Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Brock Beauchamp

Site Manager
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    32,297

  • 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

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Brock Beauchamp

  1. Brock Beauchamp
    If anything, that would increase his BABIP, as groundballs have a higher chance of turning into a hit than a flyball (though obviously not a line drive). Dozier's soft-medium-hard hit balls moved around as the season progressed (not in a positive way) but not so much that he should suddenly see a BABIP rivaling the most plodding of MLB players. Dozier has a career BABIP of .269. His BABIP in Jul/Aug/Sep/Oct of 2016 was just under .230. Dozier's GB% did skyrocket in the second half, though. It's a weird situation... Logic would infer that his BABIP should also rise a bit, not plummet as it did. Maybe it's likely that pitchers adjusted and he hit a dose of bad luck at the same time.
  2. Brock Beauchamp
    I think he'll get there but I'm skeptical it will be in 2016. I'd be happy with 30 homers out of a 23 year old player.
  3. Brock Beauchamp
    Yep. Even if it's not luck, it may be (nearly) impossible to track. Maybe Brian Dozier is *really good* at taking home plate in certain situations (let's say a left-center gapper where he tracks the ball but doesn't have that advantage in a right-center gapper). Maybe in 2015, that situation arose four times and directly led to two wins. Maybe in 2016, that situation only occurs once in a non-critical situation and leads to zero wins. That's not luck, it's just a rare skill that only arises a handful of times a season. Or maybe Dozier's ability to do something awesome is offset by Aaron Hicks getting *really* unlucky, which negates Dozier's skill-based gains and gives the team stat an appearance of "luck neutral" when, in fact, they were unlucky. Metrics are awesome and I love the insight they give us into the game but it's hard to rely on them too much because, at best, they're somewhat incomplete. At worst, they're largely incomplete.
  4. Brock Beauchamp
    It's also possible "luck" consists of multiple data points for which we are currently unable to account and, when aligned correctly, skew results way out of proportion. We assume it's luck when it could be multiple things; some repeatable, some not. It's a mistake to assume we're only missing one or two things that account for noise. It could be a handful. It could be dozens. It could be a lack of chances to exploit a particular skill (say, a baserunner taking home plate, something that drastically alters the outcome of a game). Baseball is a complicated game and I'm not sure mathematics will ever be able to explain it fully because humans seem to enjoy playing the role of monkey wrench.
  5. Brock Beauchamp
    I'd also take the under on almost all of these predictions but on the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me one bit to see Arcia jack 15-20 bombs in 2016 if he gets the playing time. In a full season, it wouldn't surprise me to see Oswaldo hit 25 homers if some team out there can stomach his outfield defense that often.
  6. Brock Beauchamp
    He will hit between 7 and 84 home runs in 2016. Book it.
  7. Brock Beauchamp
    It's possible but I refuse to turn bearish on Dozier until he actually underperforms. Some have been predicting the fall of Brian Dozier for 1500 PAs but the guy just keeps hitting. He's approaching 2000 PAs of well above average offense. I can't fully buy into "pitchers have figured him out" because if it was that easy, they would have figured him out over 1000 PAs ago. In today's game, it doesn't take long to assemble a strategy to face a hitter, particularly one who turned high-profile almost overnight. it's not as if Dozier was able to fly under the radar of opposing pitchers because the mighty Twins offense made him an afterthought in past seasons; shut down Brian Dozier in 2013-2014 and you do a pretty good job of shutting down the Twins offense. I'm not dismissing his lackluster second half performances, just pointing out that I think it's more complicated than pitchers finally building a book on the guy. One thing rarely discussed about Dozier's 2015 fade is his BABIP of .209/.260/.222 in July/Aug/Sept. What does that mean? Not sure but it could easily be chalked up to some pretty bad luck. His K rate didn't change appreciably during those months, nor did his walk rate.
  8. Brock Beauchamp
    Oh yeah, I get that part. I agree, teams that are expected to be terrible can easily skew the curve.
  9. Brock Beauchamp
    True, but part of that could be a chicken and egg situation. If you run through more than six starters without org depth, it's hard to compete.
  10. Brock Beauchamp
    I wonder what the average number of starts missed from >6 starters are for MLB. I'd imagine it's higher than 10-ish. I don't think it's really fair to remove Santana from the Twins' number. He missed 16-ish starts and if not for the Twins' relatively deep farm system, that would have been quite a blow to the season. Which is why depth matters (as you pointed out with Berrios). Without Duffey, the Twins fade from the postseason picture in July, maybe August, at the latest.
  11. Brock Beauchamp
    Agreed. He's an interesting flyer in that there's a little upside in that bat if you squint really hard. But, at the very least, he's solid behind the plate and that's what is really important in a third catcher.
  12. Brock Beauchamp
    Given the make-up of the 40 man, I view this as a swap of Pinto for Hicks. Given how both struggled mightily in 2015, I'll take the safety net of Hicks' defense over the potential bat of Pinto. Herrmann and Fryer are irrelevant, IMO. Those guys are readily available every offseason and I like the small upside of Hicks if he gets the bat going.
  13. Brock Beauchamp
    First post wins the thread.
  14. Brock Beauchamp
    Can Kurt Suzuki turn things around? Sure. Will Kurt Suzuki turn things around? Nah, probably not. Boy, I really hope Murphy works out.
  15. Brock Beauchamp
    Heheh, I'm in it for the long haul with NFLX. Going into the stock, I fully expected a bumpy ride because they're aggressively expanding and a lot of money is going out the door while not enough is coming back in. I'm already way into the black on the stock and a bit of regression in the short- or even mid-term doesn't bother me. I learned some time ago that I'm not clever enough nor do I pay enough attention to market ebbs and flows to "game" a stock. I pick companies that I believe in and, by and large, I stick with them for a long time.
  16. Brock Beauchamp
    I only buy into those stocks when I plan to hold onto them for a looooooong time because I believe in the business model's long term viability. Like 20 years long. I mean a long time.
  17. Brock Beauchamp
    Laudner killed it. I laughed when so few "sabermatriciansians" raised their hands (even though when called on, I was off on Blyleven's total strikeouts by 200).
  18. Brock Beauchamp
    Gaming is getting bigger but I don't think it's in ways that will benefit Nvidia in a positive way. The companies that stand to profit the most from gaming expansion are Google and Apple, provided they get their **** together. Smartphones destroyed the handheld gaming market and at the rate SoC chips are advancing, the same could happen to the console market in the next half decade. I predict the future of gaming is to be found on $150 set-top boxes, not dedicated consoles and PCs where Nvidia makes most of their money. Not only are consoles closed and expensive, developers who can use the power found within are becoming fewer and fewer by the day. In a market where it takes $10m to produce a game that draws customer attention, the risk of failure is too high for independent studios. Hell, even the big studios are tightening their belts because one big failure could cripple their business. Nvidia themselves see this wave - which is why they created Shield in the first place - but I suspect they're going to become just one more option in an increasingly crowded Android space while Google rakes in money hand over fist.
  19. Brock Beauchamp
    True, there is that. I forgot they were into that market. Though I wonder how that market is going to play out once Google and Apple enter it in earnest (personally, I'm not in love with the idea of Apple entering that market at all, at least not from the manufacturing side of things and Apple is loathe to offer only a software solution for anything).
  20. Brock Beauchamp
    I'm surprised you guys like Nvidia. They've been under my radar because I don't like their long-term future (admittedly, at a glance). Third party GPUs are not going to be a long-term necessity as computing continues a slog toward SoC systems. They have a stake in SoC as well but I don't think it's a particularly strong presence against Qualcomm and Apple. I'm not sold on their hardware (Shield) or virtual reality, either (I think VR isn't going to pan out into much of a market, just as smartwatches aren't going to be a powerhouse market). But, again, this is at a glance. I haven't really examined their business in a long time.
  21. Brock Beauchamp
    I have a small stake in Disney partially because I wanted to increase my dividend stocks to balance my portfolio. I think we've seen the majority of Disney's growth in the short-term and whatever they're gaining in film, they're losing in ESPN. The stock is a mixed bag, IMO.
  22. Brock Beauchamp
    And that's fair. There is reason to be cautious with the stock. It's a super high-risk stock and will be for some time.
  23. Brock Beauchamp
    Prime is great but Amazon's video service is only available in a handful of countries and Amazon's ability to scale to those countries quickly is limited, as they offer *no* services to the overwhelming majority of the world. I like Amazon and I think they have a lot of potential but they're years behind Netflix and they can't scale quickly because they're a lot more than a streaming company. Before Video moves into a country (much less Prime itself), Amazon needs to lay the groundwork for shipping, books, and a host of other things. Netflix, on the other hand, has already started that expansion and they've done it aggressively. Prime might catch up in several years but there's a good chance it'll be too late to stop Netflix by that point (plus, Netflix's self-generated content is generally superior both in quality and quantity).
  24. Brock Beauchamp
    Interesting. I'm staying in Netflix because I like their long-term potential. They're well ahead of the game in the rest of the world and it's going to be tough for the rest of the industry to catch up to them outside the US. I think they'll continue to grow for quite some time (though their short-term losses will remain as they aggressively expand).
  25. Brock Beauchamp
    Yeah, their short-term valuation is bonkers. If I hadn't recently put money into high-risk shares of Fitbit (the market is needlessly down on them right now) and Square (they're a big risk but I like their 10+ year potential), I'd double-down on Apple. They seem to be a lock to gain back at least 10-15% once the market rights itself. My hope is Apple fights their recent downturn by upping their dividend yield. As someone who wants to move more to dividend stocks (I'm overly weighted in high-risk stocks right now), that'd be a lure to keep me in the stock long-term. God knows Apple has the profits and on-hand cash to do it.
×
×
  • Create New...