Can a Healthy Offseason Help Byron Buxton’s 2025 Performance?

Again with the Buxton Fan Fiction.

Stop trying to make "Byron Buxton could be an MVP if only..." happen.  It's not going to happen!  

The continued dialog that tries to act as if Buxton is not an absolute bust is maddening.  He's shown us everything that he was, he is, or he ever will be.  A BUST. 

30 MLBer that played in 150+ innings. I bet most of them are 1Bmen &DHs. How many are catchers or CFers? Not many I wager.

Putting Emmanuel Rodriguez in LF and having DaShawn Keirsey Jr. available as an extra outfielder would go a long way toward improving the team. Not only would the Twins have capable backups for Byron Buxton but an entire fleet of pop ups and fly balls would now land in a glove and reduce the number of outs for the Twins pitchers.

I'm really tired of reading numbers that say a player provided this much value for the way he played when he played but don't take value away for every game that the player doesn't play. If Buxton provided $29.4M in value for the 102 games he played then he also cost the Twins $17.3M for the 60 games he didn't play. So his real value is $12.1M. ($29.4M/162Games=0.1814814 per game). Now add in the extra cost of rostering another player capable of playing CF when he is hurt, He's not even close to being worth what they are paying him. 

As for being healthy, we all know with Buck that can change by tomorrow. 

Keirsey is a bona fide CF and is a very good sub to Buxton. Buxton is coming off a 100-game season that he can build upon. Emma isn't that far behind to possibly help out. Throwing out Margot we have a very good perspective for this season.

You generally don't get better and healthier after 30. He'll be 31 in a month or so. rv78 is right, missing as many games as Buxton does has to be taken into account in his value and worth. Buxton is more likely to play 80 than 100 or more.

1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

Some overlap as Fangraphs quantifies "primary position" oddly. Assmuming you mean games and not "innings" so a quick search says 150+ games
C - 3
1B - 11
2B - 9
3B - 9
SS - 13
LF - 11
CF - 9
RF - 7

This is interesting data IMO.

Catcher appears, not surprising, as the most difficult.

SS reason might be because you can't rotate out this slot as easily as others for rest.  Same with the Hot Corner.

So 9 MLBers played 150+ games at CF...

Stop bashing Buxton everyone.  For once a positive type article on TD and we get crap like "BUST".  

It will be interesting to see how the pieces are put together for the Twins next year.  A lot of internal options with upside, but upside is not guaranteed results.
 

47 minutes ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

We can HOPE that it will make a difference, but there are certainly no guarantees.  I've been disappointed often enough that a solid 1/2 season sounds like a good deal to me.  A "perfectly healthy" Byron Buxton could get hurt swinging at the first pitch on opening day next year.  That being said, I would rather have him going into the offseason healthy than recovering from surgery.  Byron. . . no skydiving, no snowboarding, and no bull riding this winter!

or chasing your kids
or slip-n-slides
or ... 🫣

1 hour ago, rv78 said:

I'm really tired of reading numbers that say a player provided this much value for the way he played when he played but don't take value away for every game that the player doesn't play. If Buxton provided $29.4M in value for the 102 games he played then he also cost the Twins $17.3M for the 60 games he didn't play. So his real value is $12.1M. ($29.4M/162Games=0.1814814 per game). Now add in the extra cost of rostering another player capable of playing CF when he is hurt, He's not even close to being worth what they are paying him. 

As for being healthy, we all know with Buck that can change by tomorrow. 

The value doesn't work that way.

There may be a site that figures out the negative value or sunk cost of a contract but all I have seen is taking the WAR (or equivalent) and multiplying it be number determined by someone.

A few years ago that number was $8M/1WAR.  I think it is now $10M/1WAR.

Just as you can't assume he would have the same ration of WAR for more games played you cannot assume it is a lost of WAR for not playing those games.

No!  Waaaayyy to many injuries!  He is talented, but unreliable; as Bud Grant famously once stated, "the best ability is availability"!  Nice guy, but trade him, with a caveat:  spend more money to bring in a winner for a change, which ownership owes the Twins fans with their "new stadium so we can compete"....what a bunch of dung!

3 hours ago, EGFTShaw said:

The value doesn't work that way.

There may be a site that figures out the negative value or sunk cost of a contract but all I have seen is taking the WAR (or equivalent) and multiplying it be number determined by someone.

A few years ago that number was $8M/1WAR.  I think it is now $10M/1WAR.

Just as you can't assume he would have the same ration of WAR for more games played you cannot assume it is a lost of WAR for not playing those games.

If the value of a player isn't taking into consideration the cost of when he isn't playing then it is flawed. 

1 hour ago, rv78 said:

If the value of a player isn't taking into consideration the cost of when he isn't playing then it is flawed. 

I don't disagree.

I think the value system itself is sort of flawed.

It would be interesting how much the FO's look a the WAR to $$s ration?  My guess is not at all.

4 hours ago, Dawgzilla said:

No!  Waaaayyy to many injuries!  He is talented, but unreliable; as Bud Grant famously once stated, "the best ability is availability"!  Nice guy, but trade him, with a caveat:  spend more money to bring in a winner for a change, which ownership owes the Twins fans with their "new stadium so we can compete"....what a bunch of dung!

Trade him for what?

Wrong rationale.

You are right that availability matters a lot, but I can't imagine how you would come out ahead in trading Buxton.  The contract is friendly to the team, if you aren't sure about that take a look at salaries for players making $15M regardless of position and see what their value to winning is?

 

8 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Keirsey can't hit and I don't think he's going to be anything more than serviceable in CF.

That is your opinion. What are you basing that opinion on, Mr Bean? For someone who lives & dies by specific stats, I'm surprised. Keirsey has done everything we asked him to do at AAA & then some. Are you basing his hitting by his very small MLB beginning sample size? I'm further surprised. There is a process to development & each is different. Holliday with a larger sample size was absolutely terrible does that mean that BAL should give up on him? Or do you think we should pick up another Margot to further screw up the development of our prospects? Stats are good only to a point & if you are dealing with projected players in a Fantasy Baseball game. Stats that are comprised to come to a bias personal result with no applications to underlying conditions & untangible effects in the real world. Just by stats alone Keirsey deserves a long look & commitment. But beyond that we need to look at character. 

I love to watch Seth's interviews. I wasn't big on SWR until I watched him on Seth's interview, And now I'm a big believer in SWR even when everyone else gave up on him, I've listened to early reporter's interview with Lewis, from then on I believed in Lewis & capable of great things even when he couldn't do what the Twins wanted him to do. Martin hasn't become the power hitting SS model that the Twins wanted to shove him into but still he has value that can help the Twins. The Twins have always put Martin in impossible situations & expect him to be a high profiled veteran. This season I hope the Twins will give the speedy, fiesty, OB machine & base-path terror a reasonable opportunity to succeed, After I watched Seth's interview with Keirsey & saw his character I've become a believer. I don't put a lot of stock in stats or what social media says. I put stock in what I see & know who the players are.

I don't expect to see Keirsey's bat to set the MLB on fire (although he could) but I do expect that he has the talent to be the greatest glove to ever sub Buxton. Again Keirsey deserves to have the opportunity to be a bench player as a rookie & that's what the standard should be, a rookie bench player not an all-star starting CFer that fans put on him expecting him to fail.

12 hours ago, bean5302 said:

The cost to replace 1 WAR of production in free agency has been about $8MM AAV. Last I checked, it declined slightly in 2022-2023 down to about $7.8MM, but maybe it's back to $8MM.

Teams seem to pay about $6MM per expected WAR, but free agents often don't live up to the hype so with actual production drops, it winds up close to $8MM.

The average cost for 1 WAR of production overall is like $2.5MM including arb/pre-arb guys.

This value proposition is conceptually misrepresented.  It's a production measure not a value measure.  In other words, on average free agent spending has produced 1 WAR per $8M.  That does not mean that spending $8M per WAR is a promising strategy.  Spending $8M/WAR might be viable for the Dodgers/Yankrees but the Twins are not going to be successful at that of production and of course this becomes increasing evident for teams with even less revenue. 

If you look back over the past couple of decades, 90+ win teams in the bottom half of revenue that produced significant WAR generally spent $2-3M/WAR.  There have only been 4 below average revenue teams in the past 15 years to produce 25% of their WAR from FA.  One of them was the 2019 Twins who produced spent $3.4M/WAR.  The 2012 As had the highest at 46%.  They spent $1.9M/WAR.  The 2018 Brewers produced just shy of 30% of their WAR via free agency and spent $3.4M.  The 4 team was the 2013 Pirates who spent $1.9M/WAR.  1 WAR does not have universal value, it has an average cost that teams in the bottom half of revenue must outperform to have any chance of success. 

We know it's off season when your annual Byron Buxton hyped article is forced down our throats.  J feel sorry for him because he undoubtedly has some talent and has had to work hard to try to play.  But overall he has been a BUST.

Buxton is fun to watch and a great impact player. The caveat is he only plays about half a season. This means we need a legit CF that is productive enough to start 75+ games out there. Keirsey would be good for defense and speed but not sure he'd hit enough. Same with Austin Martin without the solid defense. Rodriguez and Rosario need more time in the minors which means we need to bring someone in like a Harrison Bader. I just hope it's someone athletic, fast and energetic because that's what this team needs.

19 hours ago, rv78 said:

I'm really tired of reading numbers that say a player provided this much value for the way he played when he played but don't take value away for every game that the player doesn't play. If Buxton provided $29.4M in value for the 102 games he played then he also cost the Twins $17.3M for the 60 games he didn't play. So his real value is $12.1M. ($29.4M/162Games=0.1814814 per game). Now add in the extra cost of rostering another player capable of playing CF when he is hurt, He's not even close to being worth what they are paying him. 

As for being healthy, we all know with Buck that can change by tomorrow. 

By this logic, if player 1 produces 4 WAR in 80 Games, and player 2 produces 2 WAR in 80 games and player 3 produces 0 WAR, they all have the same value.  Does this seem logical?  Would you prefer to roster Player 1 or Player 3.

20 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

You definitely didn't read my post.

I thought your post was very accurate.  I meant the concept was misrepresented in general not that you misrepresented it.  Writers and fans in this industry represent the cost paid per WAR in free agency is a measure of what something cost as opposed to value or what a given team, is willing to pay.  You point out in your post that the actual target is different than the cost so I am not sure where we differ.

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

By this logic, if player 1 produces 4 WAR in 80 Games, and player 2 produces 2 WAR in 80 games and player 3 produces 0 WAR, they all have the same value.  Does this seem logical?  Would you prefer to roster Player 1 or Player 3.

Neither.  I would take Player 2 if he would play 160 games at 2 WAR. And if he can't, I would find someone who could.

20 minutes ago, rv78 said:

Neither.  I would take Player 2 if he would play 160 games at 2 WAR. And if he can't, I would find someone who could.

I will take player 1 and back him up with a player that produces 1 WAR and end up with 5 WAR instead of 2 and then hope that I have player #1 back for the playoffs which would significantly enhance the team's potential in the playoffs.