Projections, Opportunity, and Where it Stands in Minnesota

I know what St Peter said about payroll and how Levine and Falvey have spoken about payroll, but I still can't shake the feeling that Levine and Falvey are basically falling on the sword for the Pohlads regarding fans and the media.

I bet they would love to just blurt out, "Listen, the Pohlads capped us. We are not being allowed to make the upgrades you are begging for." But that's career suicide.

Those two seems wise enough to know that there were three and now two guys on the FA market that would be a definitive upgrade for this team both short and long term. As pointed out in the ZIPS projections, that's a tough feat on a team that is composed of average players up and down the roster.

With the way the Keuchel market is being portrayed in MLBTR reports, getting him for 3/$60 may be feasible. His peripherals all trended up in 2018 from 16-17. While I'm not a Keuchel guy and argued against signing him early on when the discussion was 5/$100, 3/$60 is fine.

Is that possible? If the contract he signs is around that number and it's not with the Twins, I will absolutely pin this on the Pohlads and not our personnel decision makers. 

As was conversed about on the Effectively Wild podcast this morning, every GM wants more money to spend on payroll and it's very rare for a GM not to spend up to what ownership approves.

These projections are nice to pass the time during a brutal February winter. However, there is a reason they still play the games so let's get playing some baseball already.

The zips projections for Buxton are a bit of an improvement over his career averages. It seems hard to have his numbers get worse.

 

Sanos projections are better than the numbers he put up last year. But not as good as his career averages (244/336/477).

 

Zips is only projecting 403 and 411 ABs for them. So about 110 games? The front office has to be counting on more than this because those projections aren’t anywhere close to “players you build around” numbers.

Given their history, there is no reason to expect them to play more than that. Miguel Sano has yet to start even 80 games at the MLB level in a season at third base Buxton has started more than 90 just once at the MLB level.

It was for the low 80s, IIRC. Projections are most likely outcomes, not the only outcomes that a model spits out (or that might happen). But teams and companies should be built on what you think will happen, not hope...

Although we DO have to keep in mind that thinking and hoping are not mutually exclusive. I'm positive that the Twins THINK Sano will rebound. A lot of the harshest criticism on TD comes from people who chastise them for this as being nothing more than hope. They have a disdain for hope because of their own preference for non-existent certainty.

Given their history, there is no reason to expect them to play more than that. Miguel Sano has yet to start even 80 games at the MLB level in a season at third base Buxton has started more than 90 just once at the MLB level.

There is no way the Twins aren't planning on each of these guys getting past their injuries and starting in 140 games or so. 

If they thought the past is a prelude, they wouldn't be taking the bet they are taking.

I too think they think Sano and Buxton will bounce back. I'm sure that is part of their internal projections. Every company on the planet does projections, it's called planning. The disdain on this site for planning is astounding. Not that you have that, but others do.

I would bet the Twins use a similar projection system as a baseline exercise. But their projections regarding the players incorporates intuitive thinking. Every great company on the planet relies on the solid intuition of its people to take the planning beyond the projection models.

The Twins are probably THINKING that Kepler, for example, will deliver results a half WAR better than the model based on some of the subtler things they saw last year (confirmed by some of the data).

Wouldn't it be fascinating to hear a rundown, player by player, of how their own projections deviate from ZIPS, and from their own baseline model as well?

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they don't have or aren't developing an analytic process to identify roster players they think are about to underperform the model and as a result represent a "sell high" possibility.

As for planning, the hardest part of it is assigning a probability to the outcome, assessing the risks associated with failure, and finding the resources in a finite world to incorporate contingencies. The industry trend toward avoidance of some of these long-term FA contracts is probably an indication that organizations are paying closer attention to these things now that the financial stakes are so astronomical.

 

With the way the Keuchel market is being portrayed in MLBTR reports, getting him for 3/$60 may be feasible. His peripherals all trended up in 2018 from 16-17. While I'm not a Keuchel guy and argued against signing him early on when the discussion was 5/$100, 3/$60 is fine.

 

Is that possible? If the contract he signs is around that number and it's not with the Twins, I will absolutely pin this on the Pohlads and not our personnel decision makers. 

 

As was conversed about on the Effectively Wild podcast this morning, every GM wants more money to spend on payroll and it's very rare for a GM not to spend up to what ownership approves.

The initial numbers on Keuchel weren't 5/100M, Boras was pushing 7/210M. there's still no indicator that he's willing to do 3/60M, otherwise he'd already be signed. Right now the hot rumor is that he might bet on himself with a 1 year deal if he can't get the 6+ year deal he wants at the AAV he's (Boras, really) is looking for.

I''d like to add Keuchel to this team, reliable starting pitching is worth paying a premium for, but 6-7 year deals tend to get ugly. And there's no evidence he's willing to come down to $20M per season. We probably don't make much sense for him to come here on a 1 year deal because of the uncertainty of how competitive we're going to be, at least from his perspective. I'd love to have him on a  year deal, but I don't see him going for that

Back to ZIPS: projection systems frequently seem to choose to regress players to the mean, unless they;re older, and then they tend to presume degradation. They're not great at spotting breakouts or even projecting steady improvement. They're also not good at spotting who's going to fall off a cliff or get hurt, either. They're educated guesses and fun to play with, but are probably best used as a baseline for assessing risk.