Offseason Status Update: Arbitration, 40-Man Pruning, Vázquez Rumors

[saviking]

21 hours ago, arby58 said:

First, the response was to a comment that said the Twins had Lewis and Lee cued up to play - and that was not true.

Second, the Twins made the play-offs (and Correa was arguably their best position player in them), so it certainly wasn't a  'mistake' last year - it's possible the Twins don't beat Toronto if Correa wasn't playing shortstop for them.

If Correa returns to form next year, it certainly won't be a mistake. The planter fasciitis that plagued him last year wasn't even remotely related to the past ankle injury concern expressed by the two other teams (neither of whom made the play-offs, BTW).

I don't know anything about Correa as a person - my analysis is based on the Twins results last year, and his career to date. The guy has put up 40.9 WAR in the equivalent of about 8 years in MLB, he's won a Gold Glove, been a three-time All Star, Rookie of the Year, and will be entering his age 30 season. To claim the signing was a 'mistake' based on one sub-par year strikes me as based on entirely insufficient evidence.

Fair points. Guess we need to let another year go by to have this conversation again. I would love nothing more than you be right, but other than a great last month of the year in 2022 and a very good playoff series I just see a shell of what he used to be. Sure hope he doesn't get off to a horrible start the first half of next year like he has in 2022 and 2023

[tony&rodney]

8 minutes ago, saviking said:

Fair points. Guess we need to let another year go by to have this conversation again. I would love nothing more than you be right, but other than a great last month of the year in 2022 and a very good playoff series I just see a shell of what he used to be. Sure hope he doesn't get off to a horrible start the first half of next year like he has in 2022 and 2023

It is useful to remember that Correa has a no trade contract for big dollars and accept that this is not going to change. We all hope he can meet his best years on a consistent basis in the batter's box. Where Correa stands out is with his regularly strong defense at shortstop. Royce Lewis was never projected as a shortstop and wasn't too hot there coming up. He was even moved to third base in high school. Brooks Lee does everything well but his defense is far from the regular play of Correa. Lee is projected as a third baseman. If you watched Noah Miller and Brooks Lee play, it is no contest as far as defense. Suffice to say that Correa is a Twin for the foreseeable future and a really good shortstop. It is best to forget his contract and just enjoy his glove while hoping for the best from his bat.

[Riverbrian]

22 hours ago, ashbury said:

 

You're both right to call out that last paragraph.  What I had in mind was a comment made by another TD member in another thread, and I thought by prefacing what I said here with "if" in a couple of places would be clear enough, but obviously (now) it wasn't.

I do think it's a possibility that there is more going on here than just payroll considerations, but I've not seen anyone reputable offer whispered scuttlebutt about Vazquez's own view.

I saw the "if".

I also didn't read the entire thread so any context that led to a discussion of Vazquez's happiness or state of mind is going to be lost on me and your post was whe the I read of Vazquez being traded for reasons other than a trade that helps two teams is agreed upon.   

A. I'm upset that the Vikings lost to the Bears last night. I'm still with my Vikings this morning. Let's see what happens out of the bye week.  

B. I'm upset that the Vikings lost to the Bears last night. This morning I have burned all my Vikings clothing and have already purchased new Jaguars clothing and I am Jacksonville forever.   

C. I'm upset that the Vikings lost to the Bears last night and I am somewhere between A and B.  

The internet usually sees B. 

I am A

Vazquez is? 

 

 

[arby58]

1 hour ago, saviking said:

Fair points. Guess we need to let another year go by to have this conversation again. I would love nothing more than you be right, but other than a great last month of the year in 2022 and a very good playoff series I just see a shell of what he used to be. Sure hope he doesn't get off to a horrible start the first half of next year like he has in 2022 and 2023

Also fair points. I do recall that Correa had something of a breakthrough (literally) with his plantar fasciitis late last season, so perhaps that is a portent of things to come.

[Guest]

On 11/26/2023 at 7:41 AM, DJL44 said:

All the evidence says higher payroll directly correlates to on-field success

viewcontent.cgi (valpo.edu)

Pay to Play: An Analysis of Payroll and Performance in the MLB and NBA – The Harvard Sports Analysis Collective

The strong connection between MLB payrolls and wins (axios.com)

In 2019, Team Payroll and Wins Are Closely Linked | FanGraphs Baseball

viewcontent.cgi (iwu.edu)

Chapter 18 Assignment: Moneyball | Data Analytics Coding Fundamentals (bookdown.org)

The Influence of Money in MLB, 1985-2014 - Bluebird Banter

If the Twins lose all of their TV revenue this offseason they're completely incompetent at running the team and should sell it to someone else who knows how to make money.

MLB team playrolls in 2023

1. N.Y. Mets, $353,546,854
2. N.Y. Yankees, $276,999,872
3. San Diego, $248,995,932

If the Twins lose all of their TV revenue this offseason they may own a product that fewer people want to buy and watch.  Look at the Target Field attendance trends since it opened.

[Guest]

On 11/25/2023 at 5:00 PM, RpR said:

THis is Major League, not AAA.

Twins broke a losing string and showed a possible bright future; crap on fans hope now will show where Pohlads really care -- dollar signs.

This is the Major League in 2023; top three MLB team playrolls in 2023:

1. N.Y. Mets, $353,546,854
2. N.Y. Yankees, $276,999,872
3. San Diego, $248,995,932

Can't spend what we don't have.

[arby58]

On 11/26/2023 at 8:41 AM, DJL44 said:

All the evidence says higher payroll directly correlates to on-field success

viewcontent.cgi (valpo.edu)

Pay to Play: An Analysis of Payroll and Performance in the MLB and NBA – The Harvard Sports Analysis Collective

The strong connection between MLB payrolls and wins (axios.com)

In 2019, Team Payroll and Wins Are Closely Linked | FanGraphs Baseball

viewcontent.cgi (iwu.edu)

Chapter 18 Assignment: Moneyball | Data Analytics Coding Fundamentals (bookdown.org)

The Influence of Money in MLB, 1985-2014 - Bluebird Banter

If the Twins lose all of their TV revenue this offseason they're completely incompetent at running the team and should sell it to someone else who knows how to make money.

It's not nearly as simple (things rarely are) as this 'higher payroll directly correlates to on-field success' claim. First, you like to 'thumbs down' the FACT that the top three payrolls in MLB all missed the play-offs last year, and the FACT that the team with the 21st/30 payroll was in the World Series. I've never understood how a person disagrees with clear facts.

These clear facts from 2022 suggest that the 'direct correlation' is only by using a long-run regression analysis - and, in the immortal words of JM Keynes, 'in the long run we're all dead.' The point is that higher payroll teams don't always make the play-offs, and emerging, low-payroll teams can and do.

If you delve into the paper from the Harvard Sports Collective, there was a fascinating discussion about payroll concentration (where they use the Herfindahl Hirschman index, or HHI) to measure spending a lot on a handful of players. Interestingly, they find no statistically significant correlation between those high impact player purchases and positive outcomes (and think back to some of those, and tell me how the Mets did with their starting pitching purchases, or the Angels when they signed Albert Pujols, or lots of other big splash signings).

The conclusion they reach is that "In practice, there is essentially 0 correlation between relative salary and HHI (correlation = positive 0.008).  This means that holding budget constraints constant, teams with lower HHIs tend to have higher winning percentages.  Holding relative salary constant, a team may be able to increase their winning percentage by 0.018 points (i.e., the difference between a 0.500 and 0.518 team) by decreasing their HHI by one standard deviation.  Thus, teams on a budget might want to sit out of the bidding war for top free agents that has occurred in the 2022 offseason, and instead focus on signing some good lesser known names."

[tony&rodney]

On 11/28/2023 at 10:58 AM, Riverbrian said:

I saw the "if".

I also didn't read the entire thread so any context that led to a discussion of Vazquez's happiness or state of mind is going to be lost on me and your post was whe the I read of Vazquez being traded for reasons other than a trade that helps two teams is agreed upon.   

A. I'm upset that the Vikings lost to the Bears last night. I'm still with my Vikings this morning. Let's see what happens out of the bye week.  

B. I'm upset that the Vikings lost to the Bears last night. This morning I have burned all my Vikings clothing and have already purchased new Jaguars clothing and I am Jacksonville forever.   

C. I'm upset that the Vikings lost to the Bears last night and I am somewhere between A and B.  

The internet usually sees B. 

I am A

Vazquez is? 

 

 

Bears are powerful animals. Vikings are mostly a myth. Why were they playing with each other?

[DJL44]

7 minutes ago, arby58 said:

It's not nearly as simple (things rarely are) as this 'higher payroll directly correlates to on-field success' claim. First, you like to 'thumbs down' the FACT that the top three payrolls in MLB all missed the play-offs last year, and the FACT that the team with the 21st/30 payroll was in the World Series. I've never understood how a person disagrees with clear facts.

Anecdotes are not good data, especially when they're cherry picked. The teams with the #4, #7, #8, #9 and #10 payroll were all in the playoffs. #9 won the World Series.

The direct correlation between payroll and wins does not explain ALL of the factors that go into creating a winning team (or it would be a 100% correlation) but it is clearly there in study after study after study after study after study.

[Riverbrian]

7 minutes ago, tony&rodney said:

Bears are powerful animals. Vikings are mostly a myth. Why were they playing with each other?

Exactly!!!

Besides... While also from mythology...  Who can beat a Titan? 

Cardinals are pretty and all but Zeus would destroy one with ease.  

[arby58]

5 hours ago, DJL44 said:

Anecdotes are not good data, especially when they're cherry picked. The teams with the #4, #7, #8, #9 and #10 payroll were all in the playoffs. #9 won the World Series.

The direct correlation between payroll and wins does not explain ALL of the factors that go into creating a winning team (or it would be a 100% correlation) but it is clearly there in study after study after study after study after study.

So, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 were not in the play-offs - half of the 'top ten' and four of the top five - and you're telling me I live in anecdotal evidence? 

[DJL44]

11 hours ago, arby58 said:

So, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 were not in the play-offs - half of the 'top ten' and four of the top five - and you're telling me I live in anecdotal evidence? 

5 was the Dodgers, they were in the playoffs. You do realize that 1, 2, 3 and 6 were competing against 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10, right? There aren't playoff spots for everyone. They don't have 15 playoff berths but 6 of the top 10 spenders got into the playoffs. Teams 2 and 3 had winning records (and team 12) and were in the pennant race until the end. Money couldn't overcome incompetence and injuries for teams 1 and 6.

[arby58]

45 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

5 was the Dodgers, they were in the playoffs. You do realize that 1, 2, 3 and 6 were competing against 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10, right? There aren't playoff spots for everyone. They don't have 15 playoff berths but 6 of the top 10 spenders got into the playoffs. Teams 2 and 3 had winning records (and team 12) and were in the pennant race until the end. Money couldn't overcome incompetence and injuries for teams 1 and 6.

I was using your numbers - you didn't list #5 as making the play-offs. 

There are 12 teams in the play-offs. That means 6 teams that were not in the top 10 were in, including number 21. Did you actually read the Harvard study? It suggests this 'spend big on a few free agents' mantra, which you seem to encourage, isn't statistically significant in terms of actual results. Better to be smart than just spend big. Ask the Padres and Mets fans about that.

[DJL44]

2 hours ago, arby58 said:

I was using your numbers - you didn't list #5 as making the play-offs. 

There are 12 teams in the play-offs. That means 6 teams that were not in the top 10 were in, including number 21. Did you actually read the Harvard study? It suggests this 'spend big on a few free agents' mantra, which you seem to encourage, isn't statistically significant in terms of actual results. Better to be smart than just spend big. Ask the Padres and Mets fans about that.

That's not what the Harvard study says at all. It says that payroll directly correlates to regular season success but that postseason success is a crapshoot.

6 of the top 10 teams were in and 8 of 10 were in the pennant race until the end. 6 of the next 20 teams also made the playoffs and 8 of them were in the race. Spending money DOUBLES your chances of making the playoffs in 2023. It's better to be smart AND spend money. It's best to be smart and healthy and spend money.

If the Twins are not going to spend money then they need to be healthy and smart. In 2022 they weren't healthy and no amount of smart was going to overcome that. I don't think this management group is more than average in smarts so it's good they play in the one division in baseball where nobody else wants to spend money. They can rack up division titles and take their chances in the playoff crapshoot.

[arby58]

20 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

That's not what the Harvard study says at all. It says that payroll directly correlates to regular season success but that postseason success is a crapshoot.

6 of the top 10 teams were in and 8 of 10 were in the pennant race until the end. 6 of the next 20 teams also made the playoffs and 8 of them were in the race. Spending money DOUBLES your chances of making the playoffs in 2023. It's better to be smart AND spend money. It's best to be smart and healthy and spend money.

If the Twins are not going to spend money then they need to be healthy and smart. In 2022 they weren't healthy and no amount of smart was going to overcome that. I don't think this management group is more than average in smarts so it's good they play in the one division in baseball where nobody else wants to spend money. They can rack up division titles and take their chances in the playoff crapshoot.

I quoted directly from the Harvard study: "In practice, there is essentially 0 correlation between relative salary and HHI (correlation = positive 0.008).  This means that holding budget constraints constant, teams with lower HHIs tend to have higher winning percentages.  Holding relative salary constant, a team may be able to increase their winning percentage by 0.018 points (i.e., the difference between a 0.500 and 0.518 team) by decreasing their HHI by one standard deviation.  Thus, teams on a budget might want to sit out of the bidding war for top free agents that has occurred in the 2022 offseason, and instead focus on signing some good lesser known names."

 

So now the standard is 'in contention' not makes the play-offs? Set the parameters for that - my guess is 20-ish teams would meet that standard. You know who weren't in contention? Numbers 1, 2, and 3.

[DJL44]

3 minutes ago, arby58 said:

I quoted directly from the Harvard study: "In practice, there is essentially 0 correlation between relative salary and HHI (correlation = positive 0.008).  This means that holding budget constraints constant, teams with lower HHIs tend to have higher winning percentages.  Holding relative salary constant, a team may be able to increase their winning percentage by 0.018 points (i.e., the difference between a 0.500 and 0.518 team) by decreasing their HHI by one standard deviation.  Thus, teams on a budget might want to sit out of the bidding war for top free agents that has occurred in the 2022 offseason, and instead focus on signing some good lesser known names."

You should read the whole study, and all the other studies. This is a minor point in the Harvard study relating to concentrating all of your payroll in a couple of players (the HHI). I'll agree that putting all your eggs in one basket is a bad idea and a stars and scrubs approach doesn't usually work. The really high payroll teams are going to have a lower HHI because they spread a LOT of money among many players.

Here's the important conclusion from the same study:

Quote

As the plot below, which analyzes teams from 2011 through 2022, shows, teams with higher relative salaries tend to perform better (correlation = 0.38).  Based on the results of a linear regression, a team with a relative salary of 100 (meaning that its payroll in year t is equal to the average payroll in year t) would be expected to have a winning percentage of 0.500.  In contrast, a team with a relative salary of 110 (meaning that its payroll in year t is 10% higher than the average payroll in year t) would be expected to have a winning percentage of 0.509.

You are using a debate trick by pointing out an exception and using that to try to throw out the overwhelming amount of data that doesn't support your argument. It isn't convincing at all. There clearly is a direct correlation between spending money and team success. It is not the only factor for team success but it is definitely one of them. If the Twins want to compete without spending money they need to be better than everyone else at everything else.

I'm not sure the Twins really want to compete. They're fine with winning games as long as it doesn't cost them much but they're much more interested in having the best balance sheet than the best winning percentage.

[Fatbat]

16 hours ago, arby58 said:

So, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 were not in the play-offs - half of the 'top ten' and four of the top five - and you're telling me I live in anecdotal evidence? 

So #10 thru #30 did not win the WS. Spending $$$ does increase your chances at winning.  It does have to be spent on the best 26 players you can get. 

[arby58]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

You should read the whole study, and all the other studies. This is a minor point in the Harvard study relating to concentrating all of your payroll in a couple of players (the HHI). I'll agree that putting all your eggs in one basket is a bad idea and a stars and scrubs approach doesn't usually work. The really high payroll teams are going to have a lower HHI because they spread a LOT of money among many players.

Here's the important conclusion from the same study:

You are using a debate trick by pointing out an exception and using that to try to throw out the overwhelming amount of data that doesn't support your argument. It isn't convincing at all. There clearly is a direct correlation between spending money and team success. It is not the only factor for team success but it is definitely one of them. If the Twins want to compete without spending money they need to be better than everyone else at everything else.

I'm not sure the Twins really want to compete. They're fine with winning games as long as it doesn't cost them much but they're much more interested in having the best balance sheet than the best winning percentage.

 

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

You should read the whole study, and all the other studies. This is a minor point in the Harvard study relating to concentrating all of your payroll in a couple of players (the HHI). I'll agree that putting all your eggs in one basket is a bad idea and a stars and scrubs approach doesn't usually work. The really high payroll teams are going to have a lower HHI because they spread a LOT of money among many players.

Here's the important conclusion from the same study:

You are using a debate trick by pointing out an exception and using that to try to throw out the overwhelming amount of data that doesn't support your argument. It isn't convincing at all. There clearly is a direct correlation between spending money and team success. It is not the only factor for team success but it is definitely one of them. If the Twins want to compete without spending money they need to be better than everyone else at everything else.

I'm not sure the Twins really want to compete. They're fine with winning games as long as it doesn't cost them much but they're much more interested in having the best balance sheet than the best winning percentage.

I read the whole study - the line of reasoning you seem to favor is the Twins should go out and make a splash with big free agent signings, and the part I quoted to you says that is not necessarily the case. This 'the Twins don't really want to compete' is backed by what evidence exactly? Given the division titles they have won, they want to compete, but they have a budget to do so. As a former budget director of a $16 billion operation, I can tell you that is the way the real world works. Funny, I looked at the metrics of organizations that spent more all the time and didn't hit the industry benchmarks for performance and outcomes - but they spent more.

Regression analysis is not the Holy Grail - it is, after all, based on the past with the expectation that similar results will occur - only they don't always (hence the Mets, Padres, and Yankees from last year). The Twins have a nice core of young players that will not cost much for several years. They can also unload some veterans who will probably not out-perform that young core. Cutting payroll this year, in this set of circumstances, is not a 'they don't want to compete' conclusion.

[DJL44]

12 minutes ago, arby58 said:

the line of reasoning you seem to favor is the Twins should go out and make a splash with big free agent signings, 

Another debate trick - the strawman argument.

Quote

Regression analysis is not the Holy Grail

It's the best way to tell if something directly correlates with something else.

[arby58]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

Another debate trick - the strawman argument.

It's the best way to tell if something directly correlates with something else.

Regression analysis describes linear relationships and is susceptible to outliers - like last year's Padres, Mets, and Yankees, and, on the other end of the spectrum, last year's Diamondbacks. Wailing and gnashing of teeth over a budget cut and 'proving' it means the Twins can't win is sophistic, even when backed with regression 'evidence.' 

[DJL44]

3 minutes ago, arby58 said:

Wailing and gnashing of teeth over a budget cut and 'proving' it means the Twins can't win is sophistic

More strawman

[arby58]

4 hours ago, DJL44 said:

More strawman

Whatever. Look, I did revenue projections for a couple decades using ARIMA models. I understand the utility (and lack thereof) of regression models. They are not the be-all and end-all to these discussions. If they were, well, you know, the World Series would always have a top (pick a number) team payroll-wise, and that number would never include 21 (i.e., the Diamondbacks). There will ALWAYS be outliers, especially in baseball, the way it limits salaries for players in their early years who may very well be the best players in the game.

[DJL44]

11 hours ago, arby58 said:

Whatever. Look, I did revenue projections for a couple decades using ARIMA models. I understand the utility (and lack thereof) of regression models. They are not the be-all and end-all to these discussions. If they were, well, you know, the World Series would always have a top (pick a number) team payroll-wise, and that number would never include 21 (i.e., the Diamondbacks). There will ALWAYS be outliers, especially in baseball, the way it limits salaries for players in their early years who may very well be the best players in the game.

Well, duh. Payroll isn't the only thing that correlates with success. I've said that repeatedly. It is undeniable that payroll is important.

I don't think the Diamondbacks are as much of an outlier as you think they are. They only won 84 games in the regular season and they spent $120M.

[arby58]

8 hours ago, DJL44 said:

I don't think the Diamondbacks are as much of an outlier as you think they are. They only won 84 games in the regular season and they spent $120M.

Well, duh - the point of the post-season is it is a crapshoot, I recall you saying that. Winning 84 games isn't that difficult - your whole point of view is the Twins are doomed because they are cutting their budget. They can win 84 games, and they have enough pitching to win a series against most any team if it holds up.