jay
-
Posts
1,544 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis
Minnesota Twins Videos
2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings
2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Minnesota Twins Players Project
2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by jay
-
I'm absolutely not saying we should ignore the bad or the negative, so please don't insinuate that from my post. What I'm saying is that I think it's far more valuable to understand "why" and we don't have any of that in the article. I'd be happy to hear your theories on what should have been done differently... other than just pick the guys that actually ended up making it.
-
That's the fact as of today. As your post there and others have pointed out, it's the why that is hard to separate out from all the variables. The icky feeling I get from the original article is that folks coming to TD to just read articles are probably pretty likely to leave with the conclusion that the Twins just suck at drafting. I think the why is a bit more complex than that. I personally think draft position is a big part of those years and I'll commit to a blog post examining that.
-
I don't think anyone disagrees about the impact of the draft and that it's a big part of the "why" to our recent terrible teams. That's an easy conclusion. The next question of "why didn't we find better talent those years" is far more interesting to me.
-
The Twins draft struggles in that period are directly related to the results we've seen the last few years. However, I would've liked to see you weight for draft position. There's some anecdotal mentions of it, but no data analysis. Knowing the huge variation in expected success rates for a top-5 pick compared to a compensation pick, I think the impact is underrepresented here. I think '06 and '11 were your cutoff points due to Parms and Boyd, but it's interesting to see Garza, Perkins and Plouffe in the two years before that and, whlie they haven't made an MLB impact yet, Buxton and Berrios in 2012.
-
I'll take it straight from the horse's mouth. Direct quote from DSP during Parker's interview with him this offseason (bold emphasis mine) to a question about the Twins' ability to generate revenue relative to the league: I'd expect the Twins' rank in payroll (which is what everyone actually cares about, right?) to be fairly close to their rank in revenue with some variation in either direction as we saw in 2010 and in 2013/2014. Then again, who knows, maybe Young Pohlad will pull an Illitch on us.
-
The timing of this makes me think the second one that fell through might have been Dexter Fowler. Fills a need for the Twins -- short-term CF solution. Milone and something or Escobar and something wouldn't have been much different than Straily and Valbuena.
-
On a slightly more serious note, I pulled the list of trade transactions from this offseason that MLBTR tracks in an attempt to narrow down who I thought the Twins were trying to get. Then I saw there have been like 75 MLBers traded this offseason and like another 125 MiLBers... and I gave up.
-
I do love me a good sandwich. And lunch time is sooo faaar awaaaaayyy.... arrrgh.
-
Or, you and I just don't have a squad of reporters prying on us for any dirt or details that might make a decent story about the type of sandwich we're interested in.
-
MUST WATCH: Kid Reaction to Joe Mauer Autograph
jay replied to Seth Stohs's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
It was hilarious to hear an 8 year old use the word "overstimulated" at all, let alone in a sentence describing his experience meeting low-keyed Joe Mauer. Love the genuine excitement! -
Yeah, some teams flirt with that line a little more than others. I don't think any of us think of the Twins as much of flirters though...
-
Tampering isn't allowed. That's why. From an MLBTR article:
-
Well, you're still wrong... Seth said it was his first league suspension, which is completely accurate. Missing time for violating team rules isn't a league suspension. A first positive test for a drug of abuse leads to a warning. A second positive test for a drug of abuse is a 50-game league suspension, which is the case here and his first league suspension. Also, a "drug of abuse" (weed, coke, ecstasy, etc) has nothing to do with steroids which would be a PED and immediate suspension.
-
The survivor bias is difficult to eliminate, but their might be a better solution for the selection bias. Their age curve method compares performance for one year's age group matched to their performance the previous year. The issue here is that the population isn't static. What we really want to know is "How are the guys who made it to MLB at 21 doing at age 26?" (and every other age) and "How are the guys who made it to MLB at 24 doing at 28?" (and every other age). Using just one static population from age 21 and on is going to give you an unreliable, small sample size, but what about this... Create an "age curve" for each group of players called up to MLB at each age. Merge the slope of all these curves by weighting the "all players" slope to the size of each age group population.
-
I love advanced metrics, data, all that good stuff. I don't buy the message of this one at all. Zimmerman acknolwledges some survivor bias (without quanitifying it), but there's significant selection bias as well. Comparing the results of 21 year olds in MLB to the results of 25 year olds in MLB can't simply be attributed to age. The selection bias here has far more to do with the population samples than it does to performance differences based on age. The survivor bias effect is an issue throughout, but likely largest at both tails of the curve and particularly the right tail. A 35 year old who produced at levels higher than his true talent is going to get an opportunity to keep playing and is likely to decline not only due to age but also natural downward regression towards his true talent level. A 35 year old who produced at levels below his true talent level is likely forced to retire, so there's no equal representation of upward regression. At the simplest level, the "curve" fails any sort of a basic sniff test (which I recognize isn't always accurate either). These biases make me believe that an age curve actually attributable to age-related performance impact would look different.
-
I don't see how that is decided already. They both still have a lot to prove. Escobar needs to prove more of what he showed in 2014. Danny needs to prove his insane BABIP and low BB% can be consistent production. Best way to find out? Keep them both in the lineup every day -- certainly over the alternative option of Schafer and/or Hicks in CF. I think the situation will play itself out pretty quickly based on their results in 2015. If or when one of them is struggling to the point of not deserving every day play, we can hope that Buxton is knocking on the door for CF and the other sticks at SS.
-
I don't think we can accurately assume Danny is the SS of the future and has to play there to start 2015. It's more like the ambiguous... "it depends". Could he be the long-term answer at SS? Sure, but... ...it depends on Escobar, who seems to have earned more time at SS based on 2014 and could very well turn out to be the solution there. ...it depends on Buxton, who while he is an elite prospect, isn't our CF just yet. ...it depends on Hicks, who hasn't had extended success at AAA or any in MLB to clearly deserve additional MLB playing time just yet. ...it depends on Schafer, who might be a decent 4th OF but hasn't shown starter-type production really ever. ...and most importantly, it depends on Danny Santana. It seems pretty clear that Danny Santana is the best solution in CF to start 2015. As long as he's getting MLB playing time to keep learning, I can live with not knowing whether or not that's his permanent position. He hasn't even proven yet that he's a permanent MLBer.
-
Word of the Shields mystery offer leaked on 1/4 (after Ervin), presumably while the offer was still on the table although that isn't explicitly clear. Original Ken Rosenthal quote:
-
Yahoo Sports broke news about two weeks ago that Big Game James Shields had a 5/$110M offer on the table from a mystery team. Now, ESPN's Bowden adds this: Could the Twins really have been that team? A deal would have led to a new team-record payroll and a rotation with 4 free agent veterans. Other rumors mentioned the Astros as the potential mystery team which seems to make a bit more sense, but... who knows?
-
SS candidates: Danny Santana, Eduardo Escobar, Eduardo Nunez CF candidates: Danny Santana, Jordan Schafer, Aaron Hicks Quotes from earlier in the offseason had the new head coach, Paul Molitor, saying that Santana was going to be the SS. Most people here have run with that, but Terry Ryan is quoted by Sid in the Strib today and doesn't sound so convinced about who will play short: TR goes on with his praise for Escobar: So, who is going to be the shortstop and centerfielder out of spring training? Put me down for Danny in center and Escobar at short with Schafer as the 4th OF, Nunez as the 25th man and Hicks in AAA.
-
How Secure Is Suzuki's Starting Job?
jay replied to Nick Nelson's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
It would be curious to hear someone from the Twins org opine on what they value in catcher defense. It's certainly not framing and it seems that blocking matters a lot. -
This is the part I disagree with. I think the Twins and most any team would be in good shape if they had 8 "BD level" players running around on the field.
-
I wholeheartedly disagree with that first statement and that type of thinking is exactly why Brian Dozier is underrated even by Twins fans. This thought that he's some bit player you can deal with or he's not good enough to build with/around doesn't hold true with his production.
-
His 'flow' is his most appropriately rated characteristic.
-
David Schoenfield's ESPN article on the All-Underrated Team lists Brian Dozier at 2B with the following blurb: http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=sweetspot&id=54559 What do you think? Is Brian Dozier underrated? I think he definitely is.
