Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

jay

Provisional Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • 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

  1. jay
    I think you've highlighted exactly how the Twins are going to compete for their next World Series. It's not going to be by increasing payroll significantly to go out and sign all the top dollar free agents. The farm could certainly produce the type of talent mentioned between the guys that have already graduated and those on the way.
  2. jay
    Remaining playoff teams by payroll rank... Giants (7) Cards (13) Orioles (15) Royals (19) 11 of the top 12 payrolls didn't make it to baseball's final four.... While the Twins aren't likely to reach #7 ($154M) anytime soon, they've shown the ability to be in that 10-15 range on the right occasion. That occasion almost certainly isn't 2015.
  3. jay
    Sounds like a pretty loud "NO" for April. How loud will these forums get by June (2 months later) demanding for their call ups?
  4. jay
    I'd love to say stick Sano on the MLB squad to start the year. However, I don't see how you can force one of your MLB regulars who has been solid and improved defensively off his position for an unproven rookie with defensive questions who just missed an entire year. I don't think you'd find a precedent for that in ANY organization. The only way I can see Sano in MLB to start the year is in an OF corner. However, you then end up with Sano and Arcia in the corners and certainly haven't addressed OF defense.
  5. jay
    Sano landed at #2 on Fangraphs' list of projected WAR in 2015 for prospects. Buxton didn't make the top 10. https://twitter.com/fangraphs/status/519585235172728833
  6. jay
    You're absolutely right. But I also don't think TR will want to take credit for much without talking about the failure to get wins or something else. With W/L's the easy answer there... Amended to: biggest failures beyond wins and losses.
  7. jay
    And biggest failures thus far?
  8. jay
    Target Field developed a reputation over the first couple seasons as being a "pitcher's park". Do you think that is still true? (My hope is he acknowledges that park factors have actually viewed TF as an above-average offensive environment each of the last 3 years.)
  9. jay
    What type of batter profile best fits Target Field? What type of pitcher profile best fits Target Field?
  10. jay
    It is. It's roughly the difference between the best and worst. They've factored in many more variables than the earlier models. One of the biggest adjustments they've made was accounting for the influence of the pitcher -- for example, Yadi "gave back" half his runs due to the staffs he's had in StL. Sure, it could still be wrong. Most people at least accept that framing is a real thing. If it's a real thing that is turning balls into strikes, that has to have a value. The hard part there is turning that value into the equivalent of runs. It's an imaginary world where you can never know what the outcome would have been otherwise, so they have to use "expected runs" based off an incredible amount of data. It's hard to fathom the number of opportunities to influence a pitched ball in just one season (like 10,000) and the size of that impact. 40 runs passes the smell test for me, but 20 runs or even just 10 runs is significant.
  11. jay
    You? Skeptical? The latest BP model already scales back the run impact significantly as they've improved on assigning the value. It could very well change more. If 2 strikes a game seems possible... humor me if you don't mind, what's that worth on average over the course of a season? Some of those 320 strikes inevitably directly lead to the end of an at bat. Most don't, but we know there's some sort of value in being ahead 1-2 instead of behind 2-1. Include whatever that's worth to you also (the model does).
  12. jay
    Why does it have to? Or, prove that it isn't. Like I mentioned before, skeptics can raise a million potential variables. I don't see how something with an impact greater than zero doesn't change an outcome eventually. When you consider there are 4,860 games in every season... it could be quite often.
  13. jay
    tobi... if you just want to be mad about the payroll, be mad. The Twins have sucked for four years now. Plenty of reasons to be mad. Whatever disclaimers you want to put on it, but the payroll would have ended at $95M this year if they hadn't swooned. Exactly in line with the quote you provided.
  14. jay
    I can see how a payroll at $110M may have provided false hope. It did for me as well. I recall building my 'offseason plan' back then based off that number. I wouldn't characterize it as misleading though. It actually makes more and more sense to me in hindsight. None of the Twins' statements said they would continue to increase it from there. Your quote clearly indicates they wouldn't.
  15. jay
    Your question didn't say $95M, it referred to $110M. I think they had the ability to be at $95M this year. The Twins seemed to convey they had payroll room at the start of the year. Without trading away Morales, Willingham and Correia, which most everyone agrees was the right move, MLB payroll would have landed right at $95M. I'm not seeing misleading, but to each their own.
  16. jay
    Wouldn't you also conclude the Twins account for those pools in their accounting? There can be big variation there and I can't imagine they just ignore it. I didn't agree with your method of calculating an expected payroll level, but I'm not looking to defend the Twins from your perceptions. Your hypothetical question assumes the money manager told his investors that $50/share was a great value and it would continue to go up from there. As much as we all might have wanted that to be true, I don't recall the Twins saying that.
  17. jay
    I can't find anything conclusive either. The Forbes number says it includes bonuses and benefits. That'd probably be draft and int'l, but not sure. DSP and TR's quotes say "payroll" from what I can find. Who is to say they don't include bonuses and benefits in their calculation? Why wouldn't they? I can't find quotes by them that specifically says MLB contract salary = Twins' payroll calculation.
  18. jay
    What if $110M was 55%? What if it was 60%? The quotes can support that position. Now you're holding them to a higher standard than they've stated. If it's a crediblity issue and you don't believe those quotes, then why even believe the 50-52% quote at all? The rare, elite talent and how much those few players cost skew the perception. Nolasco's contract value was in the top 10 and his AAV was in the top 15. Hughes' contract and AAV were both in the top 25. That's not insignificant. If you don't like how the Twins are spending the FA dollars, that's different... but a whole 'nother debate.
  19. jay
    I'm not sure. I do know those Forbes numbers consistently aligns closer to the Twins' continued statements than your method. It further emphasizes my point that we don't actually know how they calculate it. Do you know which figure the Twins use when they talk about 50-52%?
  20. jay
    I mostly agree with this. However, the argument of the recent past was "the Twins are never even talking to these guys". The new argument is "the Twins aren't signing enough of these guys". That's already different. When they blow their previous organizational FA expenditures out of the water in an offseason, that's enough for me to think that things are in fact a bit different than they were in the past. Obviously though, not different enough for some people. I do. Where I think the logic fails is in assuming that you have the right numerator and denominator when nothing in the history of their payroll even suggests those numbers align. Adhering to the thought that the MLB payroll number published by Deadspin, USA Today, etc should be .52*(Forbes revenue estimate) would lead you to believe that the Twins haven't fulfilled what they say even one single time. Does that seem realistic? Forbes publishes a number for player expenses, not just revenue. Take a look at what they show: Year Player Expenses Revenue Ratio 2005 69 102 68% 2006 73 114 64% 2007 76 131 58% 2008 81 149 54% 2009 80 158 51% 2010 83 162 51% 2011 112 213 53% 2012 121 213 57% 2013 122 214 57% 2014 97 221 44% Average 91.4 167.7 56% It seems clear they entered 2014 on the low-end of their range and had flexibility to add payroll based on both their quotes and actions, hence the ability to add Morales. I do think they entered the year short of "52%", but nowhere near almost $30M short as would be suggested by your method.
  21. jay
    Anyone have a link to the interview where Dougie talks about his tactics? I can't find it.
  22. jay
    Everyone loves a good conspiracy theory! What's more likely? The Twins publicly tell us they have a payroll % target but then proceed to lie and deceive us about it while consistently and significantly underspending what it should be OR We aren't accurately arriving at the same number Option B seems a bit more reasonable to me. When you look at how the Twins try to operate as an organization, shady and liars doesn't exactly come to mind for me.
  23. jay
    The front office quotes from 2011 make it sound like they went above and beyond.
  24. jay
    That's simply not true. It was true in some of the early framing models, but it's not any more. If you read the BP article linked above, it explains how they account for and remove the effect of the count in the AB, the umpire, the pitcher, plus plenty more. You completely avoided my question. Lucroy compared to Suzuki+Pinto is an almost identical number of chances and an excellent comparison between "good" and "bad" framers for a team. Here are some 2014 numbers from the BP stats page linked above: Lucroy = 10379 chances, +185 strikes Suzuki = 8174 chances, -106 strikes Pinto = 2146 chances, -52 strikes Suzuki+Pinto = 10320 chances, -158 strikes That's a difference of 343 strikes over the course of the 2014 season. Full-time catcher is a pretty vague description, but let's call it more than 7500 chances (only 20 qualify). Top 3 (Lucroy, Zunino, Martin) = 27489 chances, +502 strikes (average of +167 strikes) Bottom 3 (Salty, Navarro, Suzuki) = 24098 chances, -353 strikes (average of -118 strikes) That's a difference of 285 strikes between the averages over the course of the 2014 season. It's close to 2 strikes a game. That seems reasonable. So, I'll ask again, what's that worth over the course of a season? It's gotta be more than zero... ?
  25. jay
    Does that mean you believe they should be held accountable to maintaining payroll at 52% of the consolidated revenue across all entities? I think we can agree that isn't their approach. Or at least the numbers don't support saying it is.
×
×
  • Create New...