Twins to Sign Veteran Free Agent First Baseman Carlos Santana

[rv78]

19 hours ago, RpR said:

Their confidence will turn to mush if they come up and simply do not play well hurting the  team to a FAR, FAR greater degree.

If they are not good enough to play full time, then they will learn to be a Major League part time player; if they cannot handle that, they should stay in the Minors.

So it is better to have a veteran who is washed up, aka Gallo, then to give a rookie those at bats. Has Larnach, Miranda, Gordon, even a player like Celestino been given a reasonable chance to succede at the major league level? Not hardly, yet the FO goes out and gets guys like Gallo, and now Santana, who have no future with the club and all it does is hold the young players back from getting the playing time they need. How much better would the Twins have been in 2023 had Wallner been given the playing time that Gallo got? It was a poor decision to sign Gallo and an even more stupid one to give him $11M. With no WS ring in 2023, the better choice would have been to play your young players than to choke out another year with washed up veterans. (Gallo, Beckham, Hamilton, Garlick, Archer, Joe Smith, Bundy, Minaya). If you are going to commit to the now then totally commit and bring in veterans that are good, in their prime, and will make a difference. If you are going to commit to building a roster from within, then commit to using your young players and let them get the experience they need. This FO is trying to do both and will never accomplish either by taking a half-a$$ approach both ways. 

[stringer bell]

1 hour ago, rv78 said:

So it is better to have a veteran who is washed up, aka Gallo, then to give a rookie those at bats. Has Larnach, Miranda, Gordon, even a player like Celestino been given a reasonable chance to succede at the major league level? Not hardly, yet the FO goes out and gets guys like Gallo, and now Santana, who have no future with the club and all it does is hold the young players back from getting the playing time they need. How much better would the Twins have been in 2023 had Wallner been given the playing time that Gallo got? It was a poor decision to sign Gallo and an even more stupid one to give him $11M. With no WS ring in 2023, the better choice would have been to play your young players than to choke out another year with washed up veterans. (Gallo, Beckham, Hamilton, Garlick, Archer, Joe Smith, Bundy, Minaya). If you are going to commit to the now then totally commit and bring in veterans that are good, in their prime, and will make a difference. If you are going to commit to building a roster from within, then commit to using your young players and let them get the experience they need. This FO is trying to do both and will never accomplish either by taking a half-a$$ approach both ways. 

It's not my intention to defend the previous poster, but I do notice you didn't have Taylor, Solano and Farmer among the "washed up veterans" you listed. Also, I'll point out that Joey Gallo played last year at age 29, considered a prime year for MLB ballplayers. Bringing in veterans "that are good" costs money and prospects, for example Sonny Gray. Loading a team, and particularly a bench, with young players is a poor strategy. The Twins opted in 2023 to bring in Farmer, Taylor, Solano and Gallo as depth pieces although Gallo became the starting first baseman when Kirilloff wasn't ready to go. This year, they've brought in Carlos Santana at less than half the salary for a similar role. 

I don't know if Wallner would have been successful out of the gate as a regular outfielder, maybe or maybe not, but he would appear to be the only rookie that could have/should have been promoted earlier. Mid market teams do need to develop their young talent and get value when they trade or sign free agents. I agree that too many 30-plus vets on a team can hurt in the long term. However, I don't want to see another time where a minor league outfield (Cave, Celestino, Contreras with Gordon at second base) is trying to win a division. A proper mix of youth and experience is necessary to win in the regular season and compete in the post season.

[KirbyDome89]

On 2/4/2024 at 12:26 PM, arby58 said:

Do you honestly think this example means the Twins 'front office is not 'remotely competent?' Maybe a little balance in your thinking? It's the same FO that traded for Gray and Lopez (both trades leading to a fair amount of criticism), and drafted the young core of players they now have. Besides, the Twins as a team were not hitting first half of the year - who would have performed all that much better at that time? 

That's what I'm asking you. You implied that Gallo basically duped this FO into holding onto him with a few good weeks in April. Do you think they were unaware of his production woes by the end of June, or July? You said it yourself, he wasn't playing regularly by the middle of the season. Do you think that maybe had something to do with the FO and coaching staff realizing how terrible he was? Yet he still hung onto that roster spot....

Wallner had an OPS in the mid .900s by the end of May. It was closer to 1.000 by the end of June. They didn't have to look long or hard....

[arby58]

2 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

That's what I'm asking you. You implied that Gallo basically duped this FO into holding onto him with a few good weeks in April. Do you think they were unaware of his production woes by the end of June, or July? You said it yourself, he wasn't playing regularly by the middle of the season. Do you think that maybe had something to do with the FO and coaching staff realizing how terrible he was? Yet he still hung onto that roster spot....

Wallner had an OPS in the mid .900s by the end of May. It was closer to 1.000 by the end of June. They didn't have to look long or hard....

I didn't imply Gallo 'duped' the FO into anything. My point is that you only identify the 'for sure he's done' point, when a player has had strong success in a season, after giving sufficient time and chances. A lot of the people who now 'pile on' about playing Gallo were ready to trade Kepler for a bag of batting practice baseballs in June. Funny how that died down.

Meanwhile, back at the ballpark, Gallo still hit 21 HRs in basically half a season's at bats and was league average in OPS+. If somebody else tells me that statistic is wacked, I'd suggest they take it up with Bill James.

[KirbyDome89]

2 hours ago, arby58 said:

I didn't imply Gallo 'duped' the FO into anything. My point is that you only identify the 'for sure he's done' point, when a player has had strong success in a season, after giving sufficient time and chances. A lot of the people who now 'pile on' about playing Gallo were ready to trade Kepler for a bag of batting practice baseballs in June. Funny how that died down.

Meanwhile, back at the ballpark, Gallo still hit 21 HRs in basically half a season's at bats and was league average in OPS+. If somebody else tells me that statistic is wacked, I'd suggest they take it up with Bill James.

Sure you did, the "benefit of hindsight," is irrelevant when Gallo is putting up the numbers I posted earlier. The idea that the team needed to watch him be awful for 5 months instead of 3, because you can't know for certain in the moment, is nonsense. The FO needed to roster him for the off chance he'd put up a career 2-3 month stretch a la Kepler? What an argument....

Miguel Sano could probably do that with a 50% K rate too.

Go look at how the variables are weighted for determining OPS+. Tell me HRs aren't heavy. That doesn't mean the stat is "wacked," and if you want to argue that Gallo is an extreme/outlier that stretches the formula I'd tend to agree, but if you want to say he was remotely close to an average offensive performer last year than you either weren't watching, or you're being willfully obtuse. 

[KirbyDome89]

1 minute ago, KirbyDome89 said:

 

 

[arby58]

2 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Go look at how the variables are weighted for determining OPS+. Tell me HRs aren't heavy. That doesn't mean the stat is "wacked," and if you want to argue that Gallo is an extreme/outlier that stretches the formula I'd tend to agree, but if you want to say he was remotely close to an average offensive performer last year than you either weren't watching, or you're being willfully obtuse. 

Meanwhile, back at the ballpark, ,21 HRs in half a season of at bats is still a pretty big number. You strike me as a lover of guys that put up big batting averages, even if it leads to small numbers elsewhere - maybe a Luis Arraez lover. For all Luis' virtues in getting on base, he only scored 71 runs in 574 at bats. Meanwhile, your hated Joey Gallo scored 39 runs in 282 at bats. Do the math and explain to me Luis' big advantage in that stat line.

[KirbyDome89]

1 hour ago, arby58 said:

Meanwhile, back at the ballpark, ,21 HRs in half a season of at bats is still a pretty big number. You strike me as a lover of guys that put up big batting averages, even if it leads to small numbers elsewhere - maybe a Luis Arraez lover. For all Luis' virtues in getting on base, he only scored 71 runs in 574 at bats. Meanwhile, your hated Joey Gallo scored 39 runs in 282 at bats. Do the math and explain to me Luis' big advantage in that stat line.

The "half season," wasn't due to injury. It was performance related. I don't know why this is difficult; the pros don't outweigh the cons. You can play him for 140+ games and maybe get 35-40 HRs, but the price you're paying for the production far outweighs the value of those homers. 

Kepler's hot streak to Luis Arraez's runs scored. Lol, pure entertainment at this point. Keep going!

[CCHOF5yearstoolate]

16 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Go look at how the variables are weighted for determining OPS+. Tell me HRs aren't heavy. That doesn't mean the stat is "wacked," and if you want to argue that Gallo is an extreme/outlier that stretches the formula I'd tend to agree, but if you want to say he was remotely close to an average offensive performer last year than you either weren't watching, or you're being willfully obtuse. 

It's almost like hitting HRs is good or something. 

[KirbyDome89]

7 minutes ago, CCHOF5yearstoolate said:

It's almost like hitting HRs is good or something. 

 "The price you're paying for the production far outweighs the value of those homers."

If only you had kept reading....

[CCHOF5yearstoolate]

2 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

 "The price you're paying for the production far outweighs the value of those homers."

If only you had kept reading....

If Gallo had played more later in the season, his OPS+ would have decreased because he wasn't playing well after April. You're trying to argue that OPS+ has "heavy" weighting on HR based purely on Joey Gallo's 2023 season, which is incredibly silly, and also missing that the only reason his season on the whole was approximately average is because they played him less after he cooled off/froze completely. It's pretty simple logic, really.

I wonder if you can even speak to what the "variable weighting" is in OPS+?

And definitely don't look up what a properly weighted wOBA/wRC+ thinks about Joey Gallo's 2023. 

[KirbyDome89]

1 hour ago, CCHOF5yearstoolate said:

If Gallo had played more later in the season, his OPS+ would have decreased because he wasn't playing well after April. You're trying to argue that OPS+ has "heavy" weighting on HR based purely on Joey Gallo's 2023 season, which is incredibly silly, and also missing that the only reason his season on the whole was approximately average is because they played him less after he cooled off/froze completely. It's pretty simple logic, really.

I wonder if you can even speak to what the "variable weighting" is in OPS+?

And definitely don't look up what a properly weighted wOBA/wRC+ thinks about Joey Gallo's 2023. 

Well, no, I argued that Gallo's one offensive skill happens to be something OPS+ values highly, i.e. I believe his final tally is skewed. I'm also sure I was clear that Gallo can be viewed as an outlier and OPS+ overrating his offensive contribution isn't condemnation of the stat as a whole. If you think that being a DFA candidate for 80% or more of your 300+ PAs means you've been an average offensive performer, Idk what to tell you, we'll just disagree....

The genesis of the argument you jumped into was another poster pointing to hindsight as a reason the Twins didn't move on from Gallo, and then citing his "average," offensive performance. If your stance is "his stats would look worse if they gave him 600 PAs instead of 300," I'm thrilled to say that I agree. Do you have anything of substance to add to the argument, or are you just being an antagonistic ***hole? 

[CCHOF5yearstoolate]

1 hour ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Well, no, I argued that Gallo's one offensive skill happens to be something OPS+ values highly, i.e. I believe his final tally is skewed. I'm also sure I was clear that Gallo can be viewed as an outlier and OPS+ overrating his offensive contribution isn't condemnation of the stat as a whole. If you think that being a DFA candidate for 80% or more of your 300+ PAs means you've been an average offensive performer, Idk what to tell you, we'll just disagree....

The genesis of the argument you jumped into was another poster pointing to hindsight as a reason the Twins didn't move on from Gallo, and then citing his "average," offensive performance. If your stance is "his stats would look worse if they gave him 600 PAs instead of 300," I'm thrilled to say that I agree. Do you have anything of substance to add to the argument, or are you just being an antagonistic ***hole? 

You calling anyone else an antagonistic a-hole is hilariously hypocritical, thanks for the laugh!

But it's good to know you were just pulling stuff out of your rear when you tried to talk about the "variable weighting" of OPS+. 

OPS+ has the same 'weights' as slugging. In practice, it's not as accurate weighting because walks aren't valued highly enough. Which is why wOBA/wRC+ views Joey Gallo's 2023 even more valuably than even OPS+ does.

Gallo's two offensive skills (he had a 96th percentile walk rate last season) are the reason he's still in the league after 4 consecutive sub-Mendoza line seasons. They are inarguably very valuable skills in the game of baseball. 

Whether or not you want a guy on your team isn't a valuable litmus test to anyone else. Walking and hitting homeruns correlates to scoring runs - that's why the weights are what they are. I'm educating you on how these stats work, that's what I'm adding here. Whether or not you choose to accept the facts is up to you.

He was an average offensive producer last year. He would not have been if they'd given him 50+ more PAs. Both things can be, and are, true. 

[KirbyDome89]

3 hours ago, CCHOF5yearstoolate said:

You calling anyone else an antagonistic a-hole is hilariously hypocritical, thanks for the laugh!

But it's good to know you were just pulling stuff out of your rear when you tried to talk about the "variable weighting" of OPS+. 

OPS+ has the same 'weights' as slugging. In practice, it's not as accurate weighting because walks aren't valued highly enough. Which is why wOBA/wRC+ views Joey Gallo's 2023 even more valuably than even OPS+ does.

Gallo's two offensive skills (he had a 96th percentile walk rate last season) are the reason he's still in the league after 4 consecutive sub-Mendoza line seasons. They are inarguably very valuable skills in the game of baseball. 

Whether or not you want a guy on your team isn't a valuable litmus test to anyone else. Walking and hitting homeruns correlates to scoring runs - that's why the weights are what they are. I'm educating you on how these stats work, that's what I'm adding here. Whether or not you choose to accept the facts is up to you.

He was an average offensive producer last year. He would not have been if they'd given him 50+ more PAs. Both things can be, and are, true. 

Anytime friend!

**How the variables are weighted. Different outcomes are assigned different values.

Yeah no, OPS+, wOBA, and wRC+ are all saying the same thing, he's average. Thanks for the "education," though. 

Uh huh, and despite the walks he still couldn't come close to reaching base at an average clip. I've never argued that what Gallo can do well is invaluable, I said what he does well doesn't compensate for his shortcomings.  

I could go 6 for 8 with 5 HRs + a double in 2 games, and then revert to mid summer Gallo for the rest of the month and my cumulative stats would probably still look decent, but if I'm a net negative 80% of the time, yeah, I'd argue the aggregate fails to paint an accurate picture of my true contribution, or lack thereof. His production, or value PA by PA, isn't reflected. Just watching games even remotely regularly, you know that, but seeing that he was nowhere near an average offensive player for 5/6 of the season should cement it. What's "silly," is that somebody is still defending the 2023 Joey Gallo experiment.

No, both aren't be true, because an average MLB player isn't 50 PAs away from being a DFA'd or stashed with exaggerated (at best) injury. 

[CCHOF5yearstoolate]

2 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Anytime friend!

**How the variables are weighted. Different outcomes are assigned different values.

Yeah no, OPS+, wOBA, and wRC+ are all saying the same thing, he's average. Thanks for the "education," though. 

Uh huh, and despite the walks he still couldn't come close to reaching base at an average clip. I've never argued that what Gallo can do well is invaluable, I said what he does well doesn't compensate for his shortcomings.  

I could go 6 for 8 with 5 HRs + a double in 2 games, and then revert to mid summer Gallo for the rest of the month and my cumulative stats would probably still look decent, but if I'm a net negative 80% of the time, yeah, I'd argue the aggregate fails to paint an accurate picture of my true contribution, or lack thereof. His production, or value PA by PA, isn't reflected. Just watching games even remotely regularly, you know that, but seeing that he was nowhere near an average offensive player for 5/6 of the season should cement it. What's "silly," is that somebody is still defending the 2023 Joey Gallo experiment.

No, both aren't be true, because an average MLB player isn't 50 PAs away from being a DFA'd or stashed with exaggerated (at best) injury. 

You're still saying nothing about "how the variables are weighted" other than "I think it's bad because I didn't like watching Joey Gallo". So yeah, you're welcome for actually expanding on that rather than talk in circles. 

Gallo had a .301 OBP last season, league average was not that far off at .320. He also had a higher than average slugging % which meant ... drumroll please ... he had a league average OPS.

That you can't see you're implying his April wasn't worth anything is the crux of why your argument isn't persuasive.

No one has defended the Joey Gallo experiment, just that you're acting as if he did nothing good all season. It sounds like you're looking for some stat that aligns with your narrative, best of luck finding some proof for that. 

[KirbyDome89]

5 hours ago, CCHOF5yearstoolate said:

You're still saying nothing about "how the variables are weighted" other than "I think it's bad because I didn't like watching Joey Gallo". So yeah, you're welcome for actually expanding on that rather than talk in circles. 

Gallo had a .301 OBP last season, league average was not that far off at .320. He also had a higher than average slugging % which meant ... drumroll please ... he had a league average OPS.

That you can't see you're implying his April wasn't worth anything is the crux of why your argument isn't persuasive.

No one has defended the Joey Gallo experiment, just that you're acting as if he did nothing good all season. It sounds like you're looking for some stat that aligns with your narrative, best of luck finding some proof for that. 

Literally said HRs are weighted heavily. 

That actually is pretty far off but don't let that minor detail get in the way.

Never once implied his April was worthless. 

Nope, "my narrative," is that the juice wasn't worth the squeeze and continuing to roster him was a mistake that didn't require the benefit of hindsight to correct. Controversial take, I know. 

 

[CCHOF5yearstoolate]

35 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Literally said HRs are weighted heavily. 

That actually is pretty far off but don't let that minor detail get in the way.

Never once implied his April was worthless. 

Nope, "my narrative," is that the juice wasn't worth the squeeze and continuing to roster him was a mistake that didn't require the benefit of hindsight to correct. Controversial take, I know. 

 

You can say anything you want, but you should probably know what that weighting actually is if you want to be taken seriously.

If you'd like to go to your grave saying 20 points is "not coming close" to an average OBP, be my guest. 

The fact that you can't recognize that is a separate argument from saying his 2023 was average by the numbers is getting old quickly. He produced at an average rate in 2023, and all the positive production was concentrated in April. If they'd stopped playing him in June, he would have been an above average bat on the year.

Trying to take on a stat you clearly don't understand isn't helping you. 

[USAFChief]

44 minutes ago, CCHOF5yearstoolate said:

You can say anything you want, but you should probably know what that weighting actually is if you want to be taken seriously.

If you'd like to go to your grave saying 20 points is "not coming close" to an average OBP, be my guest. 

The fact that you can't recognize that is a separate argument from saying his 2023 was average by the numbers is getting old quickly. He produced at an average rate in 2023, and all the positive production was concentrated in April. If they'd stopped playing him in June, he would have been an above average bat on the year.

Trying to take on a stat you clearly don't understand isn't helping you. 

I'm going to stick my nose into this kerfuffle just long enough to say, you arguing for Joey Gallo, post after post, using one arcane "stat" after another, only accomplishes one thing:

It just proves how poorly they can measure success on a baseball field. 

Gallo was a disaster for the Twins lineup. A massive sinkhole that cost them daily. 

Arguments to the contrary do not belong in posts calling for others to be taken seriously. 

 

 

[KirbyDome89]

26 minutes ago, CCHOF5yearstoolate said:

You can say anything you want, but you should probably know what that weighting actually is if you want to be taken seriously.

If you'd like to go to your grave saying 20 points is "not coming close" to an average OBP, be my guest. 

The fact that you can't recognize that is a separate argument from saying his 2023 was average by the numbers is getting old quickly. He produced at an average rate in 2023, and all the positive production was concentrated in April. If they'd stopped playing him in June, he would have been an above average bat on the year.

Trying to take on a stat you clearly don't understand isn't helping you. 

Could I rattle off the exact weights assigned? No. Does that mean I don't understand what they're attempting to quantify? Also no. Lucky for us, these equations, aren't kept under lock and key.

A .301 OBP would've put Gallo in front of only 8% of qualified hitters. Moving him to an average OBP jumps that number to 35%. Adding another 20 points of OBP has a similar effect; he's better than 65% of qualified hitters. Yeah, I'm going to stick with 20 points being kind of a big deal.

Yep, I'm fully aware of your "by the numbers," stance. I'm saying those number(s) aren't painting an accurate picture. You disagree. It's ok. 

Yikes, that's a tough look huh....

[CCHOF5yearstoolate]

5 hours ago, USAFChief said:

I'm going to stick my nose into this kerfuffle just long enough to say, you arguing for Joey Gallo, post after post, using one arcane "stat" after another, only accomplishes one thing:

It just proves how poorly they can measure success on a baseball field. 

Gallo was a disaster for the Twins lineup. A massive sinkhole that cost them daily. 

Arguments to the contrary do not belong in posts calling for others to be taken seriously. 

 

 

Not arguing for Gallo, OPS+ isn't an "arcane stat", thanks for proving you also don't understand the argument.

Cute try though. 

[CCHOF5yearstoolate]

5 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Could I rattle off the exact weights assigned? No. Does that mean I don't understand what they're attempting to quantify? Also no. Lucky for us, these equations, aren't kept under lock and key.

A .301 OBP would've put Gallo in front of only 8% of qualified hitters. Moving him to an average OBP jumps that number to 35%. Adding another 20 points of OBP has a similar effect; he's better than 65% of qualified hitters. Yeah, I'm going to stick with 20 points being kind of a big deal.

Yep, I'm fully aware of your "by the numbers," stance. I'm saying those number(s) aren't painting an accurate picture. You disagree. It's ok. 

Yikes, that's a tough look huh....

You said they weigh home runs too heavily. You do have to be able to quantify the weight if that's your stance, as much as you'd love to beat around the bush and never back up what you're saying.

The funny part is OPS is just total bases. It could not be any simpler. Almost as funny as the irony in you talking about "tough looks" after so many posts. 

[KirbyDome89]

7 hours ago, CCHOF5yearstoolate said:

You said they weigh home runs too heavily. You do have to be able to quantify the weight if that's your stance, as much as you'd love to beat around the bush and never back up what you're saying.

The funny part is OPS is just total bases. It could not be any simpler. Almost as funny as the irony in you talking about "tough looks" after so many posts. 

Quantify the weight? The multiplier is there for all to see. C'mon, this is a dead end.

So because the BB% didn't lead where you thought it would, OPS needs to be reintroduced? Smh, this is off the rails. We're done. 

[CCHOF5yearstoolate]

6 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Quantify the weight? The multiplier is there for all to see. C'mon, this is a dead end.

So because the BB% didn't lead where you thought it would, OPS needs to be reintroduced? Smh, this is off the rails. We're done. 

This has always been about OPS lol

"The weighting is too heavy."

"What are the weights and why do you think it's heavy?"

"Everyone can see the weights if they want to."

That's straight out of the playbook of someone who has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. 

Yes, we've been done for a long time since you've not once been able to describe any aspect of one of the simplest stats in baseball.

[KirbyDome89]

6 hours ago, CCHOF5yearstoolate said:

This has always been about OPS lol

"The weighting is too heavy."

"What are the weights and why do you think it's heavy?"

"Everyone can see the weights if they want to."

That's straight out of the playbook of someone who has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. 

Yes, we've been done for a long time since you've not once been able to describe any aspect of one of the simplest stats in baseball.

Do you think a HR is worth 2x more than a 2B? OPS(+) overrates somebody like Gallo, who has a disproportionally high percentage of his hits leave the park but offers nothing in the way of a rounded offensive game. "By the numbers," he's average, but his OPS is carried by his slugging, which is carried entirely by HRs. Heavy. Like I said earlier, the juice wasn't worth the squeeze.  

Yes, disagreement makes me an idiot; meanwhile, you're touting Gallo's ability to reach base. Glass houses and stones yada yada...

[CCHOF5yearstoolate]

11 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Do you think a HR is worth 2x more than a 2B? OPS(+) overrates somebody like Gallo, who has a disproportionally high percentage of his hits leave the park but offers nothing in the way of a rounded offensive game. "By the numbers," he's average, but his OPS is carried by his slugging, which is carried entirely by HRs. Heavy. Like I said earlier, the juice wasn't worth the squeeze.  

Yes, disagreement makes me an idiot; meanwhile, you're touting Gallo's ability to reach base. Glass houses and stones yada yada...

Plenty of smart people get overconfident and go off on something when they have no idea what they're talking about. 

Good luck finding one comment from me touting Gallo's ability to reach base.

Whenever you get tired of strawmanning, let me know. Would be nice to actually have a good faith discussion.

[Mike Sixel]

23 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Do you think a HR is worth 2x more than a 2B? OPS(+) overrates somebody like Gallo, who has a disproportionally high percentage of his hits leave the park but offers nothing in the way of a rounded offensive game. "By the numbers," he's average, but his OPS is carried by his slugging, which is carried entirely by HRs. Heavy. Like I said earlier, the juice wasn't worth the squeeze.  

Yes, disagreement makes me an idiot; meanwhile, you're touting Gallo's ability to reach base. Glass houses and stones yada yada...

Yes! A HR is 100% guaranteed to score at least one run. A double is not.

The math on this stuff is very extensive...that said, wrc+ is much better and has better math behind.

[USAFChief]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

Yes! A HR is 100% guaranteed to score at least one run. A double is not.

The math on this stuff is very extensive...that said, wrc+ is much better and has better math behind.

Actually, per linear weights (the basis of much modern offensive theory), a HR is not worth twice what a double is. At least not in 2016, the latest I can find. 

A HR was worth 1.65 times a double.

https://library.fangraphs.com/principles/linear-weights/

 

The math is indeed extensive. Just not always instructive. 

I do like, and agree, with the notion not all OBP is created equal. Walks are worth less than hits. Even singles.

 

 

[KirbyDome89]

2 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

Yes! A HR is 100% guaranteed to score at least one run. A double is not.

The math on this stuff is very extensive...that said, wrc+ is much better and has better math behind.

For sure, a HR is unquestionably a better outcome than a double, and I'm not going to pretend to know exactly how that value is derived, but looking at Gallo's 2023 and seeing seeing average attached, Idk what conclusion to make other than he's an outlier. 

[Mike Sixel]

1 hour ago, KirbyDome89 said:

For sure, a HR is unquestionably a better outcome than a double, and I'm not going to pretend to know exactly how that value is derived, but looking at Gallo's 2023 and seeing seeing average attached, Idk what conclusion to make other than he's an outlier. 

very much so,. Also, it shows an issue with season long stats that peanut butter value....he was the best player in ball for 2-3 weeks, then he was not, then he barely played. It's like rolling a 6 and a 1 and saying you were average......

[Major League Ready]

11 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

Yes! A HR is 100% guaranteed to score at least one run. A double is not.

The math on this stuff is very extensive...that said, wrc+ is much better and has better math behind.

You summed this one up in a hurry.  Of course, a HR is much more valuable than a double.  I am rather dumfounded by the argument that it's not.   You know I default to wRC+ but the fact that OPS+ implies a HR is 2X as valuable as a double is not a major weakness with OPS+.