How big of sample size do we need before we are sold on that is who the player is?

[Trov]

I ask the question because I think sometimes we get sold too quickly, good and bad, on short sample sizes.  I also think, when a player has a good stretch, we too often will say but what if that is the norm for the player, and will given more chances for longer periods.  I think with all the data now, we can break down hot streaks and slumps more than ever before, to really drive down to who the real player is.  Sometimes there are outliers that "luck" really is not playing a factor but the player is the outlier. 

One player that Twins fans on here really wanted us to sell some or many of prospects for was Corbin Burnes.  They would point out his basically 2 year peak run as why he was an ace and why we needed him, and he would put us over the top.  Names like Lewis, Lee, E-Rod, and other top names were floated.  His 2020 to mid 2022 run was nothing short of amazing.  HOF stretch of run for basically 2 full seasons worth of games, as the 2020 season was 60 games, and the second half of 2022 was not good, and he was blamed for the fall of the Brewers in 2022.  He was 25 thru 27 seasons.  He time prior to 2020 and since second half of 2022 have been basically an average pitcher, with some very good games, very bad games but most just end of rotation starter numbers, far from the super ace numbers he had for about a 50 game stretch.  He has played 152 games, started 91 games in his career, not starting really until 2020 season.  

So is Burns his 50 game super ace, or his 102, 41 game middle of road starter, or somewhere in between?  Will he get closer to his peak?  He is not alone in these questions.  Matt Harvey exploded on the scene in 2012, with 10 starts and carried that into 2013, missing 2014 due to injury, but then 2015 doing what he did in 2013.  Every thought he would be HOF bound just dominating.  Then he fell off a cliff and for 6 years getting chances to pitch over and over, in hopes he could be even close to his 2015 and prior self.  There are many more we can point to. 

Hitters get less of a leash it would seem, but we still give them time to bounce back after peak years.  I think we will quickly cast off prospects if they do not explode on the scene, unless they were highly touted prior to promotions.  Take Luis Arraez.  He was never a highly touted player, poor defense, no power, and lack of speed.  Basically, he was just a bat that could hit singles around the field.  Many fans here, were always waiting for the lack of power and "unsustainable" BABIP, to bring him back to earth.  He has always been an outlier.  His BABIP is well above league average, and his hard hit rate well below league average, this year much lower than his average with Twins.  When will he just be accepted as an outlier? 

Brent Rooker started this year off to super hot start, but has since cooled off.  Many on here were writing if we screwed up on passing on him, but now looks like April was just a SSS. Since April he has been unplayable basically, but some are hoping he could be what he was for 1 month in his career, or stints in AAA.  A couple of people were mad we let Akil Baddoo go, because he had some hot stretches in his first season with Detroit, but since he has been basically what we already have in many OF.  Is Baddoo the rookie numbers he put up in stretches, or is he what he has been since?  Sadly, sometimes rookie numbers are the best you get from a player at MLB level.  

Really, my question is, how long do we need to see who a player is before we believe them?  Yes, it is generally based on looking at history, of other players, or that player themselves.  Generally, if a player has a high prospect rank we give them more time to prove it, but if it is a low prospect rank we require a longer stretch.  Sometimes a vet after years of poor play do have a bounce back year or two and it gives hope for others that maybe they will play above what they did for stretches.  I think many times for pitchers it is a new pitch is learned, and for hitters a new approach or swing is developed, but many times when a vet tries to come back under those situations it is SSS again.  

We are seeing some HOF pitchers maybe reaching end of their run.  Mainly Verlander, who is having worst year since 2017, but we saw a run from 2014 to 2017 where they thought he was done or trending toward end of his career, only to still win Cy Young at age 39.  Is he done, or just having a rough run? Really it is GM's that get paid to figure that stuff out, but it is an interesting question for many players. 

[Rod Carews Birthday]

This is an exceedingly difficult question to answer — in reality it’s two questions.  One is what to think of a young player and how quickly to make that decision.  The second is how to know that an older player is “done”.  I think that the second is an easier call, although teams and their fans sometimes can’t bring themselves to admit it, whether for reasons of contract or loyalty.  Sometimes there are players like Verlander who fade and have a comeback, but it’s relatively rare.  I also wonder what the underlying stats would have looked like through his down period would have looked like.  I wonder if they were still OK, but I don’t know that.  I know that with hitters, the numbers usually fall off the table when they are done.  At the end of the day, Father Time is undefeated, so in the end, we all know what it looks like.  

Projecting the arc of a younger player is so much more difficult.  Since he hasn’t ever been a star, we don’t know if he will progress that far or not.  For hitters, some have put forward 500 or 1000 plate appearances as a magic number.  That seems reasonable, although it’s still not a sure thing.  Brent Rooker only has about 500 right now, and Baddoo and Wade, Jr. are still less than 1000, so the jury is still out.  For pitchers, I think all bets are off.  It seems that every year new pitchers get discovered that hadn’t been successful before.  This is especially true for former (washed up?) starters becoming relievers - think Brock Stewart.  Sometimes pitchers (more than hitters) can re-invent themselves and make their entire game about one either new or tremendously effective pitch, like Sergio Romo or even Mariano Rivera.  

Very difficult questions.  Great post!

[ashbury]

Concur with Rod both on his kudos and on his insights.  Some observations...

Tom Kelly is often quoted that you need to give a hitter 1000 PA.  People sometimes assume that to mean you need to give any prospect that long of a leash, but I think he meant that you can tell pretty quickly if someone isn't going to hit, but when someone succeeds you still need to allow it some time until you conclude he's for real.  Probably for pitchers you could use a similar criterion like batters-faced.

A general manager long ago, let's say Branch Rickey though it could have been Bill Veeck or Frank "Trader" Lane, said that it's better to trade a veteran a year too early than a year too late.

It used to be thought that a player reaching age 30 was just entering his prime.  We now expect that at that age he has already entered a decline phase.

While we remember the long careers like Musial and Ripken and Cabrera and Spahn and Ryan and Verlander, the truth is that most players, even the stars, have a relatively brief career.  Sometimes that's due to injury, sometimes to circumstance.  By the time you have figured out someone's any good, he's already showing signs that he won't be for long.  Part of being a Hall of Famer is defying that trend.

Players get hurt, and sometimes can play through it all season, and heal up in the off-season.  Might that be the case for Burnes?  Who knows?

As Rod said, very difficult questions.  That's why the GM gets paid the big bucks.

[Rod Carews Birthday]

55 minutes ago, Bigfork Twins Guy said:

I bet the Tigers thought they had given Castro enough at-bats to know what he was.  Then he comes here and is doing wonderful as a utility player.  Hard to know how to judge these things.  Sometimes all it needs is a change of scenery or a different coaches voice.

That is definitely true.  Amazing that Castro was a cast off from one of the lesser teams in the league, but comes to MN and does quite well.  Shockingly, he seems to doing as well as the more obvious Twins stars like Buxton and Correa.  Saying the right thing at the right time in the right way to the right person is never to be underestimated.  One would think that if Castro can do it, so can those other guys, but apparently that would be incorrect.  Or, maybe sometimes it’s just dumb luck.

 

[Mike Sixel]

I think track record in the minors plays a point. It's a great topic. I'd say several years for guys with track records .... But I do think it can be fairly obvious if a guy is super unlikely to be good. 

[Reptevia]

For the Twins?  Three + years of Kepler haven’t convinced them, so apparently longer than that?

[FlyingFinn]

2 hours ago, ashbury said:

A general manager long ago, let's say Branch Rickey though it could have been Bill Veeck or Frank "Trader" Lane, said that it's better to trade a veteran a year too early than a year too late.

Polanco

[JD-TWINS]

4 hours ago, Trov said:

I ask the question because I think sometimes we get sold too quickly, good and bad, on short sample sizes.  I also think, when a player has a good stretch, we too often will say but what if that is the norm for the player, and will given more chances for longer periods.  I think with all the data now, we can break down hot streaks and slumps more than ever before, to really drive down to who the real player is.  Sometimes there are outliers that "luck" really is not playing a factor but the player is the outlier. 

One player that Twins fans on here really wanted us to sell some or many of prospects for was Corbin Burnes.  They would point out his basically 2 year peak run as why he was an ace and why we needed him, and he would put us over the top.  Names like Lewis, Lee, E-Rod, and other top names were floated.  His 2020 to mid 2022 run was nothing short of amazing.  HOF stretch of run for basically 2 full seasons worth of games, as the 2020 season was 60 games, and the second half of 2022 was not good, and he was blamed for the fall of the Brewers in 2022.  He was 25 thru 27 seasons.  He time prior to 2020 and since second half of 2022 have been basically an average pitcher, with some very good games, very bad games but most just end of rotation starter numbers, far from the super ace numbers he had for about a 50 game stretch.  He has played 152 games, started 91 games in his career, not starting really until 2020 season.  

So is Burns his 50 game super ace, or his 102, 41 game middle of road starter, or somewhere in between?  Will he get closer to his peak?  He is not alone in these questions.  Matt Harvey exploded on the scene in 2012, with 10 starts and carried that into 2013, missing 2014 due to injury, but then 2015 doing what he did in 2013.  Every thought he would be HOF bound just dominating.  Then he fell off a cliff and for 6 years getting chances to pitch over and over, in hopes he could be even close to his 2015 and prior self.  There are many more we can point to. 

Hitters get less of a leash it would seem, but we still give them time to bounce back after peak years.  I think we will quickly cast off prospects if they do not explode on the scene, unless they were highly touted prior to promotions.  Take Luis Arraez.  He was never a highly touted player, poor defense, no power, and lack of speed.  Basically, he was just a bat that could hit singles around the field.  Many fans here, were always waiting for the lack of power and "unsustainable" BABIP, to bring him back to earth.  He has always been an outlier.  His BABIP is well above league average, and his hard hit rate well below league average, this year much lower than his average with Twins.  When will he just be accepted as an outlier? 

Brent Rooker started this year off to super hot start, but has since cooled off.  Many on here were writing if we screwed up on passing on him, but now looks like April was just a SSS. Since April he has been unplayable basically, but some are hoping he could be what he was for 1 month in his career, or stints in AAA.  A couple of people were mad we let Akil Baddoo go, because he had some hot stretches in his first season with Detroit, but since he has been basically what we already have in many OF.  Is Baddoo the rookie numbers he put up in stretches, or is he what he has been since?  Sadly, sometimes rookie numbers are the best you get from a player at MLB level.  

Really, my question is, how long do we need to see who a player is before we believe them?  Yes, it is generally based on looking at history, of other players, or that player themselves.  Generally, if a player has a high prospect rank we give them more time to prove it, but if it is a low prospect rank we require a longer stretch.  Sometimes a vet after years of poor play do have a bounce back year or two and it gives hope for others that maybe they will play above what they did for stretches.  I think many times for pitchers it is a new pitch is learned, and for hitters a new approach or swing is developed, but many times when a vet tries to come back under those situations it is SSS again.  

We are seeing some HOF pitchers maybe reaching end of their run.  Mainly Verlander, who is having worst year since 2017, but we saw a run from 2014 to 2017 where they thought he was done or trending toward end of his career, only to still win Cy Young at age 39.  Is he done, or just having a rough run? Really it is GM's that get paid to figure that stuff out, but it is an interesting question for many players. 

I do/did like Burnes for $25 million per year for 4 years or maybe even a little more money. This move was in order to not have to trade for a pitcher. Keeping Arraez allows the organization to trade a high ranking prospect……plus a guy like SWR. Say we traded Lee & SWR & we didn’t have Lopez but still had Arraez hitting .320 plus Burnes under contract - better off?

Burnes, while a professional, is pissed off at an organization that has shown him no respect in the recent arbitration process. I believe that is part of the results the Brewers are getting on some small level.

Players peaks & valleys all vary - I get that piece of your argument - seems obvious.

Verlander’s comeback, or at least a good piece of it, is due to his sitting for well over a season and the benefits of having a rejuvenated attitude & right arm after Tommy John surgery.

[ashbury]

51 minutes ago, FlyingFinn said:

Polanco

You misspelled "Luck", the new topic of this thread. 

[Shobae]

To try and answer the actual question in this thread. To my understanding it depends on a few things. The first is what are we trying to establish, that the player is a good hitter? fielder? baserunner? That will all impact what sample size you want. The second is I guess what we mean by who the player is, who they are right now? Who they were? Or who they'll be in the future. I think the problem becomes when we look at multiple seasons it's possible for the talent level of a player to change so you can't always be too sure unless you weight the season what we're looking at. (I'm ignoring defense because it's a sh*t show analytically).
For hitters you generally want around 500 plate appearances before the hitting stats (ops and similar) become reliable in one season. You can look at their statcast numbers but they are not predictive, they tell you about how the player has performed. But with young guys their skill keeps changing as they adjust to the league so last seasons numbers so there is usually more variance year to year. As for pitchers well it gets a lot more iffy because there is so much going on when you pitch that it becomes hard to pick out the true talent level of a player. I honestly haven't seen much research on this so my guess would be around 500 IP for starters and like 150 IP for relievers (focusing on controllable numbers) maybe? Here the thing is you should probably weighed the recent seasons more heavily as a best practice. But realistically nobody does that.
But I guess overall my take away would be at least wait a full seasons worth before making any decisions on a guy and more time to evaluate him is always better. Also looking at metrics like max EV on batters and pitchers can give you a rough idea of their ceiling.

[jmlease1]

4 hours ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

That is definitely true.  Amazing that Castro was a cast off from one of the lesser teams in the league, but comes to MN and does quite well.  Shockingly, he seems to doing as well as the more obvious Twins stars like Buxton and Correa.  Saying the right thing at the right time in the right way to the right person is never to be underestimated.  One would think that if Castro can do it, so can those other guys, but apparently that would be incorrect.  Or, maybe sometimes it’s just dumb luck.

 

I think the Castro situation is a little different. With the Tigers, they were trying to develop him into an every day player, and they let him go when he was going to start getting expensive, because they evaluated him as a player who wasn't good enough defensively to stick at SS (which is why they signed Baez) and wasn't going to hit enough to be an every day player anywhere else. As a utility guy he's doing quite well, as his defensive versatility adds additional utility. but he's still a below average hitter. It's also easier for a player to accept a bench role with a different team some times and it could easily be that in Detroit he thought he still deserved to start.

I don't think Detroit mis-evaluated Castro as a hitter, they just might not have been interested in investing resources and a roster spot on a utility guy (especially if they needed a spot for a backup SS)? Castro is also having easily his best season as a pro defensively...which may be in part to them not over-exposing him at SS.

It is a really interesting question on how big a sample you need before you can tell who a player is. I feel like the Tom Kelly "1000 ABs formulation is probably on the outside boundary for a hitter who hasn't been showing improvement in their stats/metrics. You probably have a pretty good idea earlier than that. But it is interesting in the Castro context: coming into this season he had 1007 ABs...

[Riverbrian]

On 7/3/2023 at 9:02 AM, Trov said:

I ask the question because I think sometimes we get sold too quickly, good and bad, on short sample sizes.  I also think, when a player has a good stretch, we too often will say but what if that is the norm for the player, and will given more chances for longer periods.  I think with all the data now, we can break down hot streaks and slumps more than ever before, to really drive down to who the real player is.  Sometimes there are outliers that "luck" really is not playing a factor but the player is the outlier. 

One player that Twins fans on here really wanted us to sell some or many of prospects for was Corbin Burnes.  They would point out his basically 2 year peak run as why he was an ace and why we needed him, and he would put us over the top.  Names like Lewis, Lee, E-Rod, and other top names were floated.  His 2020 to mid 2022 run was nothing short of amazing.  HOF stretch of run for basically 2 full seasons worth of games, as the 2020 season was 60 games, and the second half of 2022 was not good, and he was blamed for the fall of the Brewers in 2022.  He was 25 thru 27 seasons.  He time prior to 2020 and since second half of 2022 have been basically an average pitcher, with some very good games, very bad games but most just end of rotation starter numbers, far from the super ace numbers he had for about a 50 game stretch.  He has played 152 games, started 91 games in his career, not starting really until 2020 season.  

So is Burns his 50 game super ace, or his 102, 41 game middle of road starter, or somewhere in between?  Will he get closer to his peak?  He is not alone in these questions.  Matt Harvey exploded on the scene in 2012, with 10 starts and carried that into 2013, missing 2014 due to injury, but then 2015 doing what he did in 2013.  Every thought he would be HOF bound just dominating.  Then he fell off a cliff and for 6 years getting chances to pitch over and over, in hopes he could be even close to his 2015 and prior self.  There are many more we can point to. 

Hitters get less of a leash it would seem, but we still give them time to bounce back after peak years.  I think we will quickly cast off prospects if they do not explode on the scene, unless they were highly touted prior to promotions.  Take Luis Arraez.  He was never a highly touted player, poor defense, no power, and lack of speed.  Basically, he was just a bat that could hit singles around the field.  Many fans here, were always waiting for the lack of power and "unsustainable" BABIP, to bring him back to earth.  He has always been an outlier.  His BABIP is well above league average, and his hard hit rate well below league average, this year much lower than his average with Twins.  When will he just be accepted as an outlier? 

Brent Rooker started this year off to super hot start, but has since cooled off.  Many on here were writing if we screwed up on passing on him, but now looks like April was just a SSS. Since April he has been unplayable basically, but some are hoping he could be what he was for 1 month in his career, or stints in AAA.  A couple of people were mad we let Akil Baddoo go, because he had some hot stretches in his first season with Detroit, but since he has been basically what we already have in many OF.  Is Baddoo the rookie numbers he put up in stretches, or is he what he has been since?  Sadly, sometimes rookie numbers are the best you get from a player at MLB level.  

Really, my question is, how long do we need to see who a player is before we believe them?  Yes, it is generally based on looking at history, of other players, or that player themselves.  Generally, if a player has a high prospect rank we give them more time to prove it, but if it is a low prospect rank we require a longer stretch.  Sometimes a vet after years of poor play do have a bounce back year or two and it gives hope for others that maybe they will play above what they did for stretches.  I think many times for pitchers it is a new pitch is learned, and for hitters a new approach or swing is developed, but many times when a vet tries to come back under those situations it is SSS again.  

We are seeing some HOF pitchers maybe reaching end of their run.  Mainly Verlander, who is having worst year since 2017, but we saw a run from 2014 to 2017 where they thought he was done or trending toward end of his career, only to still win Cy Young at age 39.  Is he done, or just having a rough run? Really it is GM's that get paid to figure that stuff out, but it is an interesting question for many players. 

First class post and a fun discussion. 

I wish there was a sample size number that would be easy to point to but I don't see it.

What I see is a wide variety of development lengths squeezed into varying sizes of windows of opportunity colliding with hard CBA defined decision dates and spilled amongst the chaos of injuries. 

I have said this a hundred times and I'll say it at least a hundred times more.  The margins are thin... you have to let the players decide... clubs have to get out of the way and let the players tell you. 

If anyone can explain why Chris Williams has no chance at a MLB job and why Max Kepler can keep his. You will be closer to answering the sample size number required to know who someone is. 

Great topic 

[Trov]

45 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

First class post and a fun discussion. 

I wish there was a sample size number that would be easy to point to but I don't see it.

What I see is a wide variety of development time line length squeezed into narrow windows of opportunity that run concurrently with hard CBA defined decision dates. 

I have said this a hundred times and I'll say it at least a hundred times more.  The margins are thin... you have to let the players decide... clubs have to get out of the way and let the players tell you. 

If anyone can explain why Chris Williams has no chance at a MLB job and why Max Kepler can keep his. You will be closer to answering the sample size number required to know who someone is. 

Great topic 

Thank you for the complement.  I mainly am thinking on we have prospects he let slide for years, or even get moved up despite numbers not great, but maybe they are following the process.  However, we have guys that put up good numbers for years, but many say they are not MLB level.  Then we have players that make the majors, have 1 or 2 good seasons and then are able to ride out that for years on the what if they can be that again, but some players have a 1 or 2 good seasons then 1 or 2 bad ones and people say they are done.  

It also seems pitchers will get more time to show they are still good or can be good, than position players.  I think that is just from the number of pitchers needed every season. 

[Trov]

On 7/3/2023 at 2:02 PM, JD-TWINS said:

I do/did like Burnes for $25 million per year for 4 years or maybe even a little more money. This move was in order to not have to trade for a pitcher. Keeping Arraez allows the organization to trade a high ranking prospect……plus a guy like SWR. Say we traded Lee & SWR & we didn’t have Lopez but still had Arraez hitting .320 plus Burnes under contract - better off?

Burnes, while a professional, is pissed off at an organization that has shown him no respect in the recent arbitration process. I believe that is part of the results the Brewers are getting on some small level.

Players peaks & valleys all vary - I get that piece of your argument - seems obvious.

Verlander’s comeback, or at least a good piece of it, is due to his sitting for well over a season and the benefits of having a rejuvenated attitude & right arm after Tommy John surgery.

I was just using Burnes as an example, along with the others.  It is possible Burnes will do better leaving Brewers because of the way the team had treated him, but at the same time, it is possible, just like many pitchers, Burnes was at his peak and now downhill. There are many pitchers that have similar career issues, but they continue to get chances.  So part of my question is how long do you wait until you just decide they are not who they were but they are who they are now?  We signed a guy that people say former cy young guy signed, but that was years ago and has not been very good since.  We hope his time at Driveline has change him some and he regained something, but we signed him to minor league deal just to see.  

[Riverbrian]

1 minute ago, Trov said:

Thank you for the complement.  I mainly am thinking on we have prospects he let slide for years, or even get moved up despite numbers not great, but maybe they are following the process.  However, we have guys that put up good numbers for years, but many say they are not MLB level.  Then we have players that make the majors, have 1 or 2 good seasons and then are able to ride out that for years on the what if they can be that again, but some players have a 1 or 2 good seasons then 1 or 2 bad ones and people say they are done.  

It also seems pitchers will get more time to show they are still good or can be good, than position players.  I think that is just from the number of pitchers needed every season. 

Unfortunately... the clubs are making the determinations on who gets the gift of time and who doesn't.  Some players are going to be put back out there again and again until they prove the club right. 

The clubs get to determine whose .900 OPS gets sent back to AAA when the .700 OPS returns from injury. Whose 1,000 OPS at AAA means something and whose 1,000 OPS at AAA means nothing. 

There are only a handful of superstars. The rest is a big pile of thin margins. The clubs will determine who from the margins get to keep going and they are wrong a lot. 

 

  

 

 

[JD-TWINS]

46 minutes ago, Trov said:

I was just using Burnes as an example, along with the others.  It is possible Burnes will do better leaving Brewers because of the way the team had treated him, but at the same time, it is possible, just like many pitchers, Burnes was at his peak and now downhill. There are many pitchers that have similar career issues, but they continue to get chances.  So part of my question is how long do you wait until you just decide they are not who they were but they are who they are now?  We signed a guy that people say former cy young guy signed, but that was years ago and has not been very good since.  We hope his time at Driveline has change him some and he regained something, but we signed him to minor league deal just to see.  

Kuechel is obviously a stretch - pretty easy to take a flyer on him with a minor league deal. Fingers crossed! An organization is rolling the dice with a long & costly deal with any pitcher/athlete. (see B. Buxton) When it’s done with a guy that on paper should have 3-4 good years left (by age) it’s something that good teams try. Burnes, as an example, appears that he’ll hold up physically to eat innings at a minimum. He obviously competes and that’s another positive check mark. There’s no magic on how many or which chance to take. Can spend Gray/Mahle $ to afford him.

I do think, that good teams take a chance or 3 on every roster. CC is one - Buxton has become two - a guy like Burnes may be too much risk or he might win 60% of his starts for 3 years?

Maybe we sign Gray for 2 more years at $23M/year? With Ober/Ryan/Varland/Lopez and the $ reduction of $12M on dropping Mahle, we could re-run this year’s staff and we add Paddack for no extra $. Is Gray worth the risk at 34 & 35 years of age?

Have learned some in the TD Forum about this QO and it seems to be an obvious move for Gray.

We could get a pick and then use his $ & Mahle’s $ to extend Ryan & maybe Ober late season next year?

Hoping for a less costly FA starter - probably no such thing with the same upside of Gray.

[Blyleven2011]

In most cases for talented players you need 3 years to evaluate what kind of player he might be offensively or defensively ...

With injuries of course it can take longer to know if he can fill out his projections or not  ...

[chpettit19]

3 hours ago, Trov said:

Thank you for the complement.  I mainly am thinking on we have prospects he let slide for years, or even get moved up despite numbers not great, but maybe they are following the process.  However, we have guys that put up good numbers for years, but many say they are not MLB level.  Then we have players that make the majors, have 1 or 2 good seasons and then are able to ride out that for years on the what if they can be that again, but some players have a 1 or 2 good seasons then 1 or 2 bad ones and people say they are done.  

It also seems pitchers will get more time to show they are still good or can be good, than position players.  I think that is just from the number of pitchers needed every season. 

A lot of it has to do with stuff we as fans aren't really watching, or even privy to sometimes. We can all look up minor league numbers since we have access to the internet. But how a player comes to those numbers is far more complicated, and that's what (good) teams are looking at when making a decision on who gets more chances, and who doesn't. 

Since it's draft time I'll use Skenes as my pitching example. He put up insane numbers this year, with incredible velo numbers that we can all see, and I'd guess he dominates at the lower minors immediately, and maybe even the high minors this year. But what teams are looking at are how he gets hitters out. The SEC is as good as it gets in college baseball, but there's plenty of guys at that level that 100+ over and over just blows away. He didn't need more than his fastball and slider. In the bigs he most likely will need to develop his change to at least have it in the hitter's head if he wants to dominate as a starter. But his fastball and slider will get him time because they make his ceiling sky high if he develops a 3rd pitch, and teams are willing to be patient with potential.

For hitters they're looking at how they reach their hitting numbers as well. Larnach, as is well known, really struggles with off speed stuff. He can mash minors pitching because those guys can't get their off speed stuff over as consistently which leads to them throwing him more fastballs which he then pounds. Because he has the potential to spray the ball around the field, and hit 450 ft homeruns, he keeps getting chances to show he can figure out how to hit breaking stuff. 

Elite physical talents gets you extra chances. The good teams are the ones who are able to figure out how each player's individual talents will play at the next level up. The Arraez's of the world don't get so many chances because their margin for error is so much smaller. He's an extreme example because he's basically 1 of 1 in baseball today. It's really hard to hit well when you can't impact the ball well. He has to hit it at the right angle, and in the right direction, constantly or he's hitting lazy fly balls or 20 hoppers. But a guy like Larnach who can hit the ball much harder doesn't have to be as precise.

But guys in the minors who put up all their numbers by being pull happy, fastball mashers, with big holes in their swings don't get many shots because teams know MLB pitchers will carve them up. So really long post just to say the sample size, and chances a player gets, are based on the "how" of attaining their numbers paired with physical gifts so they're all on a spectrum. And it pays to be 6'4" and really athletic.

[jorgenswest]

Slash stats need a very large sample size. ERA needs years. A batter or pitcher really can run into a multiyear stretch of “luck” on those.

There are some stats that do become stable. Strikeout rate and walk rate stabilize early. Pitch level stats will stabilize earlier. The better teams can use those to project  and improve performance the better they will be at developing a roster.

OPS is great for telling the story of the past but its components need a large sample size. Broadcasters compound this by reporting slash stats in splits by handedness or months or even weeks. They may tell an interesting story of the but are virtually meaningless for the current at bat. 

[Riverbrian]

On 7/7/2023 at 11:46 AM, chpettit19 said:

A lot of it has to do with stuff we as fans aren't really watching, or even privy to sometimes. We can all look up minor league numbers since we have access to the internet. But how a player comes to those numbers is far more complicated, and that's what (good) teams are looking at when making a decision on who gets more chances, and who doesn't. 

Since it's draft time I'll use Skenes as my pitching example. He put up insane numbers this year, with incredible velo numbers that we can all see, and I'd guess he dominates at the lower minors immediately, and maybe even the high minors this year. But what teams are looking at are how he gets hitters out. The SEC is as good as it gets in college baseball, but there's plenty of guys at that level that 100+ over and over just blows away. He didn't need more than his fastball and slider. In the bigs he most likely will need to develop his change to at least have it in the hitter's head if he wants to dominate as a starter. But his fastball and slider will get him time because they make his ceiling sky high if he develops a 3rd pitch, and teams are willing to be patient with potential.

For hitters they're looking at how they reach their hitting numbers as well. Larnach, as is well known, really struggles with off speed stuff. He can mash minors pitching because those guys can't get their off speed stuff over as consistently which leads to them throwing him more fastballs which he then pounds. Because he has the potential to spray the ball around the field, and hit 450 ft homeruns, he keeps getting chances to show he can figure out how to hit breaking stuff. 

Elite physical talents gets you extra chances. The good teams are the ones who are able to figure out how each player's individual talents will play at the next level up. The Arraez's of the world don't get so many chances because their margin for error is so much smaller. He's an extreme example because he's basically 1 of 1 in baseball today. It's really hard to hit well when you can't impact the ball well. He has to hit it at the right angle, and in the right direction, constantly or he's hitting lazy fly balls or 20 hoppers. But a guy like Larnach who can hit the ball much harder doesn't have to be as precise.

But guys in the minors who put up all their numbers by being pull happy, fastball mashers, with big holes in their swings don't get many shots because teams know MLB pitchers will carve them up. So really long post just to say the sample size, and chances a player gets, are based on the "how" of attaining their numbers paired with physical gifts so they're all on a spectrum. And it pays to be 6'4" and really athletic.

There is no doubt that some players get chance after chance while others get no chance. Your explanation is probable and I have no doubt that front offices have more exposure, tools and therefore knowledge than I do. 

They are making educated guesses. 

However... 

Those educated guesses have given us the retention of Max Kepler and Emilio Pagan, the signing of Joey Gallo, and the giving away of Nick Anderson among other visible mistakes.

They have been spectacularly wrong and therefore my confidence in their abilities to make the correct decision based on the information available to them has eroded appropriately. 

I'm not just picking on our front office. Pick a team. The mistakes are visible. 

The Angels: Mickey Moniak has 130 AB's... 11th on the team in AB's with a .984 OPS. 

He didn't make the team out of spring training. He still had to wait his turn. The Angels couldn't see it with all those spray charts and exit velo data to guide them in their decision making. 

As I watch a video of Chris Williams going oppo taco in AAA... I can't help but wonder... why does he get No chance... and why does Max Kepler get chance after chance? 

It has to be that information that we are not privy to. 

[chpettit19]

4 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

There is no doubt that some players get chance after chance while others get no chance. Your explanation is probable and I have no doubt that front offices have more exposure, tools and therefore knowledge than I do. 

They are making educated guesses. 

However... 

Those educated guesses have given us the retention of Max Kepler and Emilio Pagan, the signing of Joey Gallo, and the giving away of Nick Anderson among other visible mistakes.

They have been spectacularly wrong and therefore my confidence in their abilities to make the correct decision based on the information available to them has eroded appropriately. 

I'm not just picking on our front office. Pick a team. The mistakes are visible. 

The Angels: Mickey Moniak has 130 AB's... 11th on the team in AB's with a .984 OPS. 

He didn't make the team out of spring training. He still had to wait his turn. The Angels couldn't see it with all those spray charts and exit velo data to guide them in their decision making. 

As I watch a video of Chris Williams going oppo taco in AAA... I can't help but wonder... why does he get No chance... and why does Max Kepler get chance after chance? 

It has to be that information that we are not privy to. 

Oh there's more mistakes than successes in the world of sport. Not just with the Twins, but any team. The hits are far fewer than the misses. Professional sports are really hard. It's why the rest of us are on the internet talking about them, and not playing them.

Mickey Moniak has gotten chances. He's continued to get them, and it's because he was pick 1-1 back in 2016. He's actually an example (in a very, very small sample) of a guy who gets chances to stick around because of his physical tools in hopes that he eventually puts it all together. I'd argue the Angels did see it, and it's why they went and got him from the Phillies. Did the Angels see something the Phillies didn't? Likely not, but the Angels were more willing to give him AAA time to see if a "change of scenery" helped unlock some things.

I haven't watched many Saints games, and don't know how Williams is going about putting up his numbers. He's 26, was an 8th round senior sign pick, and provides 0 tools outside possibly his bat. In order for him to be an MLB regular he has to absolutely mash. Can he? Maybe. But he had an absolutely scorching June, and it's carrying his overall numbers this year. Did he do all that damage against a bunch of different pitch types, in multiple quadrants of the zone? Or did he happen to hammer fastballs over the heart of the plate for a month? I don't know. But I'm not going to say the Twins are doing anything crazy if it's obvious that he has a hole or 2 or 5 in his swing, but happened to have a month where AAA pitchers couldn't hit those holes. I don't know enough about him to have an opinion. He has a strikeout rate over 32% in AAA. That alone is enough to give me real questions about his ability to consistently hit major league pitching.

I'm not a fan of Kepler still being here. I thought the Gallo contract was worth the risk since his known MLB upside is an all star, gold glover. I have no answer on how Pagan got a contract this year. My point is that there's a whole lot more to "getting chances" than looking at minor league numbers with no real context. I'm all for giving some of the young guys a shot over Kepler, Gallo, Pagan, etc. I don't have high hopes that they're great players or anything, but I know what those 3 guys are, and I know they're not good enough to get the Twins where I want them to go. I do think people talk about Wallner around Twins Territory like we're sitting on Barry Bonds or something. He's got massive holes in his swing, and he's going to K at incredible rates. Teams don't (or shouldn't) need to see a guy in the majors to know they have holes in their swings. It's why I despise the "just call him up cuz you don't know what you have until you do" narrative that some fans enjoy. They do know. If you can't hit a high fastball in the minors, or elite breaking balls for strikes, you can't hit in the majors. Teams don't need to see you in the majors to know that. And with all the extra data out there now the other teams will embarrass you until your team is kind enough to demote you if you have a huge, and obvious hole. The idea that "they can't be worse" is wrong. These guys could be worse than Kepler, Gallo, and Pagan. The worse MLB player is still better than a whole lot of minor league players. But a whole bunch of minor league guys could be better than them. I want them to move on from those 3 guys, but let's also be honest enough to admit that Wallner, Williams, whoever could be far worse just like we hope they're far better.

[Riverbrian]

2 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

It's why I despise the "just call him up cuz you don't know what you have until you do" narrative that some fans enjoy.

I'm that guy. 

I come by it honestly. 

Mainly it's having very little tolerance for under performance such as Kepler, Pagan and Logan Morrison types.

There is way too much competition for spots in the sport of baseball to justify the amount of rope that they are getting. 

I know nothing about Chris Williams other than... I'm pretty sure that he won't get a 40 man roster spot no matter what he does. 

Could it be worse?  Absolutely it can be worse... but we shouldn't be looking for worse. We are looking for better but you can't look for better if you are letting the worry about worse stop you. If they are worse... throw them back from where they came and try door number 3. It's a more sensible step than holding firm with terrible. 

Bottom line... if we don't have players who can out perform Kepler. We have a development and player acquisition nightmare on our hands.

I simply don't trust the front office or any front office nor do I trust myself to consistently predict who will succeed or who will not. 

So yeah... I'm that guy... and I come by it honestly. 

[RpR]

Kepler has a low strike out rate on a team setting strike out records; he is the problem how?

[chpettit19]

16 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

I'm that guy. 

I come by it honestly. 

Mainly it's having very little tolerance for under performance such as Kepler, Pagan and Logan Morrison types.

There is way too much competition for spots in the sport of baseball to justify the amount of rope that they are getting. 

I know nothing about Chris Williams other than... I'm pretty sure that he won't get a 40 man roster spot no matter what he does. 

Could it be worse?  Absolutely it can be worse... but we shouldn't be looking for worse. We are looking for better but you can't look for better if you are letting the worry about worse stop you. If they are worse... throw them back from where they came and try door number 3. It's a more sensible step than holding firm with terrible. 

Bottom line... if we don't have players who can out perform Kepler. We have a development and player acquisition nightmare on our hands.

I simply don't trust the front office or any front office nor do I trust myself to consistently predict who will succeed or who will not. 

So yeah... I'm that guy... and I come by it honestly. 

I don't like keeping those guys around either, but the idea that anyone "won't get a 40 man roster spot no matter what (they) do" isn't one I buy. I've been calling for them to move on from guys for a while. I'm with you there. But I don't see it as close to throwing semi-educated darts at a dart board as you seem to. I don't know if you're someone who attends games, or spring training, but I'd suggest seeing if you can bump into a pro scout someday and have a chat at a game. It's absolutely not anywhere near an exact science, but it's far better than just blind guessing.

Wallner was a high pick for a reason. He's playing well in AAA. He plays Max's position. I wouldn't have picked him that high, and am not at all sold on his ability to be an MLB regular, but I don't get why he isn't someone they take a chance on to see if he's better than Max at this stage of their careers. That 1 change can't tank this season, but maybe it can help save it.

I think you may change your view a little if you sit and talk with someone who does this for a living, though. There's not as much competition for MLB spots as you may think. The difference between those guys and minor leaguers is gigantic. I think people underestimate what it takes to be even an average MLB player. I'm all for giving Wallner a shot over Gallo or Kepler. Fine with seeing what Larnach can do for the rest of the year, too. But there's nobody else on that AAA roster that has all that reasonable of a chance of being a 90, or 111, wRC+ guy. Legit major league players are night and day better than minor leaguers. And if you talk with someone who can break it down for you in real time it may change your view on things a little.

[chpettit19]

13 minutes ago, RpR said:

Kepler has a low strike out rate on a team setting strike out records; he is the problem how?

Kepler has a low batting average on a team setting low batting average records; he is the solution how?

[TwinsDr2021]

On 7/3/2023 at 10:51 AM, Rod Carews Birthday said:

That is definitely true.  Amazing that Castro was a cast off from one of the lesser teams in the league, but comes to MN and does quite well.  Shockingly, he seems to doing as well as the more obvious Twins stars like Buxton and Correa.  Saying the right thing at the right time in the right way to the right person is never to be underestimated.  One would think that if Castro can do it, so can those other guys, but apparently that would be incorrect.  Or, maybe sometimes it’s just dumb luck.

 

Castro is doing exactly what he did last year with the Tigers, other than walking a bit more. Not sure why Detroit let him go, maybe because he was Arb eligible and they didn't want to make him the 6th highest paid player on their team, or maybe they thought there were others with a higher ceiling that needed a 40 man spot. Or maybe they didn't want another below average player on their team. Lets be honest he is at best a back up player.

.241/.284/.367/.651 - OPS+ - 87

.244/.321/.365/.687 - OPS + - 90

 

[ashbury]

20 minutes ago, RpR said:

Kepler has a low strike out rate on a team setting strike out records; he is the problem how?

Washington is the team with the fewest strikeouts.  Cleveland is next lowest.  They are a problem how?

Both score barely 4 a game.  That's how.

Strikeouts are by themselves neither cause nor cure to batting woes.

/ edit - Ninja'd to a degree by chpettit

[Riverbrian]

9 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I don't like keeping those guys around either, but the idea that anyone "won't get a 40 man roster spot no matter what (they) do" isn't one I buy. I've been calling for them to move on from guys for a while. I'm with you there. But I don't see it as close to throwing semi-educated darts at a dart board as you seem to. I don't know if you're someone who attends games, or spring training, but I'd suggest seeing if you can bump into a pro scout someday and have a chat at a game. It's absolutely not anywhere near an exact science, but it's far better than just blind guessing.

Wallner was a high pick for a reason. He's playing well in AAA. He plays Max's position. I wouldn't have picked him that high, and am not at all sold on his ability to be an MLB regular, but I don't get why he isn't someone they take a chance on to see if he's better than Max at this stage of their careers. That 1 change can't tank this season, but maybe it can help save it.

I think you may change your view a little if you sit and talk with someone who does this for a living, though. There's not as much competition for MLB spots as you may think. The difference between those guys and minor leaguers is gigantic. I think people underestimate what it takes to be even an average MLB player. I'm all for giving Wallner a shot over Gallo or Kepler. Fine with seeing what Larnach can do for the rest of the year, too. But there's nobody else on that AAA roster that has all that reasonable of a chance of being a 90, or 111, wRC+ guy. Legit major league players are night and day better than minor leaguers. And if you talk with someone who can break it down for you in real time it may change your view on things a little.

I'd love to have that conversation with a pro scout. 

I would absolutely listen intently and remember everything said but... those words will just be details in the process that gets me to the same place that I already am.

"Not anywhere near an exact science" is exactly where I am right now and that is the point that I am making.  

My point isn't "blind guessing". or "semi-educated darts". 

  

 

 

 

[RpR]

31 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Kepler has a low batting average on a team setting low batting average records; he is the solution how?

I  said nothing about solution, but it seems you and others think removing him IS a solution to all Twins problems..

[RpR]

29 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Washington is the team with the fewest strikeouts.  Cleveland is next lowest.  They are a problem how?

Both score barely 4 a game.  That's how.

Strikeouts are by themselves neither cause nor cure to batting woes.

 

Analogy does not work, what they do is their situation, not the Twins, unless you think Ks are a sign of good batting skills.