Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

drivlikejehu

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,284

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 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 drivlikejehu

  1. drivlikejehu
    I've always avoided comment on the quality of Twins scouts - I don't see how anyone outside the front office could perform an effective evaluation of them. Regardless, for many years I think it was clear that the Twins didn't have the right front office philosophy and infrastructure . . . that was bound to impact the draft just as it did the various other aspects of the organization.
  2. drivlikejehu
    He wouldn't use ERA either, so that really has no bearing on those of us that aren't pro scouts.
  3. drivlikejehu
    It's an indisputable fact that a defense- and HR-independent metric like xFIP is superior for measuring pitching performance in small samples. xFIP isn't "predictive," it regresses BABIP and HR/FB to remove the distorting effects of small sample sizes. In 2016, Barnes' peripherals would have been among the worst in E-towns rotation. In 2015, he would have been 13th out of 15 on the entire pitching staff (min 20 innings). The reality is that the Twins send a lot of college guys to the Appy League and they usually do a lot better than Barnes did. Because the sample size is small, it doesn't really change anything, particularly since Barnes isn't a serious prospect to begin with. His numbers would be great for MLB, but for an experienced pitcher in that league, they were not impressive.
  4. drivlikejehu
    The per-pick assessment is not an exercise in hindsight - I only mean that expected production depends on the picks that were available (e.g., a team with 0 picks would expect 0 production). It was basically just stating the obvious, but in response to the idea that we should think about success in some other way. Of course, once a team does have picks, then some amount of production should be expected; just meeting that expectation isn't necessarily a great success. The draft is a relative exercise - success or failure is only real in the context of the other 29 clubs. Of course most prospects don't pan out, but the simple fact is that some teams get more out of the draft than others. The Twins have generally been below average at getting production out of the draft, in my opinion, but the exact answer depends on how you frame the question. The Twins certainly have not been good enough at the draft to offset their payroll limitations, which ultimately is the most salient fact of all. My point about 2012-14 was simply that the Twins appear to have done better in those years, so by omitting 2011 and 2015, I would be painting a rosier picture of their draft results. That's just an example of how one can cherry-pick results, if desired.
  5. drivlikejehu
    Development is most likely a significant cause of the Twins' underwhelming draft results, but that's not something we can really evaluate in a meaningful way. Looking at the draft results as a whole still works, insofar as the organization both selected and then coached the players . . . we can't quantify those aspects but we can quantify the end results. I ignored 2017 entirely as too recent and even 2016 should fall into that category . . . there certainly is zero evidence that the end results for the 2016 draft will be "very impressive." Kirilloff is hurt, Rortvedt has a .603 OPS, Miranda and Baddoo are in rookie ball where stats have little predictive value, Jax basically isn't going to be able to play because of the military rule change, Hackimer is a low-upside reliever, Balazovic is struggling in the GCL, Schick is hurt . . . None of that is to say that some of those guys won't make it. But nothing has happened to really improve the outlook of that draft, either. High-round selections should be expected to often do fairly well in the low minors. It takes more than that to change the overall outlook, and of course ultimately only MLB production is relevant.
  6. drivlikejehu
    Evaluating "contributors" on a per-draft basis makes no sense - it's fine as a conceptual shorthand but doesn't tell you how the Twins did. Returns have to be evaluated on a per-pick basis, to account for years in which the club had supplemental or other additional picks (or the less common case where they lost a pick for signing a FA). The Twins have not drafted very well in the 21st century . . . they weren't dead last but the most optimistic spin would be around average, and the more realistic assessment would be below average. Looking at the 2011-16 time-frame, we see one draft that completely busted, and another (2015) that is almost certainly a failure, though they may get a couple of relievers out of it. So it's already unlikely that the Twins total production from 2011-16 will be above average. It's possible you could pick an arbitrary time-frame during which the Twins did somewhat better, essentially by excluding one or more of their complete whiffs (e.g., 2012-14), but that would be cherry-picking to avoid an accurate assessment of their drafting performance.
  7. drivlikejehu
    Barnes had an xFIP of 4.23 in E-town as an experienced, major conference starting pitcher. That's pretty bad. If you look historically at how mid-round college pitchers have done for that club, usually they cut through opposing lineups with little to no resistance. I didn't say it actually mattered, just that if you want to look at tiny sample sizes, at least represent them accurately. Rooker is certainly ahead of Diaz, but Rooker's strikeout rate is a definite red flag, particularly since it stabilizes more quickly than some other stats do. I don't think its enough data to be meaningful, but again, if you want to roll with tiny sample sizes, it's an issue.
  8. drivlikejehu
    I said 'GCL stats have almost no predictive value' which absolutely is true. They have a very, very tiny amount, but it's irrelevant for all intents and purposes and the season isn't even over. More to the point, nothing has happened statistically that changes any assessments made at the time of the draft. Sure, Lewis did pretty well in the GCL, but he was the first overall pick. He already had a high projection. The overall gist of the OP was misleading because it praises the draft on the basis of information that has almost no predictive value. If people want to be excited about certain things, more power to them, but it's far too early for even preliminary draft follow-up assessments.
  9. drivlikejehu
    GCL stats have almost no predictive value, even in larger samples. Leach in particular has barely played, so I'm puzzled by the contention that he's "looked sharp." Rooker's stats aren't particularly great for a 22 year-old, bat-only player. Barnes' peripherals have been downright awful for an advanced college arm. For the most part, the stats so far tell us nothing we didn't know already. I can see an argument that Lewis' stock is up slightly and Rooker's down slightly, but that's about it. No one after Enlow really is a serious prospect anyway, so until they show something significant there's no reason to hype them up.
  10. drivlikejehu
    Minor league relievers have a pretty bad track record in MLB, historically. Most actual MLB relievers were good enough to start in the minors (e.g., Duffey, Rogers, etc.).
  11. drivlikejehu
    What credible outside person or Twins official has been saying 'next year' for years?
  12. drivlikejehu
    Teams coming off 103-loss seasons aren't necessarily the biggest draw for free agents. The Twins probably could have overpaid for some mediocre pitchers and added a few wins - but the Twins would still not be anything close to a real contender. They've needed a good bit of sequencing luck just to be near .500 (44-59 BaseRuns record). No amount of free agent pitching would have made the Twins into a contender. Even with a time machine to last off-season you can't get them there. You'd think, from the comments of some posters on here, that rebuilding a pitching staff in a few months with minimal trade pieces and a horrible FA market is an entirely fair expectation, and that Falvey & Levine are clearly failures for not meeting this fanciful, laughable internet forum expectation.
  13. drivlikejehu
    That's fine, but those are not clubs coming off a 103-loss season with minimal trade chips. My question is, what realistically could the Twins have done that would have made them a contender in 2017 without weakening them in future seasons? I have yet to see a realistic explanation from anyone on how this was possible.
  14. drivlikejehu
    Then what? What realistic moves could the Twins have made coming off a 103-loss season that would have made the 2017 Twins a true contender, without sacrificing the future? Your post is basically a more general version of the fantasy trade proposals - surely, if they were smart enough, they could have figured something out! It doesn't work that way. There are 29 other teams, most or all of whom are smart. Acquiring a real advantage takes time and investment throughout every aspect of the organization. Falvey can't create surplus value out of thin air. If that's your standard for a front office exec, you are going to be disappointed in every human being on earth that would serve in that role.
  15. drivlikejehu
    It doesn't make sense to overpay a mediocre FA starter before a team is ready to contend, which the Twins weren't. Free agent value is typically front-loaded due to player age, not to mention the constant injury risk with pitchers.
  16. drivlikejehu
    MLB is competitive. Acquiring substantial pitching value with the Twins' existing players and budget was simply not possible. Any statements to the contrary are unrealistic, relying on fantasy trades that weren't available and/or the ability to distinguish among marginal pitchers that no front office in baseball possesses. They could have added a couple more marginal pieces, that is true enough. But it wouldn't have made any difference in the scheme of things and it's not crazy that they didn't.
  17. drivlikejehu
    Sure, they could have added marginal pitchers to their existing group of marginal pitchers. But as to which ones, it's obvious hindsight bias that wasn't available to the Twins at the time. Most of those marginal guys wind up producing zero (or negative) value. It's not realistic to take a non-existent pitching staff and turn it into something decent in one off-season. It would be possible with a time machine, to be sure, but otherwise there is no quick, easy way to do it.
  18. drivlikejehu
    Diaz isn't good enough for a team to stash him like that.
  19. drivlikejehu
    You don't take over a 103-loss team and think "now I need to overpay for some mediocre veterans." No front office in baseball would ever think that way. Starting pitcher options were few and the better relievers get multi-year deals, which didn't really make sense at that point. I don't disagree that they could have signed one or two more relievers on one-year deals, but that would have had no real impact on the team's ability to contend in 2017 or any future year.
  20. drivlikejehu
    The Twins didn't enter this past off-season with 'a few holes,' they entered it with no pitching staff and issues with some position players as well. They had no realistic chance to build a contender through a combination of free agency and trades. The fact that they over-performed early in the year doesn't change the fact that it's a subpar team that lacks the core to be a contender . . . no amount of complimentary pieces would have changed that.
  21. drivlikejehu
    His peripherals are pretty mediocre. No particular reason to think he'd separate himself from that C/C+ level of prospect.
  22. drivlikejehu
    The Twins wouldn't trade Thorpe for Garcia. But it is a bit weird getting hung up over Burdi . . .
  23. drivlikejehu
    I think it will be someone a step below Thorpe. I doubt Garver specifically though in terms of prospect value, that's probably about right. Clubs usually don't deal guys like Graterol from the GCL level, it's just premature. Probably someone in A, A+, or AA, with some ceiling but not top 5 in the org. Stewart is a definite possibility, as is Blankenhorn. Felix Jorge. Lewin Diaz might be a tick rich but his actual performance to date has been mediocre.
  24. drivlikejehu
    Low wattage prospects are irrelevant to high wattage acquisitions. One or two may be included as throw ins, but which one or two doesn't matter all that much.
  25. drivlikejehu
    Well eventually they will lose Archer anyway, that's always the logic in that sort of situation. I agree it's not happening though. The more general point is that, from the Twins perspective, picking up 4 wins one place is pointless if they give up several wins they have already - at that point, they may as well just sign a mediocre free agent and not give up anyone. Most posters seem to struggle with the fact that the Twins don't have enough total talent in the organization to turn the MLB club into a serious contender . . . there's really no amount of trading that could accomplish that even if everyone in the organization is "on the table." It's like the baseball equivalent of conservation of energy, the form may change but the total amount must remain the same.
×
×
  • Create New...