would start Carroll over Dozier, but at least Dozier is playing well enough for me to wonder.

 

Florimon has done nothing to warrant a starting job over Escobar but it makes all the sense in the world to start Dozier over Carroll. The Twins needs to see what they have in Brian.

[kab21]

I absolutely agree regarding Dozier but likewise Escobar has done nothing to warrant starting over Florimon. both of these guys are utility players in a starting role. I favor Escobar a little but I'm not going to get worked up about either of them starting. I'm actually pleased that the Twins might have found a pair of utility guys for the MLB min instead of paying money to guys like Carroll. now if they can just find a starting SS.

[Mr. Brooks]

Doesn't it depend on what you are basing your opinion? While I know there is an ongoing debate about this in baseball, there is not a universally accepted definition of how we define "good" in baseball, i.e. not everybody looks at the same statistics, or even primarily uses statistics. Until that happens, then everybody's assessment (mine, yours, the organization's, the media, etc) is ultimately opinion, incapable of proof to those who use a different metric upon which to base their opinion.

 

Even if that is the case, that is my point!

The org and the media are saying he IS good defensively, that is not an opinion, that is being stated like a fact.

All off season I heard things like, "Florimon won't hit much, but he is a great defender...", etc.

Those are not stated like opinions, so AGAIN I ask, show me one single metric, one single scouting report that supports this idea.

And I don't mean a scouting report saying he has the tools to be good, or can be good, or should be good, or will be good. I mean something, ANYTHING, that shows he is good defensively, right now, based on what he has actually done.

[Mr. Brooks]

Doesn't it depend on what you are basing your opinion? While I know there is an ongoing debate about this in baseball, there is not a universally accepted definition of how we define "good" in baseball, i.e. not everybody looks at the same statistics, or even primarily uses statistics. Until that happens, then everybody's assessment (mine, yours, the organization's, the media, etc) is ultimately opinion, incapable of proof to those who use a different metric upon which to base their opinion.

 

Also, i'd like to point out, that if this is going to be our attitude regarding defensive metrics, then you are basically telling me that there are no bad defensive players in baseball. I don't buy that.

[Mr. Brooks]

I agree with this. The same people who complain about the revolving door at shortstop also bitch about every shortstop we run through the position. In order for Florimon to develop, they have to give him a chance to iron out the wrinkles.

 

The other thing that bugs me is focus on errors. The more balls you get to, the more errors you make, statistically. The stronger your arm, the more errors you make. Even with the errors, you get more outs. Very few shortstops in history have had the combination of range and sure handedness. Normally, you pick one or the other. Given the choice, I'll take range and arm.

 

He's had a little more than two months of experience--not nearly enough to draw any numerical conclusions. In that time, I've seen him make plays that I hadn't since since Guzman was young. I've also seen him get out of whack with his throws. But he has a chance to be a very good defensive shortstop if they just show a little patience with him.

 

As for Escobar, I see great improvement in him this year. And he's definitely better with the stick than Florimon. But he doesn't have the range. So give Florimon a chance to fix some things before you replace him. If he doesn't, you've got a nice plan B waiting in the wings.

 

I would hope everyone knows that! I've not once brought up errors or fielding percentage.

[snepp]

Is that clear enough for you? Tell me how that's wrong.

 

It's clear that it's either way off, or that you need to be more careful with those broad strokes you're brushing.

 

The "same people" that bitch about the revolving door hated needlessly including Bartlett in the Young trade. Those "same people" were disgusted when Hardy was needlessly traded for a sack of burning dog poo.