Why Josh Bell’s Poor Defense Isn’t Something to Worry About

[chpettit19]

Just now, Woof Bronzer said:

Thanks for the explanation, I had no idea defensive analytics were that silly.  

They have a long way to go still.

[DJL44]

7 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

It doesn't. That's the point. They moved them closer to the line so there are fewer balls to their right that the algorithm expects them to get to. They aren't improving performance, they're limiting the expectations. Guard the line and get to the base quickly for throws. They've cut down on the amount of ground they're asking their 1B to cover and the algorithms spit out drastically different data because of it.

Partly because balls down the line turn into doubles and triples while balls between 1B and 2B turn into singles, especially with the shallow RF in Target Field. They are maximizing the run value of their defense.

[chpettit19]

5 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Partly because balls down the line turn into doubles and triples while balls between 1B and 2B turn into singles, especially with the shallow RF in Target Field. They are maximizing the run value of their defense.

I'm sure that's part of the thought process. I think the difference in percentages of being close to the line between Santana and France is telling. They trusted Santana's range more. I'd bet Bell is much closer to France's number than Santana's. The more you trust your 1B the further away you're comfortable with them playing.

[DJL44]

2 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I'm sure that's part of the thought process. I think the difference in percentages of being close to the line between Santana and France is telling. They trusted Santana's range more. I'd bet Bell is much closer to France's number than Santana's. The more you trust your 1B the further away you're comfortable with them playing.

This is where a LH throwing 1B has an advantage. They'll naturally be better going to their right - where their glove is. Stand on the line and you never have to worry about fielding a ball with your backhand.

[rv78]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

If this team is going to trade someone, they should trade the oldest and most expensive player and keep the youngest and cheapest player. That means they should solve the DH conflict by trading Josh Bell.

This is only true if you believe the Twins are rebuilding. Since Falvey did the salary dump at the 2025 deadline, one would expect he'd bypass paying $7M for a veteran. He just dumped a bunch of players that cost a whole lot less than that. Then through his brilliant use of payroll he throws $7M at a DH type HR hitter. It just pure stupidity.

[jmlease1]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

The arbitration projections for each of them is less than the $7M they gave Josh Bell.

I guess that depends on where you look and whether or not you count the buyout against this year's contract or next? But yeah, the Cheap Pohlads cut the #@%$* out of the payroll, and a lot of our guys are now on minimum salary or early arbitration salaries.

So?

It's an indictment of ownership, not really about Bell's (reasonable) contract.

[DJL44]

20 minutes ago, jmlease1 said:

Bell's (reasonable) contract.

The Twins can't afford to pay players $14M per WAR.

[HerbieFan]

It's true....analytics has a stat for absolutely everything!...lol

[Mike Sixel]

1 minute ago, HerbieFan said:

It's true....analytics has a stat for absolutely everything!...lol

Why wouldn't it? That's how all major businesses are run.

[jmlease1]

8 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

The Twins can't afford to pay players $14M per WAR.

Well, we'll see if it lands there? If he hits like he did in the second half of 2025 we won't be. That's the risk we're taking here. If you're saying we can't take risks paying players looking for improvement or bounce back seasons...what exactly are our options with this ownership?

I'd rather take a swing at Bell (who people find attractive in the trade market if the Twins season is toast at the deadline) than some others. I'd have been willing to try and acquire someone from the O's, but who knows what they were demanding in a trade package? Mayo might turn out to be A Guy, but if the price is Pablo Lopez? Hell no.

[DJL44]

8 minutes ago, jmlease1 said:

Well, we'll see if it lands there? If he hits like he did in the second half of 2025 we won't be. That's the risk we're taking here. If you're saying we can't take risks paying players looking for improvement or bounce back seasons...what exactly are our options with this ownership?

I'd rather take a swing at Bell (who people find attractive in the trade market if the Twins season is toast at the deadline) than some others. I'd have been willing to try and acquire someone from the O's, but who knows what they were demanding in a trade package? Mayo might turn out to be A Guy, but if the price is Pablo Lopez? Hell no.

Teams usually pay a premium for less risky players, not more risky players. Bell has averaged -0.1 WAR over the last 3 seasons so I was giving the benefit of the doubt that he can produce 0.5 WAR. Plus, it makes the math easier if I'm not using 0 WAR as the divisor. His defensive value is non-existent so he's going to have to do it all with his bat. His 80% projection is what he did in Arizona: a 120 OPS+, 1.5 WAR season. The Twins are paying him like that performance is a lock.

Nobody has found Bell attractive in the trade market. The Nationals weren't able to trade him last season. Arizona gave up nothing to Miami the previous season to obtain him. He returned a grade C utility outfielder prospect the season before that. This isn't surprising. Contenders are looking for good players to improve their chances of winning, not stopgaps who are barely worth a roster spot. Pushing a big chunk of his salary into the option buyout will make him more difficult to trade since the cost is backloaded. Do you think he'll be more or less attractive than he was last season with an extra $1M commitment?

[DJL44]

One other way the defensive metrics get fooled by a first baseman standing that close to the base is they tend to take the ball to first base on their own instead of flipping to the pitcher. That means fewer assists and more putouts, which can fool some defensive calculators.

[LastOnePicked]

3 hours ago, jmlease1 said:

I'd rather take a swing at Bell

Careful. He seems like a big guy.

[dxpavelka]

On 12/17/2025 at 11:01 AM, chpettit19 said:

It doesn't. That's the point. They moved them closer to the line so there are fewer balls to their right that the algorithm expects them to get to. They aren't improving performance, they're limiting the expectations. Guard the line and get to the base quickly for throws. They've cut down on the amount of ground they're asking their 1B to cover and the algorithms spit out drastically different data because of it.

I played first base myself.  A lifetime ago. And, obviously, at a different level.  But guarding the line and being able to get to the base quickly to catch the baseball were tantamount to playing the spot.  I don't know (or care) about algorithms but whatever they are doing seems to spit out Gold Gloves so it can't be all bad.

 

[chpettit19]

30 minutes ago, dxpavelka said:

I played first base myself.  A lifetime ago. And, obviously, at a different level.  But guarding the line and being able to get to the base quickly to catch the baseball were tantamount to playing the spot.  I don't know (or care) about algorithms but whatever they are doing seems to spit out Gold Gloves so it can't be all bad.

 

I didn't say it was bad, I said they weren't improving guy's ability to actually field. If you can look at Ty France being negative in OAA for literally every season of his career before last year and then see him at +10 and honestly think the Twins spun him from a -12 fielder to a +10 fielder at the age of 30 with just 1 spring training, I'll tell you we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The Twins have done a great job with knowing the limits of their 1B and putting them in positions where they aren't asking them to do things they can't do. That isn't bad at all. That's why I never said it was "all bad." I'm simply pointing out the significant flaws in using OAA as evidence that the Twins are making guys better fielders. They aren't. They're just aren't asking them to make as many plays as other teams do. Santana playing off the line 47% of the time compared to only 14% for France is a great example of this. Santana was trusted to be further from the line more often because he could cover more ground. France wasn't trusted at all.

Of course it's important to guard the line and get to the bag. What separates the great from the good from the ok from the bad from the very bad is how far away from the line you can stand and still accomplish those goals. If I can put Freddie Freeman off the line 90% of the time and get the same results from him on guarding the line and getting to the bag as you get from putting France off the line 14% of the time I get a significant advantage because Freeman can cover so much more ground towards the hole that you are simply giving away because France can't even attempt to get to those balls.

Using OAA as proof the Twins made Ty France 22 runs better in 1 spring training is ridiculous. They didn't. The algorithm simply isn't very good.

[The Great Hambino]

I'd be curious what the effect of OAA/DRS/etc has been on their second basemen as they've moved their first basemen closer to the line.  Regardless of where they're put, you have 4 guys to defend the infield.  Shortening the range required for one means you're asking more from another.  So any gains made by the first basemen should be netted against any losses by the second basemen created by asking him to cover more ground by default.  I'm not saying it's a bad strategy - it makes sense to have guys with limited range cover less ground and guys with more range cover more ground, and the point someone made that balls down the line being more likely to be extra base hits is valid - but the effect this puts on second basemen shouldn't be ignored.  They certainly haven't been churning out gold glove second basemen going this route

[cheeseheadgophfan]

Damn....I wish I had the time to go back and look at the reaction most on here had when we signed France last year.  Vast majority said he was a terrible first baseman and were lamenting the loss of Santana.  

Let's face it...you can't please most on here.  The Twins made a signing for a switch hitting 1B/DH who hit over 20+ homers last year and is known by our manager.  

If it's the only signing they make, that would suck.  But it's not a bad start.  

[Linus]

Perhaps they should just have him play with his left foot on the bag. He’ll never be late to the bag or allow a hit down the line. Seriously does anyone think this doesn’t have other consequences?  If Bell has to be closer to the bag that leaves more territory for the second baseman to cover. Not like we are stellar there either 

[dxpavelka]

8 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

I didn't say it was bad, I said they weren't improving guy's ability to actually field. If you can look at Ty France being negative in OAA for literally every season of his career before last year and then see him at +10 and honestly think the Twins spun him from a -12 fielder to a +10 fielder at the age of 30 with just 1 spring training, I'll tell you we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The Twins have done a great job with knowing the limits of their 1B and putting them in positions where they aren't asking them to do things they can't do. That isn't bad at all. That's why I never said it was "all bad." I'm simply pointing out the significant flaws in using OAA as evidence that the Twins are making guys better fielders. They aren't. They're just aren't asking them to make as many plays as other teams do. Santana playing off the line 47% of the time compared to only 14% for France is a great example of this. Santana was trusted to be further from the line more often because he could cover more ground. France wasn't trusted at all.

Of course it's important to guard the line and get to the bag. What separates the great from the good from the ok from the bad from the very bad is how far away from the line you can stand and still accomplish those goals. If I can put Freddie Freeman off the line 90% of the time and get the same results from him on guarding the line and getting to the bag as you get from putting France off the line 14% of the time I get a significant advantage because Freeman can cover so much more ground towards the hole that you are simply giving away because France can't even attempt to get to those balls.

Using OAA as proof the Twins made Ty France 22 runs better in 1 spring training is ridiculous. They didn't. The algorithm simply isn't very good.

Again, I'm not using OAA or any other algorithm.  I'm simply using Gold Gloves.  Good, bad or otherwise. They give an award for it.  Twins guys have won the last two.  

[chpettit19]

8 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

Again, I'm not using OAA or any other algorithm.  I'm simply using Gold Gloves.  Good, bad or otherwise. They give an award for it.  Twins guys have won the last two.  

And Derek Jeter has a handful. That's not a useful metric either. Ty France won his because of algorithms. Voters use those way too much now. Ty France didn't suddenly become better at catching the ball at age 30 because of some sweet trick the Twins used at his 1 spring training with them. If you believe that, you believe the Twins are just refusing to use that trick with the rest of their team.

[dxpavelka]

7 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

And Derek Jeter has a handful. That's not a useful metric either. Ty France won his because of algorithms. Voters use those way too much now. Ty France didn't suddenly become better at catching the ball at age 30 because of some sweet trick the Twins used at his 1 spring training with them. If you believe that, you believe the Twins are just refusing to use that trick with the rest of their team.

Believe what you want.  They still won them.

 

[Woof Bronzer]

On 12/19/2025 at 2:49 PM, dxpavelka said:

Believe what you want.  They still won them.

 

So you are saying the Twins could, in the span of 1 season, turn any player on the MLB team or in their system into a great 1B.  However, they actively choose not do this for some reason, instead intentionally developing all homegrown 1B into such poor players that the team is forced to spend limited resources on external MLB 1Bs on 1 year deals every year.  Is that what you are saying here?  

[dxpavelka]

8 hours ago, Woof Bronzer said:

So you are saying the Twins could, in the span of 1 season, turn any player on the MLB team or in their system into a great 1B.  However, they actively choose not do this for some reason, instead intentionally developing all homegrown 1B into such poor players that the team is forced to spend limited resources on external MLB 1Bs on 1 year deals every year.  Is that what you are saying here?  

Not saying anything of the sort.  I'm saying that in two years they've managed to have two first basemen win Gold Gloves.  Nothing more nothing less.