Jump to content
Join us for draft day two conversation, click here! ×
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

ashbury

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    41,464

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    465

 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 Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by ashbury

  1. ashbury
    FanGraphs has taken a crack at this. I'm not sure how successfully. https://blogs.fangraphs.com/introducing-the-batter-specific-run-expectancy-tool/ I agree that we're a long way away from using actual RE tables to make game decisions. They're just (IMO) interesting as a way of setting a baseline for discussion. Fast/slow runner on second, a good/bad hitter at the plate, a good bunter on the bench... all these will adjust the numbers, at the risk of cutting down the numbers to Small Sample Size, meaning that the manager using his noodle to decide is still probably for the best.
  2. ashbury
    I don't think "formula" or "equation" is an accurate representation of run expectancy. In its basic form, it's historical data, sorted (and averaged) into 24 spots in a matrix that comes from there being 3 numbers of outs (0,1 and 2) and each of the three bases might either be occupied or not (2x2x2=8 configurations). Here is an example compilation from game data 1950-2015: http://www.tangotiger.net/re24.html Now, I think FanGraphs goes to another level, and has some proprietary formulas that they use to adjust the real-world data for various purposes, such as to speculate on an era where offense is higher across the board. But those aren't formulas that people like us need, when putting the RE table to use. I guess you can say there is a "formula", of sorts, on how to use the table. When a plate appearance is finished, take the RA value of the new situation, subtract the RA value before the play started, and of course add any actual runs that were scored. That's the result, from either the batter's or the pitcher's perspective. Also, there are two main variations of the table: expected number of runs to score the rest of the inning, or the probability of scoring at least one run. In late innings, particularly the bottom of the ninth (which was the discussion point), the latter may be more important. But the numbers you crank, through this process, are at heart real life data, even if sliced and diced a few ways.
  3. ashbury
    Yeah, Rocco ought to grab a ball and bat sometime, and go out on the field to try out his theories. It's not so easy out there, compared to just sitting in the recliner chair in the dugout and pushing some buttons. / edit - April Fool?
  4. ashbury
    Not clear if anyone on the roster qualifies as a sure thing who is just waiting for an opening on the big club. Quite a number of question marks who, if they pan out, could contribute. The Red Wings' visits to Pawtucket are marked on my calendar, to get a look in person when the time comes.
  5. ashbury
    Apparently not, though.
  6. ashbury
    Max better be ready to run hard, if he has Byron behind him on the basepath.
  7. ashbury
    When he came in it was only 3-0, and I wasn't too wowed with his command or movement on the ball in that inning. "Effectively wild" at best.
  8. ashbury
    Oh, by far, that was the only negative to Astudillo's day. He keeps having these coming out parties like today's game - eventually we're going to figure out he's not a debutante anymore.
  9. ashbury
    We're probably looking at the same video, and it might be the only one available, and I agree it's hard to tell exactly when the coach stopped/started to signal to run hard. The coach came into view just a millisecond too late for our purpose. With none out, the instinct probably was to be conservative. If instead it was indecision, due to not completely thinking through in advance that you had an eager runner on second and a very fast one on first, then that's a place for some fine tuning and discussion. But if the indecision was on the part of Astudillo, and/or he wasn't on the same page with Buxton, then that's something else to work out. Wasn't costly this time. Next time it might be. Astudillo was clearly upset even though he had scored. Since I don't know his demeanor that well yet, he looked almost on the verge of tears. That could have been anger at himself (my interpretation), or coach Diaz(?), or Buxton. Wonder if it came up in the postgame interviews.
  10. ashbury
    Under Molitor: not make baserunning mistakes like we saw today. I'm hopeful that Rocco isn't quite so doctrinaire. Figure out what the players can do, not hang them for what they don't.
  11. ashbury
    Wait, so you're not expecting a team batting average of .107 to be sustained over the entire season?
  12. ashbury
    Your dad's 96? My dad's 96! Amazing.
  13. ashbury
    I looked him up on Out Of The Park 20 just now. His initial contract request was $4.4M. I did not pursue it further.
  14. ashbury
    Gee whiz, I didn't think at first to look up the league as a whole for this situation. Man on 3rd with 2 out, the MLB OPS is .864, versus .728 for all situations. Lots of sac flies result in higher batting/slugging averages. Nothing to see here, IMO.
  15. ashbury
    Slicing and dicing the data can lead to insight, but sometimes you just have to shrug and figure that SSS is getting in the way. He has 2750 career PA, and the situation you pointed out is just 140. Taking 140 PA for any player, in a variety of seemingly random ways, will usually lead to some kind of anomaly, such as a terrible inability to hit on Thursday afternoons but not nights. His OPS for overall RISP in 893 PA is slightly higher than with bases empty, which is about what to expect of the league as a whole. He's good in the clutch, just like most players who make it to this level. Aside from SSS, my first reaction to the stat with a runner at 3rd base and less than 2 outs was "well, maybe that's what can happen when the coach tells the pitcher, 'whatever you do, don't walk this guy.'."
  16. ashbury
    Not even a minor-league contract. I suppose one was offered and he said no thanks. The end, if this is what it is, is a bit unusual for someone that age, but I'm sure not unique.
  17. ashbury
    That's a good observation for any position, but especially at catcher. On b-r.com play index, the 26 MLB players who played at least 81 games in 2018 at catcher had a median OPS of around .730. Maybe a more careful analysis would give a slightly different result (e.g. the Twins' nominal backup was in this list while our starter was not, due to injury), but this quick-and-dirty approach is probably close.
  18. ashbury
    Did I miss seeing a chart of Kluber's called strikes? It would be interesting to know if he and his battery mate stole any.
  19. ashbury
    2018 MLB splits for ERA: March/April: 4.12 May: 4.05 June 4.05 July: 4.42 August 4.14 September/October: 4.15 I'm not seeing this short-lived cold-weather trend. Maybe that one month when it's pretty sure to be hot, OTOH....
  20. ashbury
  21. ashbury
    The word "scholarship" was bandied about during the end of the Terry Ryan era. That's kind of what you're describing with the guys you mention - extenuating circumstances where patience might be rewarded with good performance later on in the season. Patience, scholarship, long leash - I think we're talking about the same thing, give or take.
  22. ashbury
    Pseudo's response last night had the gist. "Long leash" wasn't a very helpful phrase to use because it carries multiple meanings. In-game, yes, a pitcher likely won't be able to shrug off a poor beginning to his stint on the mound. "I just don't have a feel for my curveball today," if that's the kind of excuse that's given - "well, you'd better find it, because I don't have someone else I can bring in right now" would be the response to that inanity. A pitcher who is brought in had better produce, but if he doesn't, he may just have to gut it out. But, from the medium-term perspective, a guy can't just be shoved to the more remote part of the bullpen and used only in blowout situations while he works out his problems. He has to be replaced by another pitcher, and either goes to the IL, or to AAA if he has options remaining, or else will have to be disposed of in some manner. Or else, a 12th pitcher is brought in, probably at the cost of losing a position player to waivers, or else at the cost of putting a useful position player like Cave or Astudillo at AAA. We won't go with 11 pitchers for very long in any case, but when we go to 12 the same logic will apply, because the trend has been toward 13.
  23. ashbury
    Then we're sending you to Rochester. See you in September, maybe.
  24. ashbury
    I'm impressed if they are going with 11 pitchers. Even with all the off-days early in the season, the default seems to have become 12, going to 13 when the games begin to bunch up. This is lean and mean, allowing a chance for a more productive bench. It means no pitcher gets a long leash, if not ready to produce right out of the gate. I like this.
  25. ashbury
    I enjoyed watching Kent Hrbek fool around at shortstop during fielding practice, back in the day. Cruz in CF is about on a par with that.
×
×
  • Create New...