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

    41,473

  • 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
    Understood, but I was trying to get some kind of intuition about what fWAR values. Because it doesn't seem to be "going deep into games".
  2. ashbury
    WAR = [[([(League “FIP” – “FIP”) / Pitcher Specific Runs Per Win] + Replacement Level) * (IP/9)] * Leverage Multiplier for Relievers] + League Correction When FIP is about the same for two starters, and the innings pitched are very different, I don't quite see how the basic formula (above) would reach the conclusion of equal WAR. So it must be somewhere down in the arcana of the full formula, which is beyond my pay grade and mostly wouldn't differ for two teammates. I didn't spot what that would be. Maybe something screwy in the infield fly count.
  3. ashbury
    You don't think a 15+% greater workload plays a part in a pitcher's value?
  4. ashbury
    bWAR doesn't concur, 1.6 vs 3.5. And perhaps it's because Odorizzi put up similar FIP but in 26 fewer innings across 32 starts (actually 1 more start than Gibby). Odo puts approximately an extra inning of burden on the bullpen. That's really quite a differential in value delivered. No lamentation required.
  5. ashbury
    Concur, and I'll state it slightly differently: the problem isn't moving players to the majors too slowly, it's developing players too slowly.
  6. ashbury
    A DH who hits so well that players sit on the bench during their days off, because their participation would weaken the team if they DH'ed, would be all right with me. Ehire has been in a lineup as DH 4 times in his Twins career and that's 4 times too many.
  7. ashbury
    Joe's not the hitter Harmon was, but this is probably going too far. Harmon would get on base at a clip in the high .300s when his leagues' average was in the low .300s, and he was the league leader in walks several times. I suppose one can lead the league in something bad without intending to, but leading the league in something positive indicates purpose. Clearly his walks were due to being pitched extraordinarily carefully, moreso than some superhuman batting eye, but it indicates that he didn't give in to the pitcher when he wasn't being given good pitches to hit. OBP was a known statistic even back in the day. I'd be interested in seeing an interview in which Harmon was asked about his walk totals. I bet his thoughtfulness on the topic would surprise some. I'd be surprised if he didn't feel that his walks were helping his team. And so I bet if he were here, to be asked, he'd praise Joe for getting on base the way he has done. He might also have slipped Joe the needle about power.
  8. ashbury
    It would be a lot easier if the offense wasn't making it so that 4 runs will beat you. Do you recall what kind of statistical technique they used to separate the two? They are so highly correlated.
  9. ashbury
    Don't forget the swan songs.
  10. ashbury
    Congratulations, Carole, and good luck in the drawing..
  11. ashbury
    He's been good in few-week stretches before. The most recent set of 3 games certainly doesn't hurt his chances for next year, but I'd still consider him just a candidate. He gave up a run in consecutive outings before this.
  12. ashbury
    FTFY.
  13. ashbury
    I see no reason this can't be addressed within the organization. There are many fans at Rochester who deserve a promotion, and probably quite a few at Chattanooga who could make the jump easily. They have thriving economies and surely some number there can afford $2000 in support of the big league team. Come on, FO, let's make this happen.
  14. ashbury
    No one's got a monopoly on clear-eyed recognition of reality.
  15. ashbury
    We have different definitions of rebuilding, so I think I'll confine myself to describing that difference and then move on. To me, the rebuild was committed to, the moment when Denard Span was traded for a low-minors pitcher in November 2012. Other moves in that vein came soon afterward. Terry Ryan would never utter the word "rebuild", but the plan was clear - acquire established major league talent for a 3 year interim period to tide the team over until a new wave of young players could begin to make their presence felt. As long as the focus is on the future, making no moves that mortgage anything in favor of current results, that's a rebuild. The old front office and the new one have both operated generally along those lines. In that light, it's not necessary to have a major league roster be devoid of established veterans for a certain period of time, to qualify as a rebuild. To me, that's a "Charlie Hustle" type of move by a front office, to showily demonstrate that they really are rebuilding - but using Josh Willingham and Ryan Doumit types suffices, as an alternate means of covering that span of time. The hard work is always the acquisition of the young talent - how they get integrated at the major league level is a secondary consideration. As I said above, I don't see a lengthy period of bad results by top-end prospects when they reach the majors as particularly necessary, nor desirable, if AAA is firing on all cylinders. Different teams do it differently.
  16. ashbury
    I don't take issue with much of the rest you said, but I don't like accepting major league losses at this stage of the rebuild that started way back in 2012. If AA or AAA isn't preparing the near-ready players for life in the majors, then address THAT. The minors are where players belong until they prove ready. If the competition there isn't quite stiff enough, it's the duty of the coaching staff to gently (or not so gently) point out to the stud prospect the ways he's sliding by and not doing what's necessary to succeed at the next level. Other teams seem to have players come up and perform. I've been bothered a long time by the need for our youngsters to suffer through rookie jitters like May, Berrios and now Gonsalves demonstrated. Maybe Gonsalves has been stubborn and didn't listen when his AAA coach tried to tell him - if so, that's partly on the player but partly on the coach. I'm guilty of making assumptions and extrapolations here, but I don't think I'm way off base in this. Kohl Stewart expressed surprise at coming out from way out in the bullpen to make his second-inning start the other day - they've been doing the Opener in Rochester too - so where is the preparation, for all the quotidian little things that make up a major-leaguer's experience? It's more of a stretch to guess that Gonsalves is shocked to discover that major league hitters are less likely to go fishing at mediocre breaking pitches way down in the dirt, but all the evidence seems to point that way.
  17. ashbury
    Concur. If the Opener means anything, using it to help nursemaid a rookie seems to make sense. It's not going to make a good pitcher out of a bad one. It's not even going to make a pitcher much better, at all. But if it acts as training wheels, even as a placebo to let the pitcher relax a bit for his first batters, it seems like it could be of value. With all this discussion, I'm viewing it as more like a flexible tool than any kind of dogma.
  18. ashbury
    The 2018 Twins are below league-average in runs scored. They are also worse than average in runs against. Manny Machado or Clayton Kershaw, alone, would not fix things. I'm unable to address the question as stated. The needs are too vast. Or, maybe I'll address it as: The Twins biggest off-season need is for the new front office to distinguish themselves, after a couple of years of seeming analysis resulting in some hopeful groundwork being laid in the minors, but only so-so results (if that) in the majors.
  19. ashbury
    You are more honest than many. I'll save further typing for some other poster or some other topic.
  20. ashbury
    I didn't bring up Wilson in the first place. But, someone did try to suggest that a manager might try to defeat the Opener strategy by moving a stud hitter down in the lineup. That would come at the expense of one or more lesser hitters being elevated to additional plate appearances over the course of a season, however often this strategy was attempted. Wilson serves, for discussion purposes - other choices would be merely less bad.
  21. ashbury
    Normal lineup: if Bobby Wilson makes the final out of the game, say in his fourth PA, then Eddie Rosario had four PA too. If it was Bobby's fifth, Eddie got five too. Nothing the manager can help. Rosario batting anywhere below Wilson to confound the Opener Strategy: if Bobby Wilson makes the final out, Eddie Rosario had one fewer chance. That's the manager outsmarting himself.
  22. ashbury
    If, absent a fancy starting pitcher strategy I come up with, the opposing manager would have constructed an "optimal" batting lineup, then any deviation he comes up with counts as being in my favor. I'd love it if Mike Trout batted 5th in some futile attempt to outsmart my manager - it means fewer plate appearances for him in the long run. So I don't care if counter-measures erode an advantage my strategy otherwise creates. I feel as though I'm still coming out ahead, of not doing it. This is somewhat separate from the question of whether the Opener concept is even sound and does in fact confer an advantage.
  23. ashbury
    It may not work all that much more often, I mean on top of what the standard strategy would produce. It's not going to be a 10-WAR boost. All you can do is put your players in a position to succeed. They still have to succeed. If your "starter" achieves average looking results against a lineup stacked toward the bottom half, maybe that not average, and is not success, and is on him.
  24. ashbury
    I think what motivates the strategy isn't "what's best for Kohl Stewart?" nor "what's best for Jose Berrios?", but "what's the best way to handle the top of the opponent's lineup?" Facing batters a third time seems to be a defining mark for a multi-innings pitcher. If Berrios at a disadvantage the third time through is still better than a lesser pitcher who is fresh, then let him pitch inning #1. If Stewart needs all the help he can get, at this stage of his career perhaps, then let a specialist try to pave the way for him.
  25. ashbury
    If you want to make an issue of the Opener versus Starter topic, let me point out that this game worked almost perfectly as a way to squeeze an extra inning out of a nominal starter. Moya pitched the first inning, then Stewart came in and faced the #5 batter in the lineup to start the second inning. He faced the lineup twice, then saw the #5 through #9 batters a third time. That #9 batter made the third out of the seventh inning. So Kohl Stewart achieved his first 6-inning appearance in the majors. You need more than one game to prove anything, and you need a better opponent than the 2018 Tiggers. I'm skeptical that games can be routinely choreographed to this level of detail. But, if someone asks you what the idea is behind the Opener strategy, this game is the example you might point to.
×
×
  • Create New...