ashbury

Before breaking it down with analysis, first look at the big picture. b-r.com splits numbers for Twins and for MLB as a whole. PA with RISP: Twins 1484, MLB 44760 R with RISP: Twins 471, MLB 14969 Ratios of these: Twins .3174, MLB .3344 With runners in scoring position the Twins were pushing across significantly fewer runs per opportunity. Had they held the same ratio as MLB as a whole, 25 more runs might have scored. That's about 2.5 wins over the course of a season. That there is problem seems evident. It's a matter of semantics whether throwing away 2 or 3 wins is dreadful. But it needs fixing. (I hope nobody is engaging in a strawman argument that anyone's saying any particular problem is the ONLY problem.) What the cause is, may be hard to pinpoint. You suggest it's not simply the batting average. I'm not so sure. Batters usually have better numbers with RISP than with bases loaded, for reasons probably not worth dissecting here. MLB wide, BA with bases empty versus RISP were .235/.253. Our Twins notched .236/244. Is that significant? Given the rather large numbers for a team or a league over a full season, not really SSS, I'm inclined to believe yes. Slugging average, likewise. MLB was .383/.409 (empty vs RISP), Twins were .380/.385. When they hit, it wasn't with the usual bump in power, with runners were on 2nd or 3rd. Don't know why. But it seems significant. Maybe it's not all on the batters themselves - could be slow baserunners? This team frustrated us with their running, just by the eye test. Perhaps the run scoring numbers are confirmation of the eye test. I don't know quite how to separate that out, with aggregate figures from b-r.com.

The injury proneness of many in the entire organization represents a dilemma for the FO. But when a player has become marketable, as Arraez surely now is, it goes beyond the simpler calculation of whether he'll help win a pennant, and becomes a question also of ticket sales. I would view him among the last that I would trade away in order to improve the aggregate injury risk. And at the moment, I'm all about injury risk! But Buxton and now Arraez are my two "marketing" exceptions I'd work around when planning the roster.

I'm pretty unimpressed by the outward evidence of analytics, for this supposedly analytics-heavy front office. It will take a long time to win back my own "favor" as the subject line puts it, not simply one off-season. Some things that will move the needle positively for me: a concerted trend with each roster move to improve the aggregate injury risk rather than incrementally keep worsening it less reliance on in-season roster churn for the pitching staff - if guys keep clearing waivers, it's a BAD sign, not a good one visibility into their analytics team to convince me it isn't dominated in numbers by a bunch of recent grads who majored in Stats, because the state of the art in MLB seems considerably beyond that now moves that strengthen the long term health of the franchise and not simply aid the coming year's financial bottom line a little more change in off-field personnel (coaches, trainers, etc) to make an example of perceived failure or mediocrity, even if it looks like change for the sake of change no more Tim Beckhams when every armchair analytics type could forecast batting regression for a player who no longer is an asset on defense

You're asking all the right questions. Every team has roster churn, but I bet a careful study would reveal a strong correlation between fan engagement and keeping a core of recognizable players. The Moneyball philosophy as expressed in Michael Lewis's book has to be considered a failure, in the sense of "the operation was a success but the patient died." Win-loss records are necessarily a zero sum game for any sports league. But what's not zero sum is that each franchise ought to be increasing its engagement and financial success every year. The NFL has done a marvelous job with this. In MLB, the Oaklands and the Tampa Bays and, yes, the Minnesotas engage in a strategy of "blame the fans". Dave St Peter may do wonderful technical work on the business side of the franchise (I wouldn't know), but he should be forbidden to ever speak in public. It's 50/50 each time he opens his mouth whether he does good or harm to the team's image. Frankly Jim Pohlad should impose the same discipline on himself - "he has people for that". Mike Veeck may be too old by now, but someone like him needs to be put in charge of every aspect of the fan experience for the Twins, and that might even including having some limited veto power over roster moves that look likely to harm the franchise overall.

The investment of time or resources should not play into the decision. That's called a sunk cost. The same potential that caused them to be protected might carry over this time too, though.

Obvious or not, this study seems skewed by looking only at, as the writer stated it, "notable Twins pitchers." Do the study on first MLB career starts, period, and the data might show a stronger correlation. Maybe low quality first career starts are made mostly by pitchers who ultimately don't pan out? In that case Berrios might look like more of an outlier, while luminaries like JC Romero would cluster at the lower left. That "other" Romero, with game score 34 in his first major league start, was pretty terrible for two dreary years until he was converted to full-time reliever (which could be another variable to try to account for). Does anyone remember Brad Thomas? Me neither, but his 2001 debut led to a 30 game score and presaged a lifetime WAR in the negative numbers. Leaving guys like them off the chart might lead one to think those 30ish first games are the rarity. I think it's also a mistake to limit the Y-axis to be the portion of a pitcher's career spent with the Twins. Kyle Lohse's value is a good deal higher than the 6.5 WAR he earned as a Twin. Although, really, achieving even 5 WAR is a pretty good accomplishment by itself, as would be demonstrated better if the chart showed every Twin who was allowed to try. The "notable" pitchers would stand out without having to be sifted through beforehand. I'm just not much in favor of throwing out data that doesn't happen to fit a narrative. (Except perhaps whenever it's my narrative. )

They were hired after the 2016 season concluded, which was of the 103-loss variety and marked a low point in a dismal period starting in 2011. I'm not impressed with the current status but it's not like they took over a perennial contender.

Dear Abby may turn out to be a 66 year flash in the pan, but the Buddha has had some staying power. I have learned a lot from this thread.

Ignoring extra innings and walk-offs, when the home team wins they make 24 outs. When they lose, they make 27. Sounds like a strong correlation of wins to not making outs.

Good attendance puts pressure on a Front Office. Good baseball towns like Boston (last place this year) and St Louis (first place) regularly fill up their respective ball parks even if World Series contention isn't likely. A place like Minnesota lets the FO throw up their hands and say whatchagonnado?

Another area where we differ about the player.

In all fairness, if I were being paid for my words of wit and wisdom I might phrase any number of things differently.

If we're in apparent agreement that, given a chance for a do-over, Carlos perhaps should take it, I'm having a hard time seeing the need to defend his choice of words. There's honest, and then there's brutally honest as you term it, and to me the latter fits a description of tactlessness pretty much to a T. Brutal honesty is for example when a boss has to correct an underling's behavior; not to enhance the value of the "product", as Carlos fashions himself. Brutal honesty is what Sheldon Cooper or Mister Spock or Mister Data or Mister Worf *use when they fictionally misunderstand human conventions. A saying, attributed variously to Dear Abby and the Buddha and others, is, when considering whether to say something, ask is it true? is it necessary? is it kind? We're all in agreement that what Carlos said is true. In the upcoming off-season negotiations, he holds most if not all the cards as regards the Twins. Was it necessary for him to spell it out, to a reporter asking what seemed like a random softball question? I can't see a reason, no. Was it kind? To imply to a broad listening audience that he's a big shot who shops at Dior and can afford to pay asking prices? I don't see how it qualifies. There are other true things to say instead, such as "I hope something can be worked out". Few people value hearing brutal honesty, to be brutally honest, so why should a person in the public eye go there? * Man, Star Trek sure liked using that particular trope

Great way of looking at it. In an injury-riddled year, he provided above-average play (disguised for many by a league-wide decline in offense), and did it by appearing in the second most games on the team, barely behind Arraez, which made him a relative beacon of stability. Fix other problems first. $10M will make him only the third highest paid player, behind Buxton and Gray, and it's the cost of doing business unless you are so confident in the younger low-paid players (and their return to health) that you can afford to jettison the guy who ranks fourth in Runs and third in RBIs. No such thing as a bad one-year contract, and if he does turn out to be the worst player on your roster in 2023, then barring injury it means some things have gone very, very well and thus becomes the proverbial "nice problem to have."

He's got as strong a case as anyone and I'm not sure why I didn't include him in my comment. Leading in ERA but with fewer starts is a strong but not decisive case to be made, while the W-L (albeit for a strong team) may be what pulls him across the finish line. In fact now that I think again he may win in a landslide, but I personally see it as a lot closer than that. Cease may be more impressive to me because that Chicago defense almost certainly did him no favors over the course of the season, while Houston's defense is pretty good. Verlander'll be a worthy winner, if he gets it.

Players with heart don't land on the 60-day, and they revert to their high-octane days if brought back to their old team. You've given a pretty good synopsis of your view. It coincides closely with magical thinking, and I'm uninterested in pursuing a blind alley once I see it.

Wait, "I hold all the cards here" ISN'T good PR?

They just might. Is our FO interested in acquiring Tyler Mahle 2.0, with shoulder IL time in both 2021 and 2022 plus a 60-day stint for a lat ailment? Sound like just the sort of sweet opportunity our guys would jump at.

He's a better than average player. That's what you have to have in order to contend, even if he isn't the superstar that is also required. Absolutely keep him for 2023, at the arbitration price. Go from there; a short duration contract extension through 2025 probably wouldn't kill anything even if he slips.

If the roster spot is that valuable to them, they can get something in trade (part of a package perhaps). Opinions will vary as to whether they sold low if they do that, with proof either way coming in two years or under. My inclination is to keep him on the 40, but it comes down to who gets left off as the 41st guy.

Well sure, but no such offers are going to be forthcoming from another front office, not even if we throw in Brian Duensing as a sweetener. Turn the perspective around: would you have traded 2004 Johan Santana for, um, Marcus Giles, who hit .311 that year?

How to honor Ohtani is a dilemma, because the Cy possibly is destined for Dylan Cease (with Alek Manoah as a dark horse coming on strong down the stretch), and best hitter is Judge by far. If there were more guys like Ohtani they'd have to devise something different, possibly 3 awards, where MVP (call it the Babe Ruth Award) really does give pitchers and hitters equal footing, and you have a Ted Williams Award to go with a Cy Young for the best position player and best pitcher. As it is, someone is getting a significant snub in the 2022 AL, but unavoidably as I see it.

Completely agree. Where some are seeing clear-headed understanding of the market for elite players, I saw arrogance. And I'm far from the camp that berates players for demanding their slice of the pie. But he has to use common sense in defining his "brand", if he really has a grasp of the market. This is one of the reasons players hire agents, to say the things that may need to be said. Oh, that wicked, greedy Scott Boras, except no, he's just the mouthpiece. Part of the agent's commission is for being The Heel in each little drama. Carlos may not have severely damaged his value in the coming free agent market, but he didn't do it any good either. This was a moment when he should have answered the reporter's question with platitudes. "I love it here, I hope we can work something out." Let Boras spell out the Dior analogy, or that the player has to feed his family, if it's needed.

No matter how much heart in a player, Father Time has final say. And they do have metrics for that: Eddie hit .219 this year with little power, and Nelson hit .234 with little power. Carlos would like a contract that will have some team paying him tens of millions of dollars for multiple seasons where he may be hitting like that. The team doesn't move on, the skills do, and the front office has no way of reversing that. What the front office can do is try to anticipate it. Sure, I'd like 2018 Eddie back, or 2019 Nelson, but those guys don't exist today. If I'm wishing, I'll wish for 1969 Harmon, 1977 Rod and 2009 Joe while I'm at it.

I expected him to be a little more tactful than that.