Oxtung
-
Posts
2,027 -
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 Oxtung
-
Article: Oswaldo Arcia To Be Called Up On Monday
Oxtung replied to Seth Stohs's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
You both are arguing the same point essentially so I'll reply to both of you. There is potentially a big drawback to bringing him up and that is you start his service clock. Injury is a very real and present part of baseball. Kubel, Joe Benson, Mauer, Span, Morneau, etc.. have all lost major playing time because of injuries. If Arcia comes up for this 3 days then goes back down then gets hurt (or just goes into a slump) and doesn't make it back to the Twins this year you're still using a year of service time. That is a very real possiblity. So what do you gain for that risk? 3 days of what will essentially be bench duty. There is no need to start him, all 3 starting OF's are healthy and you even have Mastroianni available. To me that risk-reward tradoff isn't worth it. Not when there are other options available that don't carry any of the risk. Assuming this is only a 3 day stretch until Ramirez gets back I see nothing good that can come out of this move. Now, if this is a legitimate look to replace Hicks, Parmelee or Willingham and Arcia is going to get an extended chance to show what he can do I have no problems with it. But for 3 days it seems to add little value for a substantial risk. -
Article: Oswaldo Arcia To Be Called Up On Monday
Oxtung replied to Seth Stohs's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
If the Twins are only looking for 3 days of bench duty then why bring up Arcia? Herrmann and Benson seem like the obvious choices. Both have already started their service clocks. Herrmann is already riding the pine at Rochester. What is the benefit to bringing Arcia up for only 3 days? -
You misunderstood Worley's weight comments three weeks ago and you're misrepresenting them now. He admits he has a problem. He has tried several techniques to solve it. He hasnt' been entirely successful. He hasn't given up. He keeps trying. This is anything but "laissez faire" as you put it. This is my full reply to you three weeks ago if you're interested: http://twinsdaily.com/minnesota-twins-talk/5602-berardino-vance-worley-trying-shed-weight.html#post91041 It seems to me you've pre-judged Worley and now you're looking for any opportunity you can to rip on him. The guy has a track record to show he can succeed in MLB. If you think Worley is on scholarship then who ISN'T from the Twins starting pitchers?
-
Article: Oswaldo Arcia To Be Called Up On Monday
Oxtung replied to Seth Stohs's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
I think the Twins have to be hoping he'll play well enough to force Hicks down (not that it would take much offensively). Starting his service clock for what could be 3 days of sitting on the bench (not saying Arcia will sit on the bench but you could bring up Clete Thomas or Brandon Boggs or somebody to do that) is terribly stupid imo. I'm sure the Twins are thinking he'll be back up later in the year so what does it matter but what happens if he gets hurt and has to sit out the rest of the year. Now you've wasted a year of service time for 3 days of backup duty. So unless they're giving Arcia a legitimate shot in CF and sending Hicks down in a few days I think this is a terrible move. -
No he didn't. He had an 85 OPS+ with the Seattle in the first half of the 2005 season and an OPS+ of 12 with the Twins in the second half of the season after getting all of 58 PA's. His total OPS+ for the season was 73.
-
Statistics say that AL pitchers don't pitch any further into games than NL pitchers on average. Starters in each league go 5.x innings in an average start (can't remember the exact decimal). That certainly implies that NL pitchers get pinch hit for not because they're a liability at the plate but rather because they're a liability on the mound. While this certainly isn't definitive re:Correia it is very suggestive.
-
Seems like Herrmann better be able to catch more than 1/3 games if he is ever going to make it to the Twins. I am also surprised he hasn't been seeing any time in the OF. I'm certainly not saying these guys are being mishandled this early in the season. I was more just curious if anyone knew the reasoning.
-
Totally agree. That made me laugh, literally. On a related note, can we get this thread locked and then pinned to the top so that about a month from now when we're already out of contention we can look back at this thread and day dream about what it was like to be leading the division?
-
These are all quotes by Garrioch or Sickels during that draft. I think they were just trying to create conversation and interest with their draft more than actually predict where people would go this early in teh season. Garrioch and Sickels: -We also threw a couple of changeups in there to keep things interesting. -This draft is less about best player available and more about who fits in your system -Let's make this interesting, avoid the obvious choices like Manaea and Stanek, and go with helium man Kevin Ziomek, LHP, Vanderbilt (NOTE: I wrote this on Thursday and Ziomek promptly had a bad start Friday night. Serves me right for trying to be interesting I suppose). -I'm leaning toward going off my board...
-
As purely a hypothetical at this point because in reality we're no where close to this: If Baxendale (or any of last years relievers turned starters) puts together another 6-8 nice starts like this do the Twins bump him up a level or because this is his first year starting does he get held back to work on that 3rd (or 4th) pitch in a lower level?
-
So is Baxendale, 2.2IP 1H 0BB 4k
-
In addition Benson has only played in 3/5 games so far (he did pinch hit in the other 2). Once in each OF position. Where as Boggs and Thomas have played in 4/5 each. Herrmann has only started 1 game so far and was a sub for Butera when he broke his hand. Does anybody know why these 2 are not getting consistent playing time?
-
Interesting. I'll have to think on this for a bit. Did you use the top 9 players by WAR regardless of position (excluding pitchers of course) or did you use the top 9 of every position? I.E. does your data set include 9 players (just top 9 hitters over 7 combined years) 63 players (top 9 players per season for 7 seasons) or 504 players (top 9 players per season per position)?
-
I agree success rates would be interesting to look at. Perhaps that should be a variable in the decision of whether to draft a pitcher or hitter. Back to the SSS argument. I agree it's SSS. Choosing to increase your number of "aces" to 25 does nothing to alleviate SSS though. You'd have to look at every draft since the inception to even start to make a dent in SSS. So if your argument is it is an artifact of SSS I have no disagreement but don't see the point in continuing this discussion because there is no way to know who to draft from a statistical approach and we should just all go home and pull a name out of a hat. You keep saying that it needs to come out of the top 2 picks but even with my stricter "ace" qualifications that isn't true. Drafted 1-5: Verlander, Price Drafted 6-10: Kershaw, Lincecum Drafted 11-15: Weaver Drafted 16-20: Hamels Drafted 21-25: Cain Look, if all you want out of a draft pick is a #2 starter then you should never take a pitcher in the first round. #2 starters can be found after the first round. I view the point of a first round draft pick as going after someone who has the potential to be a superstar. If that prospect only turns out to be a #2 starter so be it. If that prospect burns out completely and never makes MLB, fine. If you draft a player with #2 pitcher as his ceiling then you'll never find that elite ace. And ultimately that is what I am looking for with this high a draft pick. A chance at greatness. Will that chance work out, I don't know. But give me that chance.
-
Go back and read the thread. The 64%-88% is variable because people's definition of "ace" is variable. The tighter the definition of ace the less likely it is to be found outside of the first round. At least post-2001. As for the number drafted after the first round, if you look at (for lack of a better term) elite aces there hasn't been a single one drafted after the first round. Only Felix Hernandez crashes the party as an international player. So in the last 12 years there doesn't seem to be anything random about it.
-
I have explained myself several times now in this thread. With a very high draft pick I am looking for someone that is going to have the potential to be an elite pitcher. You clearly are not. Shields is certainly a nice pitcher and if that is what the Twins ultimately ended up with I wouldn't complain but I certainly hope the Twins are trying to draft the guy with a ceiling in the mold of Kershaw or Lincecum. And yet the fact remains between 64% - 88% of aces acquired in the last 13 years have been drafted in the first round. Since you don't seem to believe that data accurately represents the current state of baseball why is the data saying it is? I made no such contention. As a matter of fact I said, Ace level pitchers are perhaps the hardest thing to trade for. We saw just how hard when we had to give up an above average MLB CF with a cost controlled 3 year contract for a pitcher who had thrown a whopping 7 games above low A ball. If we have to repeat that process very often our talent bank will go broke pretty quickly.
-
I have seen many of you making similar claims to this. Is there data to back up these assertions: 1) Pitchers are less likely to make it to MLB. 2) Pitchers take longer than hitters on average to develop. If those are both true it still needs to be shown that it holds true for top level talent like 1st round picks. Does anybody have a link to studies looking into this?
-
So looking to build some consensus here. Do we agree that the pre-2001/post-2001 split is in fact more than statistical noise and is likely to continue going forward? If you disagree what do you think is causing that split in our data? To me that is what the whole draft debate hinges on, in conjunction with a study of other positions later round success rates. If it is true that ace level pitching (defined however you want for the moment) is incredibly hard to find after round 1 should that change how we look at drafting? BPA is an easy (not easy to determine who the BPA is but easy to understand conceptually) way to think about the draft but if you need ace level pitching (and certainly the Twins do) and the only place to find that is in the first round.....
-
I must admit I am confused by your post. I have no idea if you were being straightforward or sarcastic in your opening paragraph. The rest of your post seems to have little to do with my small sample size quote you seem to be responding to. So in case you misunderstood my point: Whether you narrow the "aces" down to 8 or 16 or 25 all those are going to overwhelmed by the uncertainty of small sample size. However, when you're talking about elite pitchers there is ALWAYS going to be the uncertainty of small sample size by definition of the term "aces". Artificially increasing the sample to 25 pitchers dilutes the term "aces", imo, and at the same time doesn't include enough pitchers to not be overshadowed by small sample size. At the same time you do the best with what you have. A small sample is better than nothing. As for the rest of your post I am contending nothing. I am simply wondering if certain positions are harder to find later in the draft than others. If true it seems to make sense to draft those positions earlier or at least at a higher rate earlier in the draft than positions which can be found more readily in later rounds. As I said, I didn't really understand the point of much of your post so if you wish to rephrase perhaps I'll understand next time.
-
Parmelee and Plouffe have more SB's and less CS than Mastroianni or Hicks. Twins runners have been caught stealing in 3 times out of 16 total in MLB. Aaron Hicks has 2nd most strikes outs in MLB. Josh Willingham has the 3rd. Joe Mauer has the 15th. As a team the Twins have the second most SO's in baseball but are still 10k's behind Houston.
-
Only because you didn't let me finish posting in ALL the previous conversation.
-
I think a lot of our disagreement stems from our expectations for an Ace as you implied. When drafting in the top 5, let alone the number 2 overall pick, I want to go get that elite Ace. I'm not looking for James Shields, who is a very nice pitcher, but instead I want that guy who is going to go out and dominate on the mound year in and year out. Not have 1 or 2 dominant seasons mixed with a bunch of mediocrity. There is a difference between an elite Ace and a fringe Ace, for lack of better terms, and the 8 pitchers I listed seem to fit that elite ace description. That is why I have them listed. That said, if you want to expand to just a more general term "ace" you still have the pre2001/post2001 issue to deal with because it is evident in your data too. Seven out of eleven of your aces acquired since 2001 came in the first round. To me that says you need to draft a pitcher in the first round if you want an ace. Of your 4 who weren't drafted in the first round one is an international (Felix Hernandez), Josh Johnson has had 1 great season and then a bunch of nice but not great years, Dan Haren has had a few real nice years but also some pretty mediocre years, and Gio Gonzalez has only pitched 3 full seasons in the majors. Just for comparison's sake: Pre-2001: 25% were 1st round picks (this is using my stricter elite ace standards too. If I added in the more fringy aces this would drop to below 20%) Post-2001: 64% were 1st round picks (using my data it's 88%) I have yet to see that explained. Until then I contend any pre-2001 data is irrelevant.
-
All caught up now. Agree that this is going to be an interesting thread and thought it would be good to have it in 1 place so we could look back at the conversation as a whole.
-
Posted in another thread
-
Posted in another thread
