ashbury

Small samples for individual pitchers, but league-wide the samples are large enough - yet still carry the same fundamental problem of bias each time through the lineup.

I think that's an underappreciated point, but not in the way you probably mean, because of the reason the samples get smaller. Any study of data needs to be on guard for bias in that data. And here, we have a situation where a guy isn't allowed a second time through the lineup if he's having a truly terrible day (in the first or second inning and gets pulled). And he certainly doesn't get a third chance through the lineup if the first two trips through were pretty bad. So the data is biased at each step *toward* the pitcher; and yet, at each step, he does worse. It's worse than the raw numbers tell us, IOW.

The day of the trade, a fellow poster pointed to the trade-values website for confirmation: The upshot was a trade value of 11.4 for Ryan and 2.4 for Strotman. Those respective values today? 32.2 and 1.5. Even that paltry value for Strotman seems a little high, but it may not have been updated too recently, plus some trading partner might value him as a buy-low candidate.

I wanna watch a cage match between two elders, and see them both hauled off to court as a consequence! Being so young myself, and all. Sorry but you have to blame Rocco. I just checked b-r.com and on the Twins page it shows this: Manager: Rocco Baldelli (37-29) So yes, those 29 are all on Rocco.

Impossible to spin that year's draft as a success. A success would be coming away with better than a backup infielder with the #5 pick, and/or with some other draftee over-achieving to compensate. Seattle picked next and didn't wind up with a better player, although they turned him into something by trading him early. So that suggests a little bad luck was involved for our Twins. But then multiple picks soon afterward demonstrated there was high-end talent to be had, if the evaluators had taken a different view. Gordon's main selling point was that he had no obvious flaw that would hold him back, even if he lacked any obvious strengths that would propel him to stardom. Bad luck or bad design by the talent evaluators? I lean toward the latter. Bad luck or bad development by the minor league coaches? I lean toward the former.

I don't care for those comps. If they think they can precipitate a Tommy John Surgery on Marquez, if I'm the pitcher I'd be asking my agent to look for any loopholes that would allow me to block the trade or file a grievance.

I think the pattern is this: the team is using logic similar to what you use at the poker table. Resources are not infinite and you can't use your bullpen like it's the 7th game of the World Series, every game. So, some "hands" you bet the minimum you can (there's not quite an equivalent in baseball to folding, until you bring Nick Gordon in to pitch), and other "hands" you compete to win. Once you're down by a run or more, even early, your odds are less than 50/50 even if you pull out all the stops. If your offense explodes in the middle innings, you re-evaluate, but based on what actually happened, not on what you hope. Hope will kill you at the poker table (and I'm not enough of a player to go beyond that bit of basic insight). You can argue against this. Baseball isn't poker for starters (no pun intended), although the gradual "reveal" as the games go forward in their respective ways have a least some parallels. But I think this is the pattern you are looking for. "Delicate" arms like Archer's you protect by using a short leash in terms of innings or pitch count; other arms you allow a longer leash and if a given game doesn't go well you still leave them in there (within some other limits) to try to save the bullpen. There's also the "third time through the batting order" factor. Et cetera. I believe the accusations that the manager is merely a robot reading some spreadsheet are groundless, but they do seem to operate from certain guiding principles which vary from pitcher to pitcher and thus seem inconsistent.

Good way of looking at him. He's got all three minor league options remaining, near as I can tell, so they can stash him at essentially zero cost, waiting for him to finish developing, and/or an offer they can't refuse. But has there been the slightest rumor that the Marlins would be open to dealing him? Even if so, them wanting to move him, a former first-rounder, would signal that we shouldn't want him. I mean, I know that sounds unduly pessimistic, if not downright circular, but then 99% of all possible trades would be bad, so I think I'll stick with that. We want him only if he's off the table.

Yeah, a high-school draftee usually needs a lot of patience. Under other circumstances the freshman coach might be offering him guidance on off-campus housing for the coming year. I notice Miller involved in the discussion of system depth when the talk is about whether to trade Correa, Lewis, etc, and we are perhaps the better part of half a decade away from truly factoring him into that kind of planning, if all goes well with him.

Oh, the corrupting influence of money! I bet they gave away free beer at that first mid-summer classic in 1933, but then Scott Boras's grandad got involved and they started grubbing for the dough.

And Byron took second because he figured he wouldn't draw a throw, lest Max score? Sometimes the official scorer doesn't give the batter a double in a situation like that, but again with Byron's speed I guess you have to err on the side of giving him credit for what he ended up getting.

Marquez and Hendricks have expensive contracts for next year, so that means the prospect capital to obtain either will be minimal. But it also means they are expensive for what they produce, if they don't bounce back. It's not like taking a flyer on some bounceback candidate on a make-good contract in the spring. Trying Rogers would amount to gambling that Miami's coaching staff is dumber than ours, and has failed to unlock something that we will. Maybe? I don't mind investing someone like Miranda in trade, but you don't want to guess wrong on the pitcher that comes back to us.

Could someone explain the top of the second inning yesterday? I didn't watch the game, just saw it unfold via Gameday feed, but Kepler was on first with two out and wound up only on third when Buxton hit a double. Byron's faster than Max, but Max should be off with contact and I have no idea why the coach wouldn't send him even if Luplow (with an average arm) was poised to make a throw. Out at home, I can accept, but standing on third?

He'll make the team if he keeps this up. Assuming the voters don't recognize him, Crusty Dusty the all-star manager will.

Somewhat, but I'm not sure it's as clearcut as you want. The plan depends on using two more 1-inning arms than you otherwise might, to secure the win, and assuming Archer has a good game and puts you in position to win, now you are counting on neither of the two extra pitchers have a bad hair day.

It's my fault. I finally caved into peer pressure the other day and forecast something around 85 wins.

Buxton now has as many homers as he did last season, in fewer PA. But last year he was hitting a ton of doubles too. This year it's much more Three No-Defense Outcomes - SO, BB, HR (12 of them solo).

BTW, you any relation to Jason?

I might have sold him a little short on his defense. Still, players' positions evolve as they go through their career, so I wouldn't go by innings counts that go very far back, either. I don't follow them closely (don't tell my inlaws!) but I looked and the Cubs seem to have had a revolving door in CF this season, with rookie Morel getting the call in mid-May and seeming to be entrenched now. But even during the first several weeks Happ was used in center only for 12 innings in total. If a team on the skids isn't using him in center, I doubt a team like the Rays who are accustomed to the defensive stylings of Kevin Kiermaier would look favorably on that idea. I think I'll amend my capsule scouting report on Happ as "good-glove corner bat." Which, IMO, doesn't net a team a serious starting pitcher. And neither does a bat-first catcher, so together they don't get you two. As always, I Could Be Wrong, and GMs will do what GMs do.

Another fun scenario. I do think the Twins would have a hard time saying no, to converting a suddenly suspect arm into two, at the cost of two potent bats. But I have a hard time seeing Tampa parting with two young and legit arms for a catcher and a corner bat, no matter how compelling those bats are. Have you submitted either of these trade proposals at the BTV.com site where you developed them, to see what kind of reaction you get? Maybe I'm all wet. I like BTV.com, but I almost feel like you have to separate "pitcher trade value" and "batter trade value" as two very alien things that are hard to mix in the present environment, except as sweeteners, or else at a 1.5-to-1 ratio favoring pitcher points.

We're having trouble finding a spot on the roster for Kirilloff. I'm genuinely curious how to fit Mancini in.

Bookies will take propositions on any sport, even roulette, I suppose.

It says something about Correa that you look at a guy batting .300+ with an .829 OPS, and say he could go on a tear soon. Like you, I've been slow to accept this as a playoff contending squad, but I am pretty much there now. Top half of the league, woo hoo! Last one on the bandwagon still gets to ride, right? I see the Twins either winning the division or not being invited to the post-season at all, so I don't foresee them facing the dreaded Yankees right away, as I think the pinstripers will be playing one of the wild card teams.

I'd be surprised if there weren't surprises.

I'll add, in reply to Doctor Gast's response, that I too would like front line starting pitching. I just don't believe Kepler moves the needle in any conceivable trade for one. Pitching requires pitching in return, great gobs of pitching when high-end established talent is at stake. I would love to be proved wrong with an actual upgrade to our rotation of course.