Jump to content
Bailey Ober takes the bump as the Twins try to halt the losing streak. Come join the discussion! ×
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

ashbury

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    40,823

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    462

 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 ashbury

  1. ashbury
    I don't doubt it. Keith Hernandez turned 70 years old this week.
  2. ashbury
    I wonder whether Texas would be willing trade Evan Carter to us for Aaron Sabato, the player we drafted when Carter was still on the board. / edit - it is pointed out to me, that at the time, the pick of Carter was a head-scratcher to a lot of observers: https://www.mlb.com/rangers/video/rangers-draft-of-carter-no-50?partnerId=web_video-playback-page_video-share
  3. ashbury
    Instead of critiquing other posters, maybe do some introspection. Me, I wouldn't have given up Chase Petty two years ago. Game Two of the Wild Card with Sonny Gray on the mound convinced me of my misjudgment..
  4. ashbury
    The Twins had a breakthrough season this year. Starting pitching was expected to be the team's strength, and that proved out. The reason the Twins are now sitting at home instead of being on the big stage beginning tonight isn't because of the players named in this article.
  5. ashbury
    Excellent point. It's still qualitatively different than for a pitcher they value more highly, say one they would gladly offer $25M for a year's work (given that quality pitchers get multi year offers). Then the QO is a no brainer. Kenta Maeda is a brainer. 🙂 Depends on what value they assign to the draft pick.
  6. ashbury
    Actually, yeah, I find that every question I try to look into in this discussion splits into two or more tangents, and since this started with just a bit of curiosity I think I'm not going further down this rabbit hole. The problem is that the data is more aggregated than I realized, making it hard to make apples-to-apples comparisons. I've pointed out a way or two that I've noticed, and I think I'm not noticing a lot of others. For example, if I did my quick bit of math right, subtracting all the strikeouts in the two-strike resolution case ends up with a batting average around .327 if I'm remembering correctly from yesterday, which is higher than the batting average with just one strike (where no subtraction of strikeouts is needed of course), and I don't think this makes sense, so something else is going on that I haven't considered. A biggie is that both batter and pitcher have a lot of say in what happens, and they get to change their strategies on the fly, particularly with regard to the count. Just as the above cartoon has parents deciding not to buy this guy's bumper sticker, despite heavy market research that indicated the sky was the limit, batters choose whether or not to swing at any given pitch, and the stats don't carry whether there is a bias of, say, breaking pitches in the dirt when the count is fewer than three balls. What started as a quick and dirty study, turns out to end there as well, less quick and still dirty, as far as I'm concerned. A few readers have expressed their appreciation for this spade work, and I appreciate that in return, and hope it inspires maybe a cleaner approach.
  7. ashbury
    And IMO that lower draft pick changes the risk/reward ratio. You're gambling the same $20+M on a pitcher, and the reward if he turns down the QO is lower, and he's probably a lesser pitcher than most who get the QO. It's an easy decision when you want the player to accept your QO; it's a lot harder when you're hoping he turns it down and you get something of whatever value for free, but he might accept. Overpay Maeda by several million, or get somewhere around the 100th draft pick? Unsure. If you actually want him, offer him a little less and see what he says. But all in all, a QO is at least in the realm of possibility. By the way, to the OP of this thread: Your a idot. There, I've been wanting to use that gem I found on Facebook for a long time now.
  8. ashbury
    Maybe with 2 strikes the runner on first is more likely to be on the move? I don't know. Maybe the batter's approach is different with 2 outs, which isn't split out in these tables and of course rules out a DP? I don't know. Maybe the batter's approach is different when there's a runner on first than when not? I don't know. I don't know a lot.
  9. ashbury
    Strikeouts are built on three bad decisions or inability to execute, not simply the one when it's registered. So that's where the statistical bias comes from when looking at two-strike outcomes. As for your deep dive into WAS and CLE, I think you're right. If you are okay with the notion that simply avoiding strikeouts isn't what makes an offense good, then we're on the same page. A team needs good hitters like Atlanta and Houston have either picked, or trained, to hit with authority; they don't strike out because they're too busy succeeding, unlike WAS and CLE who don't strike out because they're too busy making other kinds of outs. That's all I've been trying to say.
  10. ashbury
    That moment was around July 15, and after that date, which is a significant stretch of time, his OPS was .691. That's the guy I'm comfortably sure can be replaced either internally or with some other option with higher upside. I'm not a huge fan of relatively punchless batting average. I don't hate the guy - he seemed a good teammate and had his moments on the field - but all in all I'm real comfortable moving on, just like his teams did the previous two seasons.
  11. ashbury
    Probably so. I think it's true that every square inch of the continental US (not sure about AK and HI) is divided into territories for teams. But I would bet that this was done precisely for the purpose of fostering contracts with the RSNs etc., so that the latter have assurance that the dollars they pay aren't going to be undercut by competition from another market. In that sense, the broadcasters hold certain rights. The teams hold the underlying rights but can't just abrogate a contract willy nilly. If MLB as a whole decides that their strategy is to move on from RSNs then they can decide market by market when to drop the exclusivity when those contracts expire (or are violated).
  12. ashbury
    For a bat-first player he doesn't have enough bat anymore, based on the past three seasons. Surely he can be replaced internally by a player who also has flaws, simply different flaws, and come out about the same. And maybe they can do better than that low threshold.
  13. ashbury
    Rules which may be about to go away if there is no RSN holding a contract with language specifying territorial rights?
  14. ashbury
    He was a featured guest at a SABR Boston chapter meeting I attended a few years ago. I don't remember any specifics, but he was more polished than the typical player panel guest and it was entirely believable that there is good intellect behind the polish. He probably checks off most if not all the boxes, including having Red Sox roots, to have a chance for success in the eyes of ownership. Whatever he lacks due to youth can be filled in with good hires below him.
  15. ashbury
    Not talking about chances. These are all outcomes.
  16. ashbury
    Anytime strikeouts are brought up, as a topic in and of itself, I find myself looking at what Washington and Cleveland did this year, since they struck out the fewest. I looked at Atlanta's ranking in number of 2-strike situations but then didn't look beyond them. So your question prompted me to look again. Guess which teams had the fewest 2-strike situations in the majors? Yep, them two again. Nats and Guardians. Can't strike out if you don't reach 2 strikes first. The math checks out. But fat lot of good it did them, in terms of run-scoring, since their offenses were well below average. Apparently substituting popouts, groundouts, and flyouts for strikeouts, if that's what happened, was not a panacea.
  17. ashbury
    From the same b-r.com page I referenced earlier: Total: 184110 PA, 3466 GDP Ratio=1.88% Outcome after 2-strikes: 98402 PA, 1145 GDP Ratio=1.16% (Doing some subtractions now - sure hope I haven't messed up any of these manual calculations.) Outcome after fewer than 2-strikes: 85708 PA, 2321 GDP Ratio=2.71% There were 41844 strikeouts this season (all on 2 strikes as mentioned earlier ), so if you want to compare it a different way then subtract those before taking the 2-strike ratio. Non-K outcomes after 2-strikes: 56558 PA, 1145 GDP Ratio=2.02% Not sure which of the ratios might be the apples-to-apples comparison you are looking for, maybe the last two. When not striking out, it's a moderately lower chance of a double play with 2 strikes than with fewer than 2 strikes. 0 chance of the DP if you do strike out. Do you make anything of that?
  18. ashbury
    Lacking anything constructive to add to what you said, I'll just go to the same well again, and answer "YES" to this one. Okay, one more thing and then I think I'm done (yeah right). For those who don't trust OPS to tell them the truth, how about this nugget? 22434 runs were scored in 2023. How many were scored during PA that reached 2 strikes? 7807. Even though more than half of PA went to 2 strikes, only a little more than a third of runs were scored when that happened. Brutal odds if you're trying to field a competitive offense. I have a feeling that there is some kind of conditional probability paradox that I'm overlooking, but if I'm not, then it's really as simple as that.
  19. ashbury
    I can tell how thrilled you are that there are numbers that back you up.
  20. ashbury
    Just because it's turning out to be interesting.... If by top 5 you mean slugging percentage, then this is compelling by itself. But it may not even be the most important thing. On that page of Major-league splits I provided the URL to, there is an under-appreciated feature that you can click on a stat of interest and see how the teams fared in that situation. For "Two Strikes", yes, the top slugging percentage team is Atlanta. Their OPS is a mighty .596, also tops. All well and good. But if you click on PA to sort teams by plate appearance, ATL shows up at #15. This, despite their being fourth the majors in total plate appearances. Is the key more to do with what they do with 2 strikes, or not getting there? (Chief, I'll save you the trouble: YES.) Results aside, guess which team led the majors in PA reaching 2 strikes? Our Twins. And their OPS in those situations was close to league-worst. Despite decent run-scoring totals (and I don't have a handy way to break these league splits down to just the second half, when our run scoring was higher), it may account for some fan frustration with our offense. I'm sure our FO is aware of these kinds of numbers, but I'd love to have a conversation with them about trying to emulate what appears to be a qualitatively different, and successful, approach.
  21. ashbury
    I... errrr... ummmm...
  22. ashbury
    Hah, your legendary brevity ninja'd my lengthier comment. :)
  23. ashbury
    This isn't central to your comment, but discussion about 2 strikes deserves more nuance, and probably study, than this. Across the majors in 2023, there were about 184 thousand plate appearances. Of those, approximately 98 thousand reached a two strike count. The aggregate OPS for plate appearances that were decided after two strikes? .523. Not zero, maybe - not technically hopeless at that point - but pretty darn low. And that's more than half of all plate appearances. If my quick and dirty calculation is correct, the OPS on PA that don't reach two strikes is about .976. It's fair to say that the best way to score runs has to be not to reach two strikes if you can help it - with two strikes the contribution to run scoring is pretty small. (The only exception seems to be if you claw your way to a full count, then as batter you are back to having a decent shot, with OPS .779.) I don't know what this has to say about whether there is a better approach at the plate for certain hitters. Maybe shortening up one's swing should occur at 1 strike, not at 2. Source: https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/split.cgi?t=b&lg=MLB&year=2023#all_count Anyway, very much a tangent, but it's been on my mind a while.
  24. ashbury
    It does not. And I'm not going to debate this here, to further dilute the Duran discussion. But you don't get a free shot like that either.
  25. ashbury
    FTFY. Varland's relief numbers in September were buoyed by an unsustainable .191 BA on balls in play; across the majors in 2023 that number was .297, similar to most years. For reference, Jhoan Duran had a more typical .301 BABIP while putting up his stellar numbers. I trust one more than the other. The other side of the coin was Louie's work in the Wild Card series, where his 0.00 ERA told the story less well than his 3.00 WHIP, which doesn't even reflect the frightening fly ball by Matt Chapman that backed MAT to the wall. Everything's small sample in this reliever discussion about him, but I'm not sold. His larger sample of work as a starter in 2023 was up and down, as his 5.30 ERA in those games attests. Young-ish, but not really young, about to turn 26 in December, he's much less of a sure thing to me in either role than some believe. A good starter is more of an asset than most relievers, and I'd let him try to continue in that role to see if he has a bit more growth left in him. If that doesn't pan out, there's still always the bullpen, but again there is need for further improvement if he is to be some kind of lights-out weapon for the manager. As pointed out, his low draft status to begin with means that even if he turns out to be "just a guy in the bullpen," he's already beaten the odds against him.
×
×
  • Create New...