Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

ashbury

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    42,473

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    471

 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

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by ashbury

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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).
  5. 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.
  6. ashbury
    Rules which may be about to go away if there is no RSN holding a contract with language specifying territorial rights?
  7. 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.
  8. ashbury
    Not talking about chances. These are all outcomes.
  9. 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.
  10. 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?
  11. 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.
  12. ashbury
    I can tell how thrilled you are that there are numbers that back you up.
  13. 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.
  14. ashbury
    I... errrr... ummmm...
  15. ashbury
    Hah, your legendary brevity ninja'd my lengthier comment. :)
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. ashbury
    Ha. My bad, I missed when coming back to this thread that it was about whom to simply cut or not offer a contract. FalVine may know differently, but I persist in believing Gordon has some tiny positive trade value, maybe in combination with another asset if aiming for anything significant in return. So yes, give him a contract, but I'd still be looking to move him.
  20. ashbury
    You mentioned earlier that Castro has a minor league option remaining, and for me that's the tie-breaker between two similar players. Suppose someone like Brooks Lee is deemed ready at mid-season, and the incumbent utility infielder is scuffling so far. Easier to demote Castro and bring up the young'un, than to have to figure out how to trade or DFA Gordon in a rush. (Not that Brooks Lee would be brought up as a utility infielder exactly, but they'd work out the rest of the roster puzzle.)
  21. ashbury
    Sorry the headline mellowed your harsh. 🙂
  22. ashbury
    Didn't matter what "people said." When Mauer hit 30 and 4 months he suffered a debilitating concussion that dictated a position change. Age was not the issue, and would not have been for some time yet to come.
  23. ashbury
    Yes. Exactly. Gray used to be a 6+ inning pitcher in his 20s, but no manager since 2017 has given him the number of innings per start that Rocco did this year. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/grayso01-pitch.shtml#all_pitching_starter And yes, pitcher health played a role in this; Sonny was a little dinged up at times last year and Rocco didn't choose to leave him in the way he did in 2023. But this tired old trope that Rocco pulls his starters too soon needs to fade away. Rocco (or the system he works within, same diff) has shown to be pragmatic in this department.
  24. ashbury
    This is a fine way to look at it. The only question is, can we do better?
  25. ashbury
    I don't know what to do about Vazquez. Keeping him seems right unless and until they have a solid backup catcher to replace him; Tony Wolters scared me to death in 2023. Weak backups are plentiful around the league but having someone who can actually step up if the #1 guy is gone for a while is not to be taken lightly. Acquiring the right guy won't involve a trade of a mere relief prospect or similar small prospect capital. And you will do well to get anything better than a bag of balls in return for trading Vazquez away, due to the contract. It's worth exploring at some prospect cost. What really bugs me is the indecision I perceive regarding the farm system. At AAA you have Chris Williams who they can't seem to quite decide is, or isn't, a catcher. They played him there 25 games. At AA there is Alex Isola, who caught in 15 games. Jefferson Morales at high-A, 27 games. All are bat-first guys, age 26, 25 and 24 respectively, You'll see them mentioned in some prospect rundowns that purport to show catching depth in the system. I don't spot injury as an explanation for the numbers, and I don't understand the difficulty with telling any of them, "you're not a catcher, concentrate on hitting," or else telling them, "your bat will be marginal at first base, catching is your ticket to the majors." Fish or cut bait, basically. Catching a couple dozen games a year does not develop a catcher for the rigors of being even a backup in the majors. And if all three are ruled out as serious catching prospects, the pool seems a bit thin on young guys whose bats look like will ever play; Camargo is kind of it, when it comes to maybe-major-league-ready, and I don't know what his defense is like. Banuelos put up good hitting numbers at AA but he is 27 and one wonders why he wasn't up at AAA to pair with Camargo, leaving Wolters to fill in occasionally and be ready. Maybe Winkel's bat will progress, ditto some guys like Cardenas at high-A, but all those are guys far away in the pipeline and only a fraction of pipeline guys ever come through. At least they made a decision on Charles Mack and cut him from high-A. Whoopie.
×
×
  • Create New...