Max Kepler, One of the Greatest Outfielders in Twins History

[Matt Braun]

Those pesky emotions love to cloud our evaluations of a player. 

Image courtesy of Jesse Johnson-USA TODAY Sports

History, by nature, is an autopsical field. The great advantage of living after a thing occurs is the absolute judgment we can wield over it, overseeing the full extent of its effects while owning the ability to put it in its precise place. Order fulfills eventually. Conversations may alter interpretations—history is an ever-changing field, after all, despite its absolute coat of paint appearance—but the general, shared, casual understanding habitually stays static; singular, digestible, and easy for us to broadly understand.

We don't always earn the right to see things in their totality.

One of the challenges of understanding history is applying it to living, breathing, walking, contradicting things. We can understand and appreciate the great Tony Oliva, as his legacy came and went years ago, but how do we place current players into the historical conversation, especially when our view of those players may be clouded by our judgment in the now when our view is whole, and nuance is easier to capture? These individuals don't appreciate the soothing effects of calm interpretation.

Their mistakes are too recent, painful; we can more clearly remember them falling short in a big situation—as all humans do—as the older player enjoys the fortune of having his accomplishments tied to general stats and perhaps highlights, if they are so lucky. 

Through this lens, it becomes strange and nearly uncomfortable to tackle Max Kepler, one of the greatest outfielders in Twins' history. Above Denard Span, Michael Cuddyer, Jacque Jones, and Matt Lawton, the often critiqued and, maybe unfairly ridiculed German sits at 16.4 fWAR, holding strong onto the ranking as the eighth-best outfielder to wear a Minnesota uniform; even just a mediocre season will see him pass Shane Mack for the seventh spot. 

But what odd feelings this truth elicits. How can it be that Kepler, he of disappointment; with offense worse than expected; with one true breakout season; with WAR totals filing in between 2.0 and 3.0 like blue-collared workers headed to the town industrial center, could possibly be one of the best outfielders in Twins history? His success feels meager and incapable of standing with some of the greatest to ever consistently don a Twins uniform.

Perhaps this is the convergence of a few feelings at once: "they'll love you when you're dead," they often say, maybe altering to fit in a sports context; the promise of potential—of more incredible exploits—never fulfilling, leaving a sour imprint onto the minds of those who expected more. Or, and what may be the ultimate correct answer, it's almost impossible to understand a player's history as it unfolds. 

Save for the Mike Trouts of the world—those whose greatness is abundant and unquestioned—the rank-and-file must fight amongst themselves in the muck, occasionally achieving the highs so consistently reached by those better than them but still proving worth and ability. Their house is built on a great total of bricks laid over many summers, not stacked strongly in one go. 

Just as well, specific to Kepler, is the shape of his production. Some may speak for the worthiness of a defensive ace in right field, but it will always be less than the exploits of an adept center fielder or a shortstop. Then, with stimulating bat, the more lumbering and offensively capable corner outfielders—played so to avoid their glove—bury Kepler with damage and extra-base ferocity that he has only known in one season. He cannot compete. It is not in his nature to. Yet he can equal them in total production, whether seen or not. 

The fWAR list plays out as follows: Kirby Puckett takes the top spot, followed by Tony Oliva, Bob Allison, Torii Hunter, Cesar Tovar, Byron Buxton, Shane Mack, and then Kepler. Since the turn of the century, only Hunter and Buxton top his fWAR total. 

We reach, then, the odd conclusion that Kepler is one of the best outfielders in Twins' history. Time may perhaps allow for those who never saw him play—or, indeed, can only remember small pieces—to accept this fully. It will probably not happen soon. Yet when Kepler's time as a player ends and he evolves into a Twins ambassador, returning for Twins festivals and reminding those of a time no longer present, all we will have is memories and numbers, both of which will favor him as an integral piece of Twins history.

View full article

[old nurse]

Longevity has a way of skewing stats  Kepler has been a steady outfielder. One very good year, a lot of average outfielder years. Play long enough you get to move up the stat list  DRS loves him. It is probably the defense that has made him. WRC sits at 99. League average more or less

[chinmusic]

Interesting article.

It was the bomba squad season that skewed my evaluation of Kepler.

At the time,  I thought great, he's ready to take the next step.

And I was right! He took the next step backward.

[DJL44]

That's a depressing list of "all time great outfielders".

[PatPfund]

Max's ranking doesn't surprise me at all. He has been good-to-great defensively throughout, and had some potent (and one stellar) offensive year. But what jumps out about the top Ten isn't really greatness, but the lack of extended greatness we've had in the OF since the Senators moved here. 

In 63-odd years we've had exactly 5 serious long-term OF stars (Byron doesn't make that cut yet, and may never as the injuries and lack of OF time pile up). Not even one per decade, which isn't great. I love Max (have a Kepler jersey), and after some time will focus mostly on the fun times, but am unlikely to ever think of him as one of the greatest (any more than I think that of Shane Mack, though I have fond memories of him as well; good not great player).

[Schmoeman5]

Umm. OK. If those are the measurements you want to hang your hat on I guess. If he's the 8th best outfielder in Twins history then that doesn't say much about their history. A player whose slid backwards for 3+ years. I'm not buying it. Let's look at Mookie Betts and his time in LA. It's his 3rd year there I believe. But right now he might rank as the 20th best Dodger outfielder IDK. It takes longevity to get that fWAR number up higher. And of course you're not taking into account the Washington Senator players of yesteryear. The A's Dodgers and Giants don't forget things like that.

[weitz41]

Spead sheet baseball compared to back of the baseball card statistics. Some things aren't easily categorized or measured. You would think the 8th best outfielder in Twins history would have 1 all-star appearance and a career OPS+ above 100. But I guess not.

[Reptevia]

Nonsense. Defensive WAR completely skews this list. It is completely overrated. I would bet 2/3 of Kepler’s “value” is based on defensive WAR. Having high defensive WAR at arguably the least important defensive position is a dubious distinction. Consequently, I reject your list. 

[nclahammer]

I would take any of the outfielders mentioned above "Denard Span, Michael Cuddyer, Jacque Jones, and Matt Lawton " over Max Kepler in all, but the Bomba season.  WAR doesn't tell the whole story.

[chpettit19]

2 things come to mind here:

1- The Twins do not have a very impressive list of "All Time Great Outfielders." Which really shouldn't be that surprising.

2- Longevity mixed with unrealistic expectations really defines Max's career here. He's been around a long time, playing really good defense, so he's amassed some WAR. The Twins kept hitting him in the top 5 of the lineup despite him not being a very good hitter, so fans got upset that he wasn't better offensively like you'd want out of a top 5 hitter.

Max has been a solid major league baseball player for a while. He doesn't belong on a list of greats for a competitive team, but he was good enough for many years to have been a 7-9 hole hitter on a really good team. Unfortunately, he didn't play on really good teams so he was miscast as a top of the order hitter. Interesting article, though.

[USAFChief]

I believe the article says more about fWAR than about Max Kepler.

 

[mikelink45]

Not every great outfielder was here long enough to accumulate WAR like Kepler.  Larry Hisle and Lyman Bostock were here a short time but were a great combo.

Lenny Green and Cesar Tovar were terrific, Allison is one of our greats, Jimmie Hall burned out quickly like Kepler.  Oliva and Puckett are in another universe!  Ted Unlaender is under rated, Dan Ford is a legend.  Kenny Landreaux gave us a short but good Outfielder.  Brunansky had a great and short career, he was a good player.  I would not have traded Dan Gladden for Kepler.  Shane Mack is another legend.  Matt Lawton gave us some good years.  Torrii Hunter was another exceptional player and Denard Span was too.  Jacque Jones was a good player who was consistent throughout`his tenure. Shannon Stewart was not here long, but what a difference he made.  Michael Cuddyer was a good player who was a consistent producer for a number of years.  Jason Kubel was a short-term good producer.  Willingham had one great year for us - far better than Kepler's.  Aaron Hicks was traded but showed how good he could be.  

Max had three good years and a team that would not move on from him.  But accumulated stats are not the measure of greatness.  If they were Koufax and Dean would not be in the HOF.  I would not trade any of the players I have listed for Max - no matter what fWAR says. 

[farmerguychris]

He would be a great fit for a team where they have a pitcher who can hit and the DH bats for the Right Fielder - maybe the Angels.  But - can they even do that?

[nicksaviking]

42 minutes ago, Reptevia said:

Nonsense. Defensive WAR completely skews this list. It is completely overrated. I would bet 2/3 of Kepler’s “value” is based on defensive WAR. Having high defensive WAR at arguably the least important defensive position is a dubious distinction. Consequently, I reject your list. 

Yeah, I agree. Sorry but fWAR is unreliable and inconsistent. Just using Twins outfielders as examples; how is it possible Michael Cuddyer could have a -25.8 defensive adjustment in 2010 then only a -8.3 in 2011, then go to Colorado and have a -3.7 adjustment?

How did 39-year-old Torii Hunter go from having a -14.5 adjustment and being considered amongst the worst fielders in the league in Detroit come to Minnesota and have a -3.3 adjustment, while also still being considered amongst the worst fielders in the league?

[DJL44]

56 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

1- The Twins do not have a very impressive list of "All Time Great Outfielders." Which really shouldn't be that surprising.

They don't have an impressive list of all-time greats, period.

[2wins87]

I agree that the Max Kepler hate has gotten really irrational.

I do have a couple critiques on the list, though first a couple things I don't object to.

I definitely won't object to defensive WAR as a concept or as a valid measure for comparing value.  It is difficult to measure, it is a noisy statistic, and it does tend to have relatively large swings from year to year.  Like any stat though, measuring over multiple years gives a more accurate picture of overall talent, and the fact that Kepler has always rated well across many years and many statistics gives me little doubt that Kepler is truly an elite defender for a corner outfielder. 

I also object to somehow discounting defense for a position lower on the defensive scale.  WAR already has the positional adjustment for this, and the additional plays made or missed still impact the game equally regardless of whether they come at a more or less demanding position.

I wouldn't use fWAR for historical comparisons though.  Fangraphs is always open to changing their metrics to align with the best currently available measures.  They have better defensive metrics than range factor for recent guys, but these metrics will never be available for historical players, so I would just default to bWAR, which doesn't really alter the picture significantly.

I would agree that just taking a total without considering peak vs longevity is a bigger issue.  I think something like the JAWS approach of averaging peak and total WAR would be better, though a 7 year peak is clearly too long for a team list where many guys didn't even last that long on one team.  I don't know what the proper peak length should be for a team list, but 4 years feels about right.  Based on this, I would take your list and slide Denard Span and Larry Hisle ahead of Kepler pretty easily.  Tom Brunansky would also be very close to Kepler at this point.

At any rate, the list of great to really good outfielders is probably a little light for 60 years of history.  I would put Kepler in a group of guys who were good for one or two years but then pretty average-ish otherwise, so Eddie Rosario, Michael Cuddyer, Jacque Jones, Brunansky, etc.  There's a good argument that Kepler will have been the best of that bunch, so hopefully he won't be remembered any worse for all of this collective acrimony around him towards the end of his tenure.

 

[DJL44]

15 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Sorry, but those numbers are not rounding errors. It's more like a batter bouncing from an .800 OPS to a .400 OPS every other year.

That doesn't happen year-to-year but it does month to month and nobody questions it. Defensive stats are based on fewer chances than offense plate appearances so there will be a higher variation in the results. I have also seen many players play through an injury that affects their defense more than their offense.

[chpettit19]

27 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Sorry, but those numbers are not rounding errors. It's more like a batter bouncing from an .800 OPS to a .400 OPS every other year.

I'm a believer in numbers, but not bad equations. I like the idea of quantifying sports, but so far few defensive equations pass the smell test. Obviously defense is more variable by measurement, but it should be less variable on the actual field, since hitting a ball is more variable than catching it. We shouldn't see significant fluctuations unless a guy changes position. Seriously, if someone would like to explain how a player can become a 700% better defender in two years, I'll listen.

Opportunities. There's a counting component to the defensive metrics. Michael Cuddyer was involved in over 1000 defensive plays in 2010. He was involved in about 700 in 2011. And 500 in 2012. And the difference in positions played. He played 1B, RF, 3B, CF, and 2B in 2010. He played RF, 1B, 2B in 2011. And he played RF and 1B in 2012.

Defensive stats are still largely a crap shoot. Based on too many things, and shouldn't be taken as gospel by any means. But the variance does make sense when you look at the differences in opportunities to make plays, and the positions at which you're making those plays.

[gman]

I am stuck on trying to remember the great outfield rookies that came up that Kepler has been challenge to keep his job over. His position on your list is based on longevity and lack of system development, i.e. the Twins simply have had no one come up from the minors to run him off. More a statement of how bad they have been then how good he is.

[Stew]

EI like Kepler, but your nuts if you think he's one of the best. You say with a average year he will be 7th. best. How about having 2 good years. Let alone back to back good years. I've seen him to many times come up in big situations and get an out when we had a great chance to score runs. All new stats drive me nuts. If your average is high enough you have a good on base percentage. If you get on base and other players do the same your in scoring position. If if continues you score runs. Easy as that. Look  at our guy we sent to Miami. Look at his slg. percentage.

 

[Riverbrian]

For many years... I have consistently ignored WAR F or B or any letter because of it's over weighting of zone rating metrics. 

Especially in the OF... The routine play makes up a large majority of the chances. The Non-Routine plays occurs once every 3 games and that one non-routine play can be influenced by where you are standing in the OF. 

From those non-routine plays that occur 1 every 3 games on average. A player can be a negative hitter yet plus WAR and Max Kepler can be presented as one of the greatest of all time.  This is overweighting the defensive data crammed into the statistic. 

This article has confirmed that I have been correct to ignore that stat and I will continue to do so. 

Meanwhile... one of the best Twins outfielders of all time will be signing a minor league contract next year.  

[nicksaviking]

37 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Opportunities. There's a counting component to the defensive metrics. Michael Cuddyer was involved in over 1000 defensive plays in 2010. He was involved in about 700 in 2011. And 500 in 2012. And the difference in positions played. He played 1B, RF, 3B, CF, and 2B in 2010. He played RF, 1B, 2B in 2011. And he played RF and 1B in 2012.

Defensive stats are still largely a crap shoot. Based on too many things, and shouldn't be taken as gospel by any means. But the variance does make sense when you look at the differences in opportunities to make plays, and the positions at which you're making those plays.

Which means the stratification of those results should not be infinite, it should be a fixed scale, something like 1-10. Not -30 through+60 which will wildly swing the overall fWAR.

Plus, I can almost certainly explain the large changes in Cuddyer's numbers and it's less to do with chances. Cuddyer played 539 innings in RF in 2010 and 639 in 2011, yet he was an exponentially better right fielder in 2011. Why? In 2010, the Twins thought balls bouncing off of their new RF wall would shoot back to the infield, so Cuddyer played shallow, but it turned out the balls didn't bounce that way. In 2011, Cuddyer played deeper as right field is such a small area to cover. According to Fangraphs, Jason Kubel also saw a 100% defensive improvement playing RF from 2010 to 2011. It's also certainly why Torii Hunter improved upon leaving the giant Comerica Park, and why right fielders in general have not been an issue at Target Field (apologies Miguel Sano). Yet the equation doesn't seem to be able to factor in managerial or some ball park inclinations. Which should go without saying, has no bearing on the quality of the defender.

[ashbury]

3 hours ago, old nurse said:

Longevity has a way of skewing stats 

Concur.  There are times when WAR is a useful measure of a player's contribution, but when the discussion involves words like "greatest" I prefer the related measure, Wins Above Average.  On b-r.com this change in view knocks Kepler down to 10th from 8th.  This was setting at 80% the number of total games when in the outfield - if I lower it to 60% then I get reminded that Tovar played a lot of CF and should be in the discussion.

My Mount Rushmore for Twins outfielders would be something like Puckett, Oliva, Allison, Buxton.  For a franchise like the Twins, going much beyond 4 (Mack? Span?) starts to get into a Local Hall of the Very Good, not "greatest."

Max Kepler certainly was Very Good.

[chpettit19]

2 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Which means the stratification of those results should not be infinite, it should be a fixed scale, something like 1-10. Not -30 through+60 which will wildly swing the overall fWAR.

Plus, I can almost certainly explain the large changes in Cuddyer's numbers and it's less to do with chances. Cuddyer played 539 innings in RF in 2010 and 639 in 2011, yet he was an exponentially better right fielder in 2011. Why? In 2010, the Twins thought balls bouncing off of their new RF wall would shoot back to the infield, so Cuddyer played shallow, but it turned out the balls didn't bounce that way. In 2011, Cuddyer played deeper as right field is such a small area to cover. According to Fangraphs, Jason Kubel also saw a 100% defensive improvement playing RF from 2010 to 2011. It's also certainly why Torii Hunter improved upon leaving the giant Comerica Park, and why right fielders in general have not been an issue at Target Field (apologies Miguel Sano). Yet the equation doesn't seem to be able to factor in managerial or some ball park inclinations. Which should go without saying, has no bearing on the quality of the defender.

And that's why they're a crap shoot still. There's too many variables to have it be anywhere near as reliable as offensive stats. You asked for reasons why defensive stats can swing so much, and I was just giving you reasons why. I'm not defending defensive stats, just explaining why they can vary so much.

WAR is attempting to show an individual player's impact on a season. Cuddyer playing shallower doesn't make him a worse fielder in terms of reads, range, etc., but it did effect the impact he had on plays. It makes sense that that's what WAR cares about. That doesn't make the defensive metric super reliable, but WAR doesn't care that Cuddyer had the same range in RF in 2010 as he did in 2011, it cares what he actually did on the field. In 2010 he played too shallow so he wasn't able to make the plays he was in 2011 when he played deeper. When judging his impact on the game it makes sense for that to be reflected in his WAR numbers.

[Brett]

He peaked in ‘19, and had 2 more adequate seasons. Last year and this year has been a struggle at the plate but he seems fine in the field.

 I’m sure he will serve some team very well as a 4th OF, and I’m also sure I’ll watch Wallner misplay something next year in RF and think to myself “Kepler would have caught that.”

[USNMCPO]

4 hours ago, DJL44 said:

That's a depressing list of "all time great outfielders".

I have to disagree. I am old enough to have seen all of them in person. They were truly excellent outfielders. For the most part they also were very clutch hitters. I only saw Tovar play outfield once so a very small sample. Allison and Oliva were great hitters and smooth outfielders. Oliva was really hurt by knee injuries. The later guys on the list were all good too. Not sure what your criteria was but, it does not match mine.

[ashbury]

58 minutes ago, Brett said:

 I’m sure he will serve some team very well as a 4th OF, and I’m also sure I’ll watch Wallner misplay something next year in RF and think to myself “Kepler would have caught that.”

Wallner will also launch someone's fat pitch toward the stands in RF and you'll say "Kepler would not have caught that," in either sense of the phrase.

[dogsday]

Boy, the title of the article just feels depressing.

[Linus]

I’ve been skeptical of defensive stats since Josh Willingham had better defensive numbers than Torii Hunter. I guess I’m ant-intellectual. Some above made the best observation: the Twins haven’t developed any outfielders good enough to take his place during his tenure. That’s not good. 

[terrydactyls]

I'm trying real hard to understand what this FWAR/WAR crap is about.  But if either uses where a player positions himself when the pitch is delivered, then I can't accept it as valid.  Since Cuddyer was used above as an example, I'll use him also,  If the manager of the team uses metrics to have Cuddyer play shallow one year and deep the next year, why is Cuddyer rated as a poor fielder one year and a good fielder another?  He's the same damn player.  My belief is that the the eye test works better in determing if a player is good or bad.  I don't need metrics to tell me Kepler is an improvement over Sano in RF.  I can determine that by just watching.