Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Brock Beauchamp

Site Manager
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    32,669

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    328

 Content Type 

Profiles

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Brock Beauchamp

  1. Brock Beauchamp
    I hope ownership doesn't pump the brakes on getting one of those guys. Sure, neither one impresses me that much but I don't think it takes more than $50m to get either one given the market right now. At that point, you can pretty easily justify letting Santana, who is much older than either of them, walk after the season. Couple that with Mauer coming off the books and you still have room to add more next season without bumping payroll further. I hope the front office likes either one of them enough to competitively bid for their services.
  2. Brock Beauchamp
    If the Twins come out of this offseason with Cobb/Lynn, Odorizzi, Reed, Rodney, Pineda, and Duke... that's an amazing offseason. Sure, you missed out on Darvish, which kinda sucks, but that's a lot of pitching for not much money.
  3. Brock Beauchamp
    Izzy Odo Jackey, esquire.
  4. Brock Beauchamp
    Also, we should note that it's going to become increasingly difficult to keep all those SS prospects at the correct level for their development while also staying at short. Palacios finished the season in Ft Myers but needs more time there. Lewis, if all goes according to plan, will likely end 2018 in Ft Myers. Javier is a wild card, as he has hit well and is now at the age where promotions can come fast and furious. In front of all of them, you have Gordon in Rochester and Polanco in Minnesota. And you don't want to move a guy off short if at all possible. It made sense to give up a guy like Palacios who appears to be on an upward trajectory because you don't want to run into the issue of deciding to move either move Palacios to second or stunt Lewis' advancement through the system.
  5. Brock Beauchamp
    Yeah, any gains from the Twins OF will be minimal. He might gain a little from improved corner play but given Rosario's bizarre defensive regression, hard to say. On the upside, Odorizzi had injury issues last season and he starting pitching up in the zone to an even more extreme degree. Minus back problems and adding a refinement of his approach by a new coaching staff and front office, it's not hard to see a potential rebound in there. That doesn't mean it will happen, though. It's not as if the Rays org is full of morons, but it's easy for one guy to lose his approach and mess up in a season before the problem gets fixed.
  6. Brock Beauchamp
    This is basically my point and I'm not sure any of us have a good answer. I doubt the front office is *that* frugal, as they pursued Darvish. But where do they land on a reasonable deal for Cobb/Lynn? Dunno. Even though I have mild interest in Cobb and little in Lynn, I'd have a hard time walking away from either one if a 3/$45m offer might get the job done. They might go for that over another team offering something like 4/$50-55m.
  7. Brock Beauchamp
    1. You don't know the Twins' actual offer. It almost certainly wasn't "5/100", as I've only seen it reported as "5/100+". For all we know, the Twins' offer was beaten only by the Cubs and was ahead of all the other teams. 2. No, I'm not saying people don't lie in business, I'm saying I don't walk around accusing people of lying with absolutely no evidence to back up my claim.
  8. Brock Beauchamp
    Interesting. BP has him as a plus defender.
  9. Brock Beauchamp
    Ditto. I’ve always read the question is his bat, not his glove.
  10. Brock Beauchamp
    Eh, I don’t buy that at all. Not enough of the fan base follows free agency rumors to make that effort worthwhile, plus it requires one to believe everyone else in the world is a big fat liar trying to trick you.
  11. Brock Beauchamp
    This is the key, I think. If the front office believed Cobb was a 4.00 ERA pitcher going forward, I don't see how or why they would hesitate to give him a four year, $60m contract. Because $15m a year for four years is a fair price for that guy. There's something in this free agency crop the front office doesn't like. They were obviously in on Darvish but appear to have largely backed out since he signed with the Cubs. If they were willing to pay $100m+ for Darvish and also believed Cobb would be a pretty good pitcher going forward, there's no reasonable explanation why he isn't in Ft Myers right now.
  12. Brock Beauchamp
    There's prospect risk and there's "this guy is smoke and mirrors but wants $15m a year" risk. If the front office likes Cobb and thinks he's a good bet to perform going forward but cheaped out on the price, that's flat-out wrong and it'd piss me off to no end. If they think Cobb is a $9m pitcher going forward but wants $15m - or if they think he'll be so bad that he gets in the way of other pitchers in the system - then that's the right decision. Or maybe they think they can get a $5m guy to perform at the same level and get him for a single season, not 3-4 seasons. The problem is that we don't have any idea how the front office views the long-term prospects of Lynn, Cobb, Arrieta, et al. If they're down on all of them for one reason or another, no, they should not sign those players at an inflated cost just because they have the payroll space to do it (and possibly tie up that payroll on a lackluster player in future seasons). No player is perfect but if you think a guy profiles to be pretty bad in future seasons, you don't give that guy $60-70m just because you have the money and a need at the position. One thing I find interesting about this week is that the Twins acquired two pitchers with solid peripherals and a tendency to hand out moonshots every third or fourth batter by pitching up in the zone to an extreme level. Maybe that's coincidence or maybe they're seeing something in each player that can be remedied. It's their decision, now they live with them, for good or bad.
  13. Brock Beauchamp
    Exactly. Once Darvish was off the table, the other options weren't going to move the needle much and could actually hinder the team significantly going forward. All were flawed - some more than others - and while I personally think Cobb is a decent option, none of them have me falling over myself to sign at the rates they were asking through the offseason. So now the front office has to prove its decisions were the right ones. That doesn't happen during February workouts.
  14. Brock Beauchamp
    This is pretty much my take on it as well. Once Darvish passed, I had interest in Cobb but also a few concerns. I don't really care for Lynn at all.
  15. Brock Beauchamp
    The past 4-5 days are where the rubber meets the road for the front office. I actually laughed at the Sanchez signing but quite liked the Odorizzi signing; not because I think he's great but if you give up your fourth-best SS prospect in the low minors for what should be a competent starting pitcher, that's a good deal. So, I'm underwhelmed. Not super unhappy but definitely underwhelmed. Now it's up to the front office to show they're smarter than me. They made their decisions, now we wait to see how it all plays out.
  16. Brock Beauchamp
    Yes and no. The input is results but they use those results to estimate an entirely different number.
  17. Brock Beauchamp
    I wanted something better than Odorizzi but straight up for Palacios? lol yes every day
  18. Brock Beauchamp
    I just threw up in my mouth.
  19. Brock Beauchamp
    Honestly, given the remaining options, Garcia might be the smartest choice. I hope the front office estimates something positive from Arrieta that I'm not seeing because I'm not impressed by Cobb and I'm super not impressed by Lynn to the point of "ugh".
  20. Brock Beauchamp
    To add to this, it's extremely common to see *really* bad pitchers with an ERA +2.00 runs or more over their FIP for this very reason (Berrios' rookie season is a good example). Which is really my point: I think FIP assuming that contact is similar across the board works for most pitchers... but there are a few where it seems to break. For example, we're starting to see evidence that IFFBs are sometimes pitcher-controlled... yet that's still contact. FIP assumes it's a constant, the same as a line drive. That doesn't mean FIP is garbage, as it works for the vast majority of players; it's just something to keep in mind before treating the stat as gospel. Here's a really good article from 538 on pitcher-controlled contact: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-baseballs-exit-velocity-is-five-parts-hitter-one-part-pitcher/
  21. Brock Beauchamp
    bWAR is essentially ERA (well, not exactly, as it also includes unearned runs, but close enough). Saying bWAR doesn't like Archer is basically saying Archer's ERA hasn't been very good, which is kinda the argument multiple people are having over ERA vs. FIP.
  22. Brock Beauchamp
    I'll go but only to day games and will only sit in specific parts of the stadium where I'm either close to a heat source or in the sun.
  23. Brock Beauchamp
    Yeah, it's a bad idea to even look at the April schedule and try to sort a rotation when your favorite team plays outdoors in Minneapolis.
  24. Brock Beauchamp
    Where did your nine heads in a row comparison come from? Fine, change 70 out of 100 to 60 out of 100 and the chances of it happening is still much lower than flipping nine out of nine. Random variance that led to a career FIP/ERA discrepancy would likely be a couple of years that influenced the overall number, much like your "flipping nine heads in a row" comparison. A brief period of extreme luck in either direction that influences the overall number. Because if you extend past a single season, you change some assortment of defense, catching, quality of opponent, and perhaps team/league, not to mention the luck/unluck component needs to stay identical to what it was the previous season. That's asking a lot. But we don't see that with Nolasco. What we see is a consistent underperformance of FIP in nine out of 11 seasons (and the overperformance seasons are marginal in comparison, never more than 0.18 runs), with the underperformance gap being 0.30 runs or more in a whopping eight out of those nine seasons (again, across three teams, three divisions, and two leagues). At that point, you need to either admit FIP is missing something (mostly likely quality of contact, IMO) or that Ricky Nolasco is one of the unluckiest men on planet earth. Which one makes more sense?
  25. Brock Beauchamp
    I view it differently. FIP is a good indication - not perfect, but good - of yearly performance and a fairly good predictor of short-term future performance. What convinces me that FIP is a pretty solid stat is that it does match up with ERA the vast majority of the time given a long enough sample (say, 3-4 years or longer). ERA is the one that fluctuates but, after a time, generally settles somewhere close to actual performance level if you look at a veteran's entire career. What FIP does is tell us more exactly what to expect in the near future and what happened in a single season. But any examination of FIP needs to include the fact that some pitchers, however the hell they do it, "break" FIP. Those pitchers are rare and don't break the statistic, but it means that FIP is missing something that a very select numbers of pitchers can or cannot do.
×
×
  • Create New...