Hunter And Garnett: The Marketing Angle

Let's start with this list:

 

Trout

Brantley

Gordon

Bautista

Zobrist

A. Jones

Cruz

Ellsbury

Calhoun

Y. Martin

Cespedes

Jennings

Gardner

Eaton

M. Cabrera

Markakis

Moss

Aoki

Ackley

Fowler

De Aza

A. Jackson

C. Crisp

 

That is 23, does that work?

In fairness, he said offensively.  You used WAR, which incorporates the horrific and unreliable defensive stat called UZR :-) Psychics, Palm Readers, UZR...

If you use wRC+, there are still 12 qualifying guys out of 27 that were better.  If you go to 400 PAs or more, there were 41 guys in which he ranked 16th, so now we have 15 guys who had better offensive seasons. :-)

I edited my above post as I see that he did mention offense, but as I said why would you only take offense into consideration when Hunter wasn't signed to be the primary DH?

Because if you just look at just offense, add in leadership, and blow off defensive stats as hocom, the Hunter signing makes more sense? Heck, practically a bargain :-)

And remember, he was worth over 12M in 2013. So it's possible he bounces back to that or close. I wouldn't count it out, honestly.

No one has responded to the challenge.

Check any of about five other threads.  The ground has been gone over pretty thoroughly.

Why would we only take offense into consideration when he isn't going to be a primary DH? Let's take a look at those AL outfielders who ranked ahead of him in WAR last season: 

 

Trout

Brantley

Gordon

Bautista

Zobrist

A. Jones

Cruz

Ellsbury

Calhoun

Y. Martin

Cespedes

Jennings

Gardner

Eaton

M. Cabrera

Markakis

Moss

Aoki

Ackley

Fowler

De Aza

A. Jackson

C. Crisp

 

That is 23. There are 15 teams in the AL meaning 45 OF spots. Ranking 24th of 45 would put him in the middle of the pack.

I'll give you Trout, Bautista, Brantley, Cruz, A.Jones, Cespedes, M. Cabrerra & Gordon.  The rest do nothing for me.  Sorry.  You can use WAR all you want.  But if I can't measure it myself by looking a box score, it's useless to me. 

 But if I can't measure it myself by looking a box score, it's useless to me. 

Info found outside of a box score might by useless to you, but that doesn't mean it actually is useless or that it's useless to people answering your question.  You probably should have rephrased your challenge .

Instead of just writing this: 'I also challenge anyone to name 10 American League outfielders who had better offensive seasons than Hunter did last year.' you maybe should have added, 'but when you do so, only use archaic information even though you know a good chunk of it doesn't really tell us much about the players actual ability.'  I know it seems wordy, but parameters need to be set.  :-)

After last season (or several seasons) I would be happy to have a middle of the pack (23/45) OF'er on the team.  No more Nunez, Clete Thomas, Wilkin Ramirez, and other AAAA/utility IF'er types starting please.

Though I admit people I know are excited about Hunter's return, I do not think that excitement will last if he and the team do not beat projections this year.

I want the players to look like they are having fun (preferably because they are) even if the record isn't that much different.

We read about the "library" like atmosphere in the clubhouse the last couple of years.  I think the Twins have set out to change that.  No more cell phones or ipads (or card games) 30 minutes before gametime. Additions of Torii and Ervin -- both outgoing guys with a visible love of the game.  I hope for the continued emergence of Vargas who radiates fun.  Look forward to Sano who also has a big personality.  I also think Hughes & Perkins can be pretty dynamic.

Even if they don't win more, at least they won't dull us to death,

Long time lurker, first time poster here.

 

This article serves as a perfect opportunity to ask a question I've been wondering about for a few months. So there's a Twins Daily, a Vikings Journal and a Wild Xtra. What about a Wolves Press...name is up for debate of course but you get the idea. The Wolves have such an exciting young core of players and have really been fun to follow since the Love trade. Is there really not enough interest?

The t-wolves have a nice blog called - A Wolf Among Wolves - check it out when you get the chance.

Info found outside of a box score might by useless to you, but that doesn't mean it actually is useless or that it's useless to people answering your question.  You probably should have rephrased your challenge .

 

Instead of just writing this: 'I also challenge anyone to name 10 American League outfielders who had better offensive seasons than Hunter did last year.' you maybe should have added, 'but when you do so, only use archaic information even though you know a good chunk of it doesn't really tell us much about the players actual ability.'  I know it seems wordy, but parameters need to be set.  :-)

Again-useless paramaters.

Again-useless paramaters.

I agree, the parameter you set (box score stuff, only) is pretty much useless for determining who the best offensive performers are, but it was your challenge :-)

I agree, the parameter you set (box score stuff, only) is pretty much useless for determining who the best offensive performers are, but it was your challenge :-)

Baseball's a simple game.  Advanced metrics are nice-especially for guys who live in their mother's basement, but bottom line is your players gotta out perform the other team's players.  Advanced metrics MAY help with that but their ability to do so may just as as easily be overstated.  Perhaps you need to develop a metric to measure that.  It still boils down to hitting, catching throwing & running.  If every team were run by Bill James 29 of them would still not win the World Series each year.

I challenge any TD member to find 10 posts better than this.

Metrics (even the "old-fashioned ones") are to measure the hitting, catching, throwing, and running, (pitching too!).   How well they measure each of those attributes is open to debate, but some sort of quantification of the "eye test" is required.  Completly dismissing the use of statistics is anal, they have been used for a very long time (e.g. "the old-fashioned ones").