jay

We know Joe needs to rebound offensively. We know catching isn't going to happen. My question is, does the new manager have to assume 1B and DH are the only spots he can play? I'd call that coddling. He doesn't fit the batter profile for a 1B and blocks other guys who could make a positive impact on the lineup. I count 6 guys who could only play a corner for 5 lineup spots (LF, RF, 3B, 1B, DH): Mauer, Plouffe, Arcia, Vargas, Pinto and Sano. He's probably a better defensive fit for an OF corner than anyone named there (except maybe Plouffe). We also know there's an opening in one of the OF corners...

Most catcher framing models already do take into account the variation in expected strike rates based on the count. Baseball Prospectus is commonly referenced for pitch framing. Here's their article where they talk about how their model factors in the count of the at-bat and how they've also accounted for pitch type, batter height, batter handedness and the guy pitching (all commonly used to say the numbers are bunk). http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=22934

1. Mientkiewicz 2. Martinez 3. Molitor I'd be happy with any of them. I do hope Bruno and Molitor stay on the staff regardless.

Oh, I thought he just moved it up to mid-summer?

I'm disappointed I missed this conversation until now, it's right up my alley. It appears the Pirates have been able to synergize many of their approaches. What stands out as strange to me is the fact that PNC Park has been one of the hardest ballparks to hit HRs in since opening in 2001. That would lead me to believe that a FB-heavy staff could be especially successful there, but they've gone the opposite direction. Perhaps they are choosing to focus run prevention elsewhere knowing the park will naturally limit HRs already? The Twins don't need to directly mimick the Pirates. However, they do need to have an approach that is coherent and aligned across the organization to whatever corner of the market they think provides the best value. That approach needs spread to their hitters, pitchers and defense both on the current roster and in player development. I don't think we've seen that. Park factors (analyzed to handedness, batted ball profile and section of the field) would seem to me to be the biggest constant that a team could build around.

Gardy will be gone. Terry won't like it, but this will show him "making the tough decisions and not being satisfied with losing".

Here's a reasonable look at how to value pitcher wins: http://www.raysindex.com/2009/09/debunking-the-myth-wins-is-a-useless-statistic-for-starting-pitchers.html There's some correlation to the pitcher's actual performance, but not enough to make it very useful even with a season worth of starts.

I didn't quite understand from the framing video whether you were trying to say this shows it isn't possible to frame a 100-mph pitch or just that it is really hard. Based on this video and similar results, I'm thinking it is just really hard for normal humans to do anything with a baseball moving at 100-mph.

My first thought was 'oh great' (snark). My second thought was 'oh great' (really). Good luck, Pedro. Makes sense for the Nats as a backup option should one of their MI guys go down. I'm pr etty sure he'll come off their 40-man after the season. Any corresponding move expected or is this just starting to clear space for the post-season and Rule 5 eligibles?

I subscribe to the idea that better defense accomplishes exactly what you think they need to. I really like the Rasmus idea. Short-term. Young. Some upside. Would slot in around the 7 spot pretty well. TF isn't great to LH power, but the HR data shows he doesn't hit many questionable HRs... when he gets it, he gets it (probably tied to his high K%). http://www.hittrackeronline.com/overlay/overlay_1411067076_937966085.jpg

A .404 BABIP seems pretty reasonable considering the 46% LD rate with runners on.

It's hard to imagine a realistic scenario where you'd have enough rebuilding data points to even semi-accurately rate GMs.

The data I found (1995-2013) showed that almost 1 in 5 teams were able to bounce back from 90+ losses directly to the playoffs the next year. Based on the previous run of success and what seemed like such a fluky year in 2011, it doesn't seem unreasonable for the FO to think they had a chance at bouncing back in 2012.

I put up a blog post a little while back attempting to answer #2. If you start the rebuild clock whenever a team loses 90 games for the first time, then over 50% of teams reach the playoffs by the fifth year after that (since 1995). So, to be "average" in their rebuild time, the Twins will need to make the playoffs by 2016. http://twinsdaily.com/blog/463/entry-5330-rebuilding-from-90-losses-to-playoff-team/ #1 -- I think there are too many different scenarios to have one hard definition of "rebuilding". #3 -- The Twins appear to me to be right on track for the "average" mentioned above.

Lots of interesting debate in the comments on the FG article. The idea of error bars that was previously mentioned here is brought up: "Error bars would be a very interesting concept. We could say within absolute confidence that a player is worth ___ WAR with a degree of error of +/- _____. As of right now, WAR is very precise, but not entirely accurate." Cameron seems dead set on maintaining that 100% of value is assigned somewhere. The counter that has developed is to use some sort of an "other" bucket to put value that we aren't sure about. The idea garners support from Tom Tango. "Really though, why do we insist on giving out 100% of the wins (minus replacement level)? We all acknowledge that there are things that aren’t measured by WAR as well as things that WAR claims to measure but may do so inaccurately. Why not have, for example, 54% wins for position players, 43% wins for pitchers, and 3% unassigned because they’re indeterminable?"

Fangraphs posted this article yesterday to get community feedback on the defensive component of WAR. The genesis for this debate was from Jeff Passan (Yahoo!), a big Fangraphs supporter with some reservations about defense in WAR. Fangraphs talks about continuing wanting to push the model forward and polls users at the end. Passan nails my views here: In a related podcast, Dave Cameron identifies 3 options to reduce the impact of defensive metrics with the data that we do have today (skip to the 14 min mark): 1. 'We don't trust these numbers' so, we constrain the values by regressing towards zero. Cameron says the amount of regression would be fairly arbitrary, but mentions reducing them by half. 2. 'We want to be closer to the player's true talent level' so, we regress towards the player's average over a larger sample size. For example, if a player has averaged +20 UZR the last three years but is at a 0 UZR this year, his value would adjust towards his previous performance. This approach targets the issues around a single season of defensive data. 3. 'We want a bigger sample' so, we use an average over a larger sample. Cameron mentions using three years, which also targets the issues with single season defensive data. The current model gives pitching 43% of all available WAR and 57% to hitters/position players. Run creation accounts for half of the game and all of that value is given to the hitter. Run prevention accounts for the other half and that value is currently considered 85% pitcher and 15% defense (hence the 43-57 split). This is his main issue with decreasing the amount of value placed on defense -- it breaks that distribution and forces more value to the pitchers -- which isn't supported by the available data. I think options 2 and 3 could be done in a way that does not disrupt the distribution of value, but provides for a more accurate depiction while simultaneously reducing the defensive value outliers (aka Alex Gordon). Any thoughts?

While the 'turn something embarassing into funny' approach is great, I'm not sure it's the right strategy for this situation. Is it appropriate for the Twins to make fun of their terrible performance? I'd imagine they're already embarassed enough as it is. Making fun of it could just as easily be perceived as not taking it seriously. I'm okay with them fighting back against being portrayed as a joke.

Hard to disagree with this. Also, not hard to see where this is going to turn into the cliche line that the Twins are trying to make him a singles hitter and sap his power.

I don't understand why there's so much energy around retaining fringe roster players when the consensus also seems to be that we have too many of them. Good luck, Sam.

Like what? Like some talent-absorbing vortex they have to pass through?

If you still believe in ERA, then a debate about WAR is going to accomplish nothing.

I wouldn't recommend making that determination based off an outlier.

Offensive counting stats mostly reflect the reality of the past. Scoring decisions for offensive stats can face the same subjectiveness that applies to defensive stats. Once that decision is made, you can put it in all sorts of counting and rate stats, but the downside is you lose an amazing amount of context. Defensive stats start at that same point of reality -- did he catch it or not -- but have to use that same type of scorer's interpretation of whether it should have been caught based on the context in order to place a value on it. There's more subjectiveness to it, hence the need for larger sample sizes. Neither one necessarily reflects true talent level or what you'd expect to happen in the future.

Makes plenty of sense to me. A guy with an .800 BABIP is either a cyborg or got plenty of "bad hits".

This is the only part I wouldn't agree with. The data is mostly accurate, but certainly no where near perfect, and should represent a bell curve around the player's true talent level. Getting the first 3 data points on one far end of the bell curve doesn't mean 300 data points aren't going to look like a bell curve. The key assumption there is that the data is in fact a bell curve around the player's true talent level. When you look at how players are rated by the defensive metrics and compare it to the scouting approach or other methods, I think they are in agreement enough to believe that assumption.