Brock Beauchamp

Ryan has never shown that he cares one bit what "the mob" thinks and he rarely defends acquisitions with real insight into how the Twins make a decision. He throws out platitudes and generalities most of the time. Again, you're basing that on the data we have on hand, which is incredibly flawed and pretty much every sabr-head admits that fact. If the Twins don't have better data on hand than what FanGraphs can provide - and given their recent job postings I suspect they do - then that'd be far more damning than signing a RF who grades poorly using data gleaned from a public website.

Terry Ryan rarely offers insight into how he evaluates players. Are you honestly surprised that he didn't say "Yeah, Hunter is pretty awful in right field. Why did I sign him again? I can't remember." Maybe Ryan ignores the data. Maybe he has data that says Hunter isn't a horrible right fielder. Maybe he looks at the data, sees Hunter is a horrible right fielder, but signed him anyway because the data tells him that Hunter's bat is likely to make up for any defensive liability. Or maybe he signed Hunter because he was the best one-year option out there and Ryan didn't want to cloud the path for Buxton and Rosario. There are so many ways that this situation can be analyzed but you're focusing on one of them without having any information about why the decision was made in the first place. We simply do not know how the Twins analyze players because they're one of the most tight-lipped teams in baseball. We see them make moves that look good from a data analysis standpoint (the data we can access, mind you, not necessarily the data the Twins have) in Hughes and to a lesser extent, Nolasco. Then we see them make moves that baffle us from a data analysis standpoint (again, the data we have on hand) in Hunter. So do they use data? Yeah, probably. What data do they use and how much does it influence their decision? We have no idea. As for Suzuki, well, it's apparent the Twins buy into some of the data because just the other day, it was reported that Suzuki was working specifically on pitch framing. I get it, the Twins are frustrating to follow because Ryan and the organization is tight-lipped but that doesn't mean they're incompetent, out of touch, and archaic. It just means they're tight-lipped. I'm not a fan of the Hunter signing but it's a one year contract. Sometimes, a not-perfect player is signed because he fits in with bigger, more important plans coming in the near future (ie. the entire outfield getting a makeover within 6-12 months).

I see. My point about Ortiz (just an example) laying down the occasional bunt probably isn't the best example in isolation... But if Ortiz regularly beat the shift with a bunt, it would force defenses to maybe not break the shift but play a lesser shift against him on a regular basis. It's the type of thing that might not have an impact on the first, second, or maybe even third bunt but if he consistently does it, defenses will be forced to break the shift or shift less. After all, the most important thing in baseball is not making the out. If Ortiz can not make an out against a shift 40% of the time by bunting (all he has to do is get it by the pitcher, very easy to do because you actually want to bunt hard instead of soft), then that's a huge value even if you don't count defenses being forced to break the shift against him. I just don't understand why players don't do this against the shift. Anyway, carry on with your other argument. I'm just kinda ranting (again).

I don't think that argument will need to be won at all. Ryan saw the fruits of good outfield defense in the early 2000s. While I'm not a big fan of the Hunter signing, it's a stop-gap signing to patch together an outfield until Buxton and/or Rosario arrives. If one of those players is ready, I don't think Ryan will drag his feet because Torii Hunter is in right field. I'm sure he's as eager as anybody to start seeing some of these prospects graduate, especially the top 2-3 guys.

I've always thought Mauer - outside of 2009 - was an ideal second hitter. Good gap power, huge OBP.

The problem with this analysis is that some seem to take the 48% number as if a foul bunt is an out. Who cares is the bunt goes foul? For a hitter like Ortiz, a foul bunt might be better than successfully bunting. The goal is to break the shift, which any bunt will do. The benefit of a foul bunt is that he can go back to a full swing with a defense that has probably abandoned the shift.

Absolutely, Chief. It pissed me off to no end every time I see Ortiz hit a ground ball directly into a shift. Lay down a bunt. Make the defense play you straight.

The spacing problem is a new bug courtesy of a FireFox update, folks. I haven't had time to dig into the issue yet.

Well, you're talking about bunting for a hit, not a sacrifice bunt (you mentioned "not giving up an out", which a sacrifice does). I vaguely remember hearing that some of the best bunters are able to bunt for a hit at a .300+ clip. In other words, it's a solid tactic if you're fast and a .280 hitter. Of course, bunting largely depends on defense so it only works at specific times. But overall bunt numbers and their corresponding averages? I have no idea. I'd love to see those numbers as well.

I believe that is the case, yes. You want the pitch so slow that a batter sitting on a fastball has no hope of hitting it but not so slow that they can identify the ball speed coming out of your hand. Johan's changeup was roughly 12mph slower than his fastball and was considered the best in baseball during his prime, largely because his changeup arm action looked identical to his fastball arm action, I believe.

Joe Mauer doesn't hit dingers. That's why he doesn't lead the team in RBI. It's not as if he's a slouch when it comes to RBI, though. During his best seasons, he was usually between 75-95 RBI. That's pretty solid for a guy who often struggles to hit double-digit home runs. Not spectacular by any means, but solid. Every home run is an RBI with many of them plating 2-3 runners. It's really hard to reach 100 RBI when you're hitting a bunch of singles, doubles, and walking a lot. Puckett crossed the 100 RBI threshold only three times in his career and he failed to hit double-digit home runs just once in his career, excepting his first two seasons when he hit for almost zero power.

Ding ding ding! Remember that just last year, the Twins were looking for a developer to manage SQL data with an emphasis on data sorting. They're not using FanGraphs data. Whatever they're using, it's not from a publicly-available source or they wouldn't need a full-time developer to create new sorting systems for them. They're taking raw data and analyzing it and only they know what that data is telling them. Ryan could be ignoring that data or he could be using data that tells them Hunter is an average fielder. We simply do not know because we don't know how they evaluate in the first place, much less what data they're using.

This stuck out: What does that mean? People generally don't say stuff like that unless there was some point of contention with the old staff.

He hits into "a ton" (not really but I won't argue this again) of double plays because he's the third hitter and doesn't miss the ball (until recently, anyway). That's it.

Slow your roll, clutterheart. Let's focus on "average" before we head into CrazyTown with references to "above average".

When you bat third and are an extreme contact hitter, you hit into a lot of double plays. That's just how baseball works. It's not a fundamental flaw with Joe's game, it's just a result of making a lot of contact versus missing the ball a lot and it's exacerbated by batting with a lot of guys on first (in theory, something the third hitter should be doing a lot).

Fun fact: Joe Mauer has never led the league in GIDP.

I agree, I just wish platitudes of this kind were used more sparingly, which would make reports like this easier to believe when they do come around.

It's a bug that recently popped up in FireFox. Mozilla changed something that eliminates spaces after punctuation. It's on my list of things to fix.

It's February 25th. Every baseball player feels better than they've ever felt and are in the best shape of their lives. I'm not saying that it isn't true for Nolasco but crikey, writers need to stop saying this about every player in Florida and Arizona.

I'd also like to read that study. Obviously, the Rays believe the stolen base is valuable and I'd love to see what data told them that is the case.

Which is why success rate is so important. Most stats I've seen have an over/under of around 70%. That's the zone when the stolen base turns from detriment to a positive.

And a double has no value over a walk if nobody is on base and the hitter doesn't score, yet we count them all as doubles.

I find it interesting that some sabr-heavy teams are starting to look harder at the stolen base. Tampa was one of the better base-stealing teams in the league during their recent run of success. There's a lot of value in the stolen base if it's used correctly (and successful the vast majority of the time).

Henderson had a ridiculous 81% success rate and is +500 stolen bases over second place, Lou Brock. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at but you'd be hard-pressed to find statistics that show those steals didn't have a huge impact over the course of his career. He also managed to scrape together a paltry 297 homers over the course of his career. And then there's the .401 career OBP.