Out Of Options But Not Out Of The Plans

I think Nunez is naturally a third baseman, just like Trevor Plouffe. Neither player has the range needed for SS or 2B. The Twins don't really have a backup infielder they would use to replace any of the infield starters on defense. The starters are generally average to above average defenders and the backups are below average defenders.

The only positions you might see a substitution for defense are RF (Sano), C (Suzuki) or 1B (Mauer).

It makes absolutely zero sense to move Santana to the outfield. Why would Ryan do that? They have Rosario, Sano, Arcia, and soon Buxton and Kepler coming to the outfield. Why oh why do they need Santana there? Whereas in the infield their only backup is Nunez. I know that these comments by Ryan might be just that: comments. But one of the many jobs of a GM (and admittedly not the most important one) is to sound like you know what you are doing. It would be one thing to say Santana is going to be getting ready to play some outfield, which makes sense, but that's not what he said.

Because Santana cannot make routine play at short. It's just that simple. When that happens, it also gets to his head. He could not hit for average anymore. Santana also has little power.

OK Spy. You're the manager in February 2015. You have to work with what is presented to you when pitchers and catchers report. You can cut anyone you want, completely or off the 40-man to make room for someone else in the system, but you can't trade for anyone new. 

Tell me who you're going to bring north with the club. If you find a bunch of young players you want to argue were ready to rock and roll, who are they? Be prepared for some criticism regarding your judgment however. 

I just don't think you can make a blanket statement about there being a veteran's preference. Aren't the decisions much more a function of who is ready to contribute? Isn't it likely that every prospect's fate is determined individually on merit? Don't you think that Allen and Paulie were really hoping for Pressly, Meyer, May, Graham, Tonkin, and the other youngsters in camp to show them something? 

You don't generally acquire youth via free agency, or even through trades really.  I'd submit to you that characterizing the Twins as having a vetoeran's presence is inaccurate despite the fact that they've installed a lot of veterans in the myriad of holes on the roster during the lean years. It just happened because they lacked young talent that was ready to contribute. And if they had a jones for veterans, how do we explain Arcia, Santana, Buxton, Rosario, and others?

But the eye test when its a guy posting on a blog doesn't really outweigh statistics. If a veteran scout or Twins coach said, "Danny Santana hits better when he plays OF" then I would say, "Hey that's interesting and potentially valid." But no scout or coach has said that because that's crazy talk. If you can find anything about where a guy plays in the field affecting his hitting, please post it.

 

The 3 games is a small sample. Just like Danny Santana's 2014, which was inflated by his high BABIP and the newness factor - but not by how far from the dugout he ran when the Twins took the field.

Heck, I don't know why teams have scout at all!  Because they can always call you and ask for the statistics.  Done with you.

Pretty sure you wouldn't have heard crickets if Danny Santana had even come close to repeating his historic .405 BABIP in 2015..

Guess we'll never know......   It's still a mostly useless stat...

Talking about Polanco as a utility player, is like talking about Buxton as a 4th outfielder.  Nuts.

 

I just do not get the hate.

On the contrary, I think the Twins could use a player who can play multiple positions and contribute at all of them. Placido Polanco is a good example of this, as are Ben Zobrist and Mark Loretta. With benches as short as they are having a player with defensive versatility who can switch hit is a plus. If the Twins trade Plouffe and put Sano at 3B this will become even more important.

I like Michael Tonkin, and I think he can be a solid middle reliever for some team, but I don't see how he will survive with so many other high quality arms around and behind him. Pressly, Graham, May, and then a guy like Burdi coming up with blowtorch heat and a wipe out slider... Unless Tonkin develops impeccable control, I don't see where he fits for long.

For Arcia, this is make or break spring training. He's got to put it all together right now, or the Twins will cut bait and go with other guys. My excuse for him last year was that his early hip injury kept bothering him all season. No more excuses. No more room.

Danny Santana should make this team as a super-U guy, unless Joe Benson starts hitting like a first round draft pick, which is unlikely at this point. Speaking of which, wasn't Santana supposed to learn how to hit by now? I hate to tell Molly, but teaching a guy your hitting style doesn't make him as talented as you.

The Yankees DFA'd Nunez because he couldn't play 2B and fill a utility role. He may have improved his SS play from the poor level but it isn't possible to use metrics to support an improvement. The sample size for his offensive statistics are not enough to support improvement either. His strike out rates and walk rates with the Twins are in line with his career numbers. His ground all rate is up and his line drive and fly ball rates are down. That may indicate a change in approach leading to a better batting average. If the Twins believe he is a different player based on a partial year of slash numbers and UZR, they have little understanding of the sample necessary for those offensive and defensive numbers to be reliable.

Turned out to be more useful than, say, Danny Santana's 2014 batting average.

Danny Santana's 2014 batting average was extremely useful--In 2014.  We all forget that last year's performance means exactly jack **** this year.

Guess we'll never know......   It's still a mostly useless stat...

Useless stat?  I don't think you understand the stat at all then.  Batting Average of Balls In Play which is literally what it means is the players batting average when walks, strikeouts, homeruns  (BABIP = (H – HR)/(AB – K – HR + SF)) are taken out of the batting average calculation.  The average BABIP is .300 and the best way to look at it is a measurement of luck or unlucky.  Only the really good hitters are able to carry a BABIP of .300 or over sustainably.  So anyone who follows BABIP would know that Danny Santana's 2014 .405 BABIP meant he was REALLY LUCKY and wasn't going to repeat or come close to those numbers that he posted.

" The average BABIP is .300 and the best way to look at it is a measurement of luck or unlucky."   Good luck with that.  Might as well try to predict what his fortune cookie is going to say.  Bottom line is that you CAN'T take walks, strikeouts & home runs out of the equation and even if you could, why the hell would you want to.  You might as well tell folks that his batting average in at bats that he gets a single in is 1.000.

I think Escobar is considered a better fielder than Polanco, which is why he goes into spring training as the starting shortstop. I agree that Escobar is a useful player to have on your team.

No one is taking them out of the equation in determining the player's overall contributions or value.  It's only taking them out to help answer a very specific question: how likely is it that this player can repeat the portion of his contributions/value derived from batting average?  Success due to BABIP has less predicting power than success via walks, limiting strikeouts, or home runs.  A ton of Santana's success in 2014 was due to BABIP.  Thus, it was very relevant in projecting his performance for 2015.  Had Santana drawn more walks, struck out fewer times, or hit more home runs in 2014, his chances for success in 2015 would have been much better.

Still calling bull****.  NOTHING Santana or any other player does in one year has anything to do with what he does in a subsequent year.  Those things may have an impact on how a few stat geeks perceive his chances of success but they have absolutely no bearing on his actual success.  Had Santana drawn more walks, struck out fewer times or hit more home runs in 2014, his success rate in 2015 would have had nothing to do with his BABIP and everything to do with the fact that he was a better ball player than he was being given credit for.  How would you have explained if he HAD done those things in 2014 but not in 2015? 

So Santana's .405 BABIP was flukey, but it in no way helps to explain the drop off in production in 2015 and nothing can? Even though nearly everyone predicted that Santana would drop off in 2015 due to his extremely high BABIP everyone was just a lucky guesser?

 

Because there really isn't any other measure that takes into account "Texas Leaguers", "Seeing-eye Singles" and other various other hits that a fielder probably should have turned into an out but didn't, BABIP is a pretty strong tool for determining if a player had more than his fair share of these during the year. Obviously those kinds of hits are based more on luck than skill, and luck shouldn't be an expectation.

Don't need to be a stat geek or BAPIP disciple to predict that a guy who 43 points higher as a rookie than his MILB career average and had an OPS a hundred points higher than his minor league average would most likely suffer some regression.  If somebody wants to prove their genius tell me what he's going to do THIS year.  I'm going with a .270 average and an OPS just north of .700.

You can stick your head up a bulls arse to check the meat or you can just take the butcher's word for it.