Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Brock Beauchamp

Site Manager
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    32,403

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    328

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Brock Beauchamp

  1. Brock Beauchamp
    What?!?!?! You mean the offseason didn't end the moment the Twins signed Rodney? This is a solid, though slightly underwhelming, move. And I'm okay with that halfway into December.
  2. Brock Beauchamp
    Combined, the two players have ~400 professional plate appearances. Both were/are pretty highly regarded in some respects (Pearson was a mid 2nd round pick on some boards, Banuelos' defense is a plus). There's no need to put a positive or negative spin on either of them. They're both so inexperienced that no conclusion can be drawn from a stat sheet.
  3. Brock Beauchamp
    Yeah, but that kid actually had a vision problem. He floundered in the low minors and bombed out of baseball. The rumors being bandied about in this thread are suggesting Marte's vision problem isn't that big of a deal. And if it's not the big of a deal, it would require very little money to go get an independent physical and send it to 29 MLB teams, attached with a note "I'll sign for half what the Twins offered me". There are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars at stake here. If the Twins are dealing dirty, it'd be very easy to prove otherwise and make a boatload of money (while the acquiring team still saves millions). This seems like a pretty clear cut example of Occam's Razor. The Twins said he has a vision problem that will hamper his baseball career, he probably has a vision problem that will hamper his baseball career.
  4. Brock Beauchamp
    The thing is that there are teams with more than high six figures in international money. If the Twins screwed him over, he would have plenty of other suitors. He was a $3m signing. If nothing is wrong with him, he could easily find another team to give him 1/3rd that money or more. Remember that the Twins just dealt $2m to other teams, at least one of which won't get Ohtani and will be sitting on a pile of cash. If Marte is just fine and everything is no big deal, that org would be insane not to offer him everything they have and get him in the organization.
  5. Brock Beauchamp
    Given that Marte claims there's no hard feelings over the voiding of the contract, this seems unlikely. If the Twins were pulling a fast one and trying to get away with something, it seems to me Marte would have a lot of ill will toward the organization, not brush off the voided contract and say he's open to signing at a reduced amount.
  6. Brock Beauchamp
    My understanding is that pretty much all of these contracts have a "pending a physical" stipulation. They get the contract done because that's the hard part. They worry about the physical later because it's a formality the overwhelming majority of the time.
  7. Brock Beauchamp
    They literally traded a $1m 2017 draftee for $1m in fake money. Not sure what you think they could have received that would be more significant than that.
  8. Brock Beauchamp
    LA and SF need to be on this list. LA has the largest Japanese population in the mainland US and San Francisco is one of the greatest cities in the country.
  9. Brock Beauchamp
    Honestly take a look at the Angels' roster and farm system, then tell me you want to play for that team.
  10. Brock Beauchamp
    Great post.
  11. Brock Beauchamp
    If this team and its sub-$100m commitment needs to move Santana to acquire another good pitcher, we should all be furious at ownership. They easily have the wiggle room to move to $120m and even $130m based on previous promises to the fanbase.
  12. Brock Beauchamp
    Sure, if that's what you meant, I'm not going to argue with you about your intent but "poor” can easily be interpreted as "bad".
  13. Brock Beauchamp
    You said this, which is what I rebutted: "Even severe regression and a poor 18' campaign" If "poor" isn't synonymous with "bad"... *shrugs*
  14. Brock Beauchamp
    Oh no, not at all. It was a good catch. I had a dozen tabs open and could easily have missed Porcello or flipped him with Cole.
  15. Brock Beauchamp
    Ah, right. And Porcello. He also had an ERA+ of 98. Or maybe I accidentally flipped Cole and Porcello. I don't care enough to go back and double-check. The overall point is still the same.
  16. Brock Beauchamp
    Thanks, you as well. The defense thing was an edit. Over time, those things will balance in the modern game. Given how we're talking almost exclusively about pitchers with 1000+ IP, it's likely they not only changed teams but that the defenses behind them rotated several players as well. It's not as if Nolasco's 2006 season with the Marlins had much in common with his Twins stint in front of bad OF defenses or his Angels time with Trout roaming center.
  17. Brock Beauchamp
    Yeah, this. At a glance, the only pitchers who crossed 200 IP with an ERA+ under 100 were Samardzija and Cole. Samardzija had a 94 ERA+ while Cole had a 98 ERA+. Given how ERA+ works, Cole is smack-dap at "average starting pitcher". If you want to argue it, Samardzija is close enough to count as well (though I'd consider him just a hair below average). No one with 200 IP came anywhere near "bad" and most were way above average on the season.
  18. Brock Beauchamp
    How many bad pitchers do you believe reach the 200 IP mark in the modern game?
  19. Brock Beauchamp
    True, but it measures actual runs allowed and all pitchers play under the same rules regarding ERA. The run scores or it doesn't. You get the out or you don't. Factors can influence those things over the short term (defense, bullpen) but in the long run, it should balance out in time. Now, in the olden days when a pitcher would play most or all of his career for the same team and (mostly) in front of the same defense, I can see more wiggle room to debate the validity of ERA. But when a modern player plays for four teams in both leagues in front of an ever-changing defense every season, the measurement that tracks actual runs allowed has more validity in my eyes.* *in no way am I defending the use of aberrant ERA numbers year-over-year, I'm speaking only in terms of player career
  20. Brock Beauchamp
    Absolutely. I'm not really bashing FIP, as I think it's very useful. But there are pitchers who seem to defy FIP predictions to varying degrees. Like Santana to a small extent. His FIP/ERA split is .22 runs. Now, that's not a lot and well within a margin of error IMO but the guy has 2400 career IP. If my math is correct, FIP and ERA disagree on ~60 runs over the course of his career. That ain't nothin'. And then you have guys like Nolasco, whose FIP is about .6 runs lower than his ERA. The guy has just shy of 1900 career IP. He has played for multiple teams in multiple leagues so that discrepancy simply should not exist to that degree. Again, if my math is correct, FIP and ERA disagree over a whopping ~115 runs in his case. And that's my point about FIP. I think it's a pretty good indicator of future performance (and often a good indicator of past performance) but there are guys out there that are doing something FIP cannot measure.
  21. Brock Beauchamp
    This assumes an infallibility of FIP that I'm not willing to accept. At some point, maybe 700-1000 IP, measurable on-field performance needs to be a major factor. Did this pitcher allow runs or not? As we all know, there are some pitchers who change teams, leagues, and defenses yet still over/underperform their FIP. That leads me to believe FIP is missing something that leads some pitchers to be better or worse than their expected numbers over 1000 or more innings. So we either have to accept that either FIP or ERA isn't an accurate indication of some pitchers' ability. And I haven't really seen the argument that ERA is the truly flawed stat over large sample sizes. But I'd be interested in seeing it made and how it draws its conclusions.
  22. Brock Beauchamp
    To point out something else about FIP and Santana, he has overperformed his FIP seven out of the past eight seasons, the lone exception that slightly weird season he had in Atlanta. And a lot of the time, it's not particularly close. While 2017 was his biggest FIP/ERA gap, in five of those eight seasons he overperformed his FIP by .4 or more runs. So why are we assuming that Santana will revert to his FIP (or even that his 2017 FIP was a true measure of his performance)? He's closing in on a decade of showing us that FIP isn't particularly relevant to him, particularly if he's playing in front of good defenses, as he is in Minnesota, was in Kansas City, and (IIRC) was in Anaheim before he left. Another fun fact that's mostly irrelevant but interesting to note: Santana's career low in BABIP was not 2017 but his 2012 campaign with the Angels, where he posted a .241 BABIP... In what was probably his worst season as an MLB pitcher.
  23. Brock Beauchamp
    Santana was a bit "lucky" but if you dig into his numbers, they weren't that out of line with his career. He allowed a few more flyballs but cut down on line drives and increased his IFFB rate. That BABIP wasn't as out of whack as it looks at a glance and this is one of those cases where I'm unwilling to let the FIP gods rule my opinion of a player. Santana got worse at the things FIP hates (flyballs and therefore, home runs) and better at the things FIP ignores (contact that doesn't drop for hits at the rate FIP expects balls to drop). Even if Santana regresses to his 4.40-ish FIP of 2017, he's a league average pitcher. That is easily worth $13m in 2018. If he manages to pitch 200 innings of league average ball, he'll be worth another $13m in 2019. We're talking about a guy who hasn't seen a significant enough injury to drop under the 175 IP threshold since 2009. I ride that arm until it proves it's no longer capable of doing the job. I'd have a very different opinion of the situation if the Twins had more than two starters I trusted but that isn't the case.
  24. Brock Beauchamp
    Yeah, this. You can make an argument that Mauer falls under the Puckett clause but it's hard to make that case for Johan. He just broke down, as pitchers often do. On that note, it's hard to believe Joe is still 400 PAs shy of Puckett's career number, has been mediocre-to-bad for 4+ seasons, and still has 3 more career fWAR than Kirby.
  25. Brock Beauchamp
    I agree with the bolded but the rest kind of loses me. Why do the Twins care about anyone's value beyond their on-field performance right now? To be perfectly blunt, I don't give a rat's ass about Santana's trade value because the Twins made the postseason and Santana helped them get there. Pick up another arm and let Santana help them get to the postseason again. One aspect of baseball fandom I don't really understand is the constant need to maximize trade value in every single player. Some guys give you their value on the field and help you win games and that's what matters. If the Twins were coming off another 72 win season, sure. Trade Santana and get what you can out of him. But why on earth would you trade a guy that can help you win baseball games in the offseason following a postseason appearance when you have one of the youngest rosters in baseball? You go find players to help that guy, you don't just trade him away.* *every player should be traded if the deal just blows you away and/or improves the MLB team
×
×
  • Create New...