Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

ashbury

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    42,479

  • 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
    The presence or absence of a minus sign also plays a role.
  2. ashbury
    Mod note: Agreed, characterizing another poster rarely ends well.
  3. ashbury
    I see we are on the same page in this.
  4. ashbury
    It would make for a less interesting place if everyone operated under the same definitions. I do hope that Nick can extract from these various comments a way to further refine his description of how he values assets. I have asked similar of Seth when he provides his prospect rankings. Prospect A is ranked higher than Prospect B because he is... uh, more... um...what? One way to arrive at a sharp definition is to imagine a team liquidating its assets by auction. The highest bidder would scoop up Player B for $5M, Player A would fetch $20M, etc. While we amateurs would be purely guessing at these values, even a GM would be unwilling to sign his name to his estimates - no one can know for sure. But at least it would be something pretty well defined, and would allow for a ranked list. But... since teams don't liquidate, and haven't done so for more than a century, would this neat and tidy definition correspond to any kind of actual reality? I have my doubts. Also, highest bid for each player, would not necessarily correspond to any given bidder's rankings of all the players. There are some paradoxes contained even in thought experiments (which here boil down to game theory), to say nothing of real-world complexities. It's hard. I don't forecast real satisfaction from pressing Nick too earnestly. JMO.
  5. ashbury
    What a coincidence! The team with the highest payroll, not to mention one of the more longstanding analytics departments, just happened to win a championship. We can go talk payroll or chemistry or analytics in some different thread devoted to those topics, and I don't want to get off the topic of Nelson Cruz here, but this kind of nonsequitur shouldn't go unmentioned. For what it's worth, I expect Cruz to be a plus in the clubhouse. But I don't particularly overstate his value as a mentor - teams hire coaches and managers to handle those roles as well. Another player will listen to Cruz because he is a peer? Even though Rocco is a year younger?
  6. ashbury
    We probably get for Austin only about what we gave up to get him in the first place. Defensively, in the outfield, he'd probably be about like Wil Myers or Franklin Gutierrez, if my favorite QnD scouting source* is to be trusted. Just to set the expectations, at least for myself. Very average, probably plodding, but not embarrassing. Definitely an option to consider. * Out of the Park, the baseball game - they claim to put in some effort in this regard, as a aggregator of scouting opinions
  7. ashbury
    The thread title has "best tools in the minor leagues" so I think that's a useful assumption on anything stated about "the organization". I too would like to see a foot race.
  8. ashbury
    Oh, I suppose a .300 BA with a SLG above .600 is considered good in some circles. A bat-only guy for DH needs to be an elite hitter. He isn't young but I think he can still be one. This is what you demand positional flexibility from other roster spots for - the license to try for a stud at DH.
  9. ashbury
    Dunno. I'm getting a real 2012 vibe right now.
  10. ashbury
    /thread
  11. ashbury
    When you fire the manager, in effect you're saying the players aren't the problem, and the new guy will get more out of them. So, sticking with what appears to be a core makes sense. But I am perplexed at the apparent lack of interest in acquiring some high-end new talent to replace the expiring contracts and supplement this core, nonetheless. All I'm seeing is buy-low, some-upside, kinds of moves. If this is a rebuild situation because the core's no good, they could have just stuck with Molitor.
  12. ashbury
    What do you base this on? I mean, apart from what they do for any rookie to help him try to amp down and just let him show what he can do?
  13. ashbury
    Then that makes them the only team to go from 100 losses to playoffs to irrelevance in 3 consecutive seasons.
  14. ashbury
    Haley suffered a season-ending stress reaction on his elbow?
  15. ashbury
    Holding out for the baseball road trip you promised.
  16. ashbury
    Rosario's agent replies, "the top free-agent contracts last off-season were Eric Hosmer, who played nothing but first base for his old team and nothing but first base for his new team. Yu Darvish. He plays pitch. JD Martinez. He can barely track a slow roller to right field. Lorenzo Cain. Nobody asked him to branch out and play a corner OF spot, much less second base. My client is not a superstar but profiles as a cornerstone player like these guys. You're asking him to be Eduardo Escobar, who just signed for $6 or $7M a year, or Marwin Gonzalez, who MIGHT crack $10M a year, both for just three years; positional flexibility doesn't really move the needle on salary. You're not going to have a happy player if you insist on this during the remainder of his time in Minnesota. My compliments to Granny." Tyler Austin, yeah. Guys on the bubble should be all-in if offered any kind of chance. Plouffe, he wound up like Austin but for a while there looked to be on a different trajectory. Don't get me wrong, I adore positional flexibility. It's just that it swims against a very strong current.
  17. ashbury
  18. ashbury
    While I routinely use this strategy when playing OOTP on my computer, how do you deal with the real-world complexity when, for example, Rosario protests, "I'm not a utility player"?
  19. ashbury
    To possibly save anyone else from a bit of searching when trying to look him up, his name is spelled with an 'e'. Dusten Knight.
  20. ashbury
    Yeah, fair's fair, and I've expressed my qualms over some moves by this FO so they deserve credit here.
  21. ashbury
    It's a good thing the TD moderators weren't around to hear all of that bickering.
  22. ashbury
    Not to ruin your joke or anything, but Bill Smith landed on his feet with what looks like a nice job in the Minor League Baseball Office a year or two ago. He's doing all right. http://www.milb.com/milb/info/bios.jsp#/bill-smith
  23. ashbury
    Hopefully someone also with thick skin for criticism of not being teh clutchyness or whatever.
  24. ashbury
    One way to save time would be to run an idea past others who have studied the problem too. I (or you) can look up some of the SABR types who have done studies - they are usually pretty approachable, at least if you don't initiate with the sterotypical "everybody out of the swimming pool, there's a new lifeguard on duty" kind of self-introductions.
  25. ashbury
    All defensive stats are going to suffer in this respect, by comparison to the offensive ones. The sample size is smaller. Batters face on average 10-15 pitches a game, from which they compile the plate appearances in the stats. They face by comparison 2-5 decisions/opportunities in the field depending on position. Many of the pitches seem like no-brainers (take or swing), but then many fielding chances are likewise ones that any competent player will make - and yet, sometimes fielders muff the easy chances, and likewise batters will swing at pitches in the dirt. All in all, the two sides of the stats coin are not symmetrical - batters are put to the test on each pitch, and that's why it takes less time for offensive stats to stabilize and have meaning.
×
×
  • Create New...