Oxtung

Pitch f/x has gone through testing to ensure that it is indeed accurate. It's accuracy has been mathematically verified to be within 1 in. of the actual location of the pitch as of '08. I have also seen a video where they tested the data physically. They placed a giant sheet of paper across the plate. Then they compared the holes created by the ball to the data their system was creating. The strike zone graphic is created in different manners depending on the application of the data. In a broadcast that zone is created by a Sportsvision employee physically marking the top and bottom of the strike zone. This display, I would guess, is not particularly controversial. If you trust a human to umpire balls and strikes then it stands to reason you would trust a human to create a strike zone. The second way this graphic is created is by using the PITCH f/x data to determine the average players strike zone and then uses that to create a graphical overlay. That overlay is then used to determine if a pitch was a ball or a strike. This is the approach taken by FanGraphs pitch framing team. This approach would lead to a system where any individual strike/ball decision is indeterminable but because the number of pitches analyzed is in the thousands the system as a whole would be theoretically accurate. I think the biggest piece of supporting evidence to the accuracy of PITCH f/x data is the fact that MLB uses it to evaluate their umpires. I would just like to say that I do not blame the umpires for getting a ball/strike call incorrect. The human brain and eyes just aren't made to track objects moving at those velocities accurately. Not to mention the psychological effects of thousands of fans on Umpire decision making. It's not the umpires fault. It's just the way humans have developed. Here is an awesome website I found that curates many relevant pieces of literature on the PITCH f/x system.

Let me just say that I commiserate with the MiLB players. As a full time public education employee that brings home $1244 per month, it is extremely hard to make ends meet. Anyone that thinks this is a "livable wage" needs to think again. The idea that it is OK for a billion dollar industry to pay those kinds of wages is absurd. Every CEO should try living on their lowest paid employee's salary so they can understand the hardships people go through. I don't believe that the executives at corporations that pay very little are heartless people but rather that it is too easy to become caught up in the financial bottom line and insulated from your fellow employees since you only see them at work. Then when you think about them in your mind you see the healthy, smiling "Jim" that comes to work everyday with a smile on his face trying to work hard. What you don't see is that "Jim" has to choose between repairing his vehicle so he can get to work or paying for his child's medications. I think if some of these very wealthy people actually came face to face with the poverty their corporations create things might change. At least I hope they would. Sorry for the rant. BTW, just because a player can "walk away" it doesn't make the wages OK.

I think you're conflating positional need with positional scarcity and value. They are 2 separate things. You can have a need at a position of scarcity, like catcher, or a need at a position that you can find on the FA market, like a corner OF. There can also be a league-wide scarcity at a position, like SS, and a team like the Rangers can be stocked with talent. I'm not sure the Twins should consider "need" per se, but I do think they should think about positional scarcity. Here is a simplistic way to think about it. Imagine you're stranded in the desert with 10 other people. The only water available to you is a little mud hole with mysterious scum looking sludge growing on it. Next to the mud hole there is a beautifully prepared New York Strip steak. Beside that there is a perfectly cooked lobster with butter dipping sauce and next to that there is a browned pheasant wafting the most amazing smells. The food continues down the line quite a ways each more appetizing than the last. Now you're thinking to yourself, damn that water is NASTY and I know my buddy next to me can hear my stomach growling. In the end though you had better be fighting for that water if you want to live. Scarcity can make a commodity more valuable even if it is of a lower quality. I think the real questions we should be asking are 1) What positions are scarce and how scarce are they? and 2) what does it cost to acquire those positions in comparison to other non-scarce positions and 3) How scarce does a position need to be to justify the including scarcity into the drafting equation? In the end I'm guessing, like most things, that there will be a spectrum and there isn't a black and white answer.

I will say this, there seems to be a lot of assumptions being made about what a pitch f/x umpiring system would look like. Keep in mind that the box often associated with Pitch f/x isn't actually a part of the system but rather an add on that has been superficially imposed. Any system that was actually used in games clearly wouldn't use an "average batter size" for determining the strike zone but rather the actual definitions. That software exists today. You see it all the time on facebook or your camera when it puts a box around a persons face. A computer certainly could determine where the knees, belt and shoulders of the batter are and thereby compute the vertical limitations. The horizontal is even easier. Would some money and time have to be spent creating and perfecting it? Yes. Would there have to be testing? Yes. Would the system have to be calibrated? Yes. However, all the components of the system are already in society today.

Where did I say I was dismissing the limitations? It's not a perfect solution. I was saying that I believe, imperfections and all, it is still better than the human eye/brain combo. If "correct more often is hardly a solution" what does that say about our system of umpires today?

As Jimv2 said, there is no reason his age in itself will prevent Watts from taking a closing role. My point was that at 26 he is physically mature and there is little projection left. He is what he is. Is that enough? I certainly don't know. His stats have been very good the last 2 seasons. We'll have to see as he advances. It would be great if he turned out like Thielbar.

A couple of points. First, I think the game is changing/has changed from the late '90s and 00's where it was all about offensive ability. I think that we're seeing that finding a SS or C that can handle both the field and the bat is very difficult. Second, as salaries are rapidly rising and more players are choosing to forgo FA, because of the influx of new revenues especially by a few large markets, it seems that prospects are becoming more valuable and harder to acquire. I have no data to back up either of those assertions but that is my impression. If those are true, it is harder to find SS, C and great SP, and prospects are more valuable, then it stands to reason it will be exceptionally hard to trade for SS, C and SP prospects. You brought up 3 trades in recent years but all 3 involved high level talent in return. Look at the Span trade, a solid starting caliber CF with a very good contract brought back a single pitcher at the A-ball level. So, can you trade for these positions? Yes, but you have to be willing to give up a high value to obtain them. Shields to KC, we all know how that turned out. Fister a good #2/3 starter to the Nationals brought back Robbie Ray who is a 50-150 type prospect. Greinke to LA brought back a ~#50 SS prospect in Segura. Jake Peavy for Jose Iglesias but Peavy is a back half of the rotation guy now and Iglesias had some big questions about his bat. Can you think of any other trades of recent years that involved a very good SS, C or SP? I guess what I'm saying here is I think positional scarcity needs to be taken into account. There definitely seems to be some positions that are harder to find than others. That goes doubly so for SS and the Twins.

No way to know but I would place money on the machine being correct more often than the human. The eye-brain unit is absolutely terrible at precision and even worse when it comes to high speed precision.

The problem with the "moving to 1st will make him better" meme is that he hadn't struggled with power. He hits a ton of doubles. He's never going to be a HR hitter unless he changes his swing. His problem the last few years, which has been obscured by his BABIP, is that he is striking out so much more. It doesn't seem likely that moving to 1st will help his contact rate, at least IMO. At best I think he'll hit a few more doubles and his ISO will go up, but I also expect his BABIP to regress which will decrease his rate stats across the board. I find the effects of BABIP and K% to be very interesting. We had a big discussion on the boards about Mauer's last season. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

Yeah I thought about Gilbert and Brandon Bixler as well. It's tough to know yet what either of them are. They were both college guys pitching in a rookie league and then at A-ball. We'll find out more this year. Watts is a possibility, though he's already 26. As you said he kind of put things together last year, and even 2012 was good. However it was his 2nd and 3rd seasons pitching in the same league.... Definitely a possibility though.

He played in 81 games. It doesn't take that long to get over stage fright. Or else he never will, like the yips.

No he didn't. You keep looking at OPS but that is disguising his really poor contact skills. His power was better than expected but his game is still built around getting on base and using his speed. If he can't learn how to get on base higher than 26% of the time he will never make it. Here are their full season stats their rookie years. [TABLE=class: grid, width: 500] Full Season Avg OBP SLG OPS BB% K% Aaron Hicks .192 .259 .338 .597 7.7 26.8 Torii Hunter .255 .309 .380 .689 6.2 17.1 [/TABLE] Hunter is better across the board by a fairly large margin. Torii's stats are wha a rookie hitter (who isn't a catcher or SS) should look like. If you remove their worst 2 week stretch after which you claim Hicks got so much better: [TABLE=class: grid, width: 500] -2 Weeks Avg OBP SLG OPS BB% K% Aaron Hicks .222 .273 .400 .673 6 25 Torii Hunter .270 .357 .405 .762 6 16 [/TABLE] Again, Hunter is better across the board by a wide margin. He showed good skills getting on base. Here are Hunter's April-June numbers: .233/.286/.336 OPS-.622 Here are Hunter's July-September numbers: .286/.341/.441 OPS-.782 That is improvement. Hunter is not a particularly good comp for Hicks.

I don't know much about Achter's "stuff" but his statistics have been pretty darn good since he was moved to the pen in 2012. He's moved 4 levels in 2 years. His highest ERA has been the 3.08 he posted in AAA last year and he has had a K rate of one per inning at every stop. Last year he was a little too wild though as his walk rate increased sharply. Closers should be: Twins- Perkins AAA- Tonkin AA- Zach Jones (when he comes back), I'd guess Corey Williams until he is healthy. They split time at closer in FM last season before Williams imploded. A+- Tyler Jones A- Don't know here...Malinowski maybe. Brandon Peterson? If they decide that Luke Bard has just lost too much time to injuries to become a starter he might challenge for a back of the bullpen spot as will Chargois if he can ever get healthy.

I think you're using hindsight here. At the time of the Bauer/Gregorious trade Bauer was still a top 100 prospect that had Ace stuff. There was questions about him but he was still very highly thought of. In order to pry Andrus (and others but Andrus was the keystone of the trade) away from Atlanta Texas had to give up one of the top first basemen in the majors with a year and a half of control still remaining as well as a very good reliever in Mahay. Josh Beckett, while he never developed into it, was a potential #1/2 starter. Just a couple years before the trade he was considered the top prospect in baseball. At the time of the trade he was about to hit his prime at 25yo. In addition at the time of the trade Hanley Ramirez was coming off a very bad year at AA and had some legitimate questions surrounding him. So what I see is Ramirez and Gregorious were both moved for big upside pitchers with Ace potential. Andrus was moved for one of the top 1B in the game.

Mauer's K% has increased four straight years rising from 9% to 17% last season. In addition last season his BABIP (because of a career high LD%) was extremely high and well above his norms. I did some mathematical analysis, starting with this post, into how this would affect Mauer's production this season. I believe his final line will be: .295/.385/.425 .810 OPS 115 K's 93 BB's 37 doubles 11 HR's

In education you don't just drop a student into a situation they aren't ready for and say "sink or swim". When you're teaching mathematics you don't take a kid that can't add and try to teach them multiplication. All learning is a step by step process and you need to have a grasp on step X before you can move onto Step Y. It's pretty clear after last season that Hicks hasn't mastered the fundamentals needed to succeed at the MLB level. He has missed a step or three along the way and needs to relearn some things. Why not let him learn in the majors? Failing for a short amount of time can be a good thing. It can force a student to refocus or accept that the previous fundamentals were important to learn. After they fail however they have to have time to go back and relearn those fundamentals in a lower pressure environment. If a student fails at multiplication because they can't add, hammering them over and over that they're a failure because they can't multiply does no good. In fact it can cause long term damage. It leads to resentment and a loss of confidence which in turn leads to feeling worthless at a given task. When that happens you've now removed any desire a student once had for learning the task. They dread the task now. Another reason for sending him back to AAA is that while the major league staff might be the best at teaching the advanced concepts that pitchers need to understand to be successful that does not mean they are the best at teaching the previous steps that lead up to the advanced stuff. The whole point of the AAA staff is to teach those concepts. Another benefit is that Hicks will be surrounded by guys learning the same concepts and he can talk with them about it. Recap: We know Hicks has failed in the majors and needs to learn some of the fundamentals he's missing. By going back to AAA he is in a lower pressure environment more conducive to learning, surrounded by others learning those same concepts and with a staff that is dedicated to teaching those specific concepts. Once he is starting to master those missing fundamentals he will also be at a level that is easier for him to be successful leading to more confidence which in turn reinforces the fundamentals. At that point he is ready for a second attempt at MLB.

I agree with much of your larger point Thyrlos. 1) If I was the GM I would approach each and every offseason with the intentions to be competitive the next season. I would bring in veterans and prioritize my roster to try to win, for the most part. 2) Once my team was no longer competitive I would look ahead to next season quickly. Can I move a veteran for prospects? Do I need to bring up a player so they can get some seasoning and help us win in future years? Etc... As I said I think the difference between you and I is that when I look at the moves the front office made this offseason I don't think they are even close to making this team a .500 team let alone contending for the playoffs. Ryan did very little to improve this team IMO. So I've already moved past 1 and am looking at #2, how can I make this team competitive long term. On the other hand you seem to believe the Twins could be around .500 this season. If I still believed that I would be at step #1 still; put the teams best foot forward. I have no idea if Mike is right or not but your BP article on age doesn't clarify the matter as it restricts itself to batters (It uses OPS as the dependent variable). Mike can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he was referring to pitching with his statement since we're in a thread about pitching. It is entirely possible that peak age is different between pitcher and hitter.

I don't think we need to worry about how any given umpire affects a catchers pitch calling stats. While every umpire is going to call the game slightly differently those differences won't matter just because of the sheer number of games the pitch framing metric covers. In the end they'll have umps that call it close and umps that call it loose and they should balance out. Here's another way of looking at it. Since 08, which is what John's data covers, Joe Mauer has caught 561 games. How many games would an umpire have to call before he has any discernible impact on Joe's pitch framing skill? An umpire calls ~30 games a year behind the plate. Does anyone know how a crew is assigned to a series? Random or by region or ...?

They won't all start there. I'd be surprised if more than 2 of them start the season in CR's rotation. Personally I think Felix Jorge is the only one to start there. I think a second will start in EST but get a call up relatively early as a way to manage innings and the weather.

Absolutely agree. I wanted the Twins to bring in some above average pitching. They didn't. IMO bringing in Hughes and Pelfrey for multiple years was a big mistake. If either of them prevent a deserving prospect from starting that is a shame.

Who is going to push Gibbons to the pen? Even if Stewart, Gonsalves and Thorpe all start at Appy that still leaves 2 or 3 starters. Why do you think Gonzalez, who pitched all 20 games last year from the pen, starts instead of Gibbons who was tied with Thorpe for most starts at GCL last season? Gibbons MiLB page also lists him as being on the Twins minor league reserve list but it doesn't list Gonzalez. I've never seen that before...thought it was interesting.

What list of Sickles are you using? In his response to the BA top 100 list he says:

And therein lies the crux of the dispute I think and why we won't see eye to eye on this. Many of us see 2014 as a lost season without a chance of contending. Since we believe that to be true all that really matters is who will make this team better in 2015 and beyond. I for one could care less if the Twins win 75 games or 65 this season. In fact I'd probably prefer the 65 where they'll at least get a better draft choice as a reward for the terrible season. I don't think anyone would complain about too many starting pitching options if we had say the Cardinals' rotation. That's a great problem to have. On the other hand the Twins only have 1 pitcher that would even get a start in the playoffs for most teams. I fail to see how having six #5 starters is a good thing. I do see how it quickly could become a bad thing though if it prevents a highly touted prospect from coming up and getting a crack at the rotation. Let's not pretend that the Twins will just cut a player because a prospect (say Alex Meyer) is suddenly ready.

The optimism here boggles my mind. Hicks' just had one of the worst rookie seasons of the last 50 years. In fact his .192 BA is the 5th worst. He gets sent to AAA and doesn't show anything there either. Now people want him to start again in the majors to begin the season? <---- Mind Boggled

I don't see any way he starts at CR next season. There are just too many other intriguing players fighting for starts. Jorge, Landa and Rosario seem to be locks. Then there are Hein Robb and Josh Burris who made starts their last year before being sent back to the Appy league. There is a chance Ryan Eades starts in CR as well instead of FM. IIRC the Twins wanted to move Slegers to the rotation and we can't forget about Luke Bard. He'll be back after his injury this season rearing to go. Then you also have Kohl Stewart and Lewis Thorpe as well. It seems strange to say this but there seems to be an abundance of intriguing pitching building in the low minors. Behind the guys previously mentioned there are also some intriguing bullpen arms and a couple more guys who were pretty darn good at GCL last season who are just a year behind.