markos

Two thoughts: 1) I still can't believe that this whole thing blew up over $1.5M. In baseball terms that is basically nothing. Teams certainly seem fine drafting TJ pitchers and giving them $3M. And I know these are not perfect comparisons, but teams are certainly willing to give lots of money to free agents that are in the middle of the TJ recovery process. For example, Kris Medlen just got $8.5M over two years in the hopes that he can recover from his second TJ surgery. The Red Sox just payed $60M+ for Moancada, who is basically the equivalent of a top HS draft prospect. If Aiken was similar free agent, I have to think that some team would sign him for $6.5M right now. Heck, the Dodgers just signed Hector Olivera for $60M+ and he has a damaged UCL (not a pitcher, but still...). Anyway, based on all that I suspect that Aiken's elbow issues are quite serious, TJ surgery may not fix it completely, and that Houston thinks he is a lost cause. Their actions basically said, "We will offer you the absolute minimum that lets us keep the pick for next year if you don't accept, but we won't offer you a penny more because we think that literally anyone we pick next year will turn out better than you. In fact, we are so confident in this that we are willing to forfeit our agreement with Nix. Please don't accept our offer." 2) I don't think I'm okay with drafting Aiken at #6. At this point it certainly seems like he would have the highest upside of anyone available. But based on my conspiracy theories above, I'm not sure he will be completely healthy even after TJ. And I don't have enough faith in the Twins FO and medical staff to properly handle a complicated medical and rehab process.

Kiley McDaniel is hearing lots of deal-making rumors.

Focusing mostly on players that have been under discussion on this thread already: Matuella, Tate and Buehler round out the top 5. He considers Matuella a 1-1 candidate, and thinks Tate has the highest upside. Allard, Happ and Kirby are all top 10. Funkhouser and Cameron are both in the teens. Cody and Hooper are in the early thirties. Though he didn't say this explicitly, I got the sense that he hasn't yet adjusted player's positions based on their current injury status. Make sense since they all have several more weeks to prove they are healthy/effective. P.S. Does anyone else struggle with just how much paid content to divulge without crossing a line? I know that many writers (like KLaw) are fine with posting snippets here and there for discussion, but against blatant copy-paste. I'm never sure where to draw the line. Anyway, I hope this isn't too much...

Chris Crawford posted his top-50 draft list on BP: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=25886 He still has Aiken #1 pending injury updates. Right now I like how this draft is shaping up for the Twins. Obviously, it would be nicer if there was more talent and they were drafting higher. But it certainly seems like there isn't a huge disadvantage to be drafting #6 versus, say, #3, unlike past years (ex. 2013) where there were obvious talent tiers. Things may still shake out that way, but at the moment there are probably a dozen names that could fit at #6 depending on one's personal preference.

Where did you get your data from? I used Baseball Savant and searched for pitches in the 1-9 zones. From April through June, it was at 38%, and then from July through September it was at 41%. Of course, defining what is 'in-zone' or not is definitely open to interpretation.

But he didn't quite raise it enough to offset the loss in power. And it appears that a large part in the rise in OBP was due to pitchers throwing fewer strikes. It will be interesting to see how this interplay between Dozier and pitchers works out this year. Last year it was basically: 1) Dozier hits a bunch of home runs 2) Pitchers stop throwing strikes 3) Dozier stops hitting home runs, but walks more. It will be interesting to see if pitchers start throwing more strikes now that his power has subsided a little bit, and if subsequently Dozier starts hitting more homers again. It will be trouble if pitchers start throwing more strikes but Dozier isn't hitting homers (or at least getting extra base hits).

Walker made $8M in his third (not second) season of arbitration (he was a super-two player).

As an addendum to this talk about reliability and accuracy of the defensive metrics, it should be pointed out that they consistently and significantly improve the overall WAR distribution relative to actual, real-life wins and losses. As an example, if you back out the fielding contribution for each team, you end up with a WAR-to-Win correlation of 0.7. If you add the fielding back in, the correlation jumps up to 0.81. So the fielding values aren't total crap, and they actually help make the WAR models better match reality, which to me is a strong argument for their overall accuracy. Going back to the very beginning of this thread and the claim about the relative defensive value between the Indians and the Royals, the 130 run difference has been dismissed by many people commenting on this thread. However, note the following: Projected wins using WAR without fielding: KC - 83 CLE - 91 Projected wins using WAR with fielding: KC - 90 CLE - 84 Actual wins KC - 89 CLE - 85 Those 130 runs are the difference between the Fangraphs WAR model matching reality and missing badly. If you don't think that the 130 number is correct, and that it should be something significantly smaller, then you should have an argument as to how to adjust hitting and pitching to account for those missing runs.

I still think "other bad CFers" matters. If you look at the UZR primer, it has the following section (note the part I bolded): "Again, the baseline “catch rates” for all of the various “buckets” (batted ball types, speed, locations, etc.) are based on 6 years of data. That is an arbitrary number. It could be 3 years and it could be 10. I chose 6 years in order to accumulate fairly large samples of data in each bucket. The UZR numbers (each player’s runs saved above or below average) are initially presented as “as compared to the average player at all MLB parks over the 6-year baseline.” The numbers you see on Frangraphs, however, are scaled to an average player at each position for that league and year. So if you add up everyone’s UZR (the seasonal to-date or end-of-year totals – not the “per 150” rate) in any given year and league, it will sum to zero (or close to it because of rounding errors). Because of that, there is no guarantee that an average player in any one league or year is equal to an average player in any other league or year, even the same player. For example, let’s say that a certain player was zero in 2009 and 2008, thus you consider him to be an average defender for those two years, and you assume that his defensive ability or performance did not change from one year to the next. However, if in one of those years, the overall quality of defense in that player’s league was better or worse than the other year, the player may have actually gotten better or worse himself even though his UZR is zero in both years. That is a minor point, but it is something to keep in mind."

There are three points that I'd like to bring up in response to this. First, opportunity plays a huge role in the value that a defensive player is able to provide. As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, the vast majority of balls-in-play are either clearly hits or clearly outs. The gray middle ground between those two is where most of the defensive value comes from. And it is a lot of value! For an outfielder, the difference between making and missing a catch in that gray area is often the difference between an out and an extra base hit. Using the same linear weights used to determine batting values, that difference is at least a run, maybe even 1.25 runs. Even the difference between a single and an out is 0.75 runs. So making or missing these plays is huge. However, the amount of plays a player makes in the gray area is dependent largely on the number of opportunities. Unfortunately, that information isn't public, but I have to imagine that there is a fair amount of variability from season to season. Making up some numbers, a typical CF has roughly 500 chances in a given season. One year he might have 50 (10%) that fall in that high-value gray area. The next season he might only have 25 (5%). Let's say that he converts those plays into outs during both seasons at an 80% clip. That is 40 plays in the first season but only 20 in the second. That could be a difference in 20 runs, even though the player has demonstrated no difference in actual ability, only in opportunity. Second, UZR values are relative to the league average for the position in question. So a +30 shortstop in one season may have very different absolute defensive ability than a +30 shortstop a different year. A player may not have any change in ability but score higher or lower in separate years based on the quality of defenders on other teams. I think this makes sense, as they are trying to capture the relative value that the defender provides the team at that position. If each team had a clone of prime Peter Bourjos, no team would have an advantage and the defensive value that the clones provided would be essentially be zero (notwithstanding the opportunity differences mentioned above). It doesn’t make any sense that every team could have a +20 UZR centerfielder. The value is relative. In Gutierrez's example, 2009 had both Vernon Wells and Gary Matthews Jr. log significant time in centerfield. I’m sure that brought down the average. Third, (and probably least important for this) adjacent defenders matter. Having two good defenders next to one another allows both defenders to potentially accumulate more value. First, it allows them to position themselves more aggressively knowing that the other defender is able to cover more of the gap between them. Second, there should be fewer balls that get between the defenders. The penalty when balls fall between defenders is generally split between the defenders, so a bad defender can drag down the players next to them if they miss plays. Brock, I get the sense that you expect UZR and the other fielding metrics to quantify defensive ability, but they do not do that. They accumulate the value of the plays made or missed by a defender, and how that value compares to the other defenders at the same position in the league. These are kind of related, as one hopes that the players with more defensive ability will make more high-value plays (and mess up fewer easy plays), and subsequently have higher scores. However, amazing defensive ability is neither necessary nor sufficient for having a high UZR. It is just an accounting system that knows that a specific liner in the gap falls for a double 90% of the time, and it frankly doesn't care at all how much effort or skill was needed to make the play. If the play was made, it is going to give that defender a bunch of credit regardless if that specific play ended up as a highlight reel catch. And if a defender doesn't get an opportunity to catch that liner because it is never hit, then tough.

I bet a lot of teams' fans are thinking about this right now. Matt Garrioch joked on twitter last night that he already knows who the Nationals will be drafting. I would be on board with this plan, except that the Twins gave away their 2nd-round pick to sign Santana. They don't draft again until #73. That is a long time to wait and hope that someone talented falls.

I did some fairly simple scaling of Santana's 2014 stats based on various BABIP regressions, and even with a .330 BABIP (which is completely reasonable for him) he ends up as a .700 OPS hitter, which is average production for a shortstop. Even with all the expected regression, his floor isn't terrible.

I think the really fair thing about the Yelich contract is that it buys out a couple of prime-age FA years (good for Miami) but still allows Yelich to become a FA at age 30 (good for Yelich). This deal made me think of Arcia. He isn't quite in Yelich's class because of his defensive and plate discipline issues, but he is of a similar age, has had decent production so far, and has a lot of potential. I'm not completely sold that he is worth locking up long term due to his aforementioned issues, but he is a lot closer to the age-talent sweet spot for a long-term deal than a guy like Dozier.

I think - and this is only a guess - that part of the missing 90 run difference between the two teams is due to ballpark factors. The absolute difference between the two teams was only 30 runs, but Kansas City is a much better hitters park than Cleveland, so in theory Cleveland should be X runs better than Kansas City just based on their ballpark. I have no idea what X should be in this case, but some rough back-of-the-envelope math using Fangraph's park factors makes me think it should be ~30 runs. Also, there will be some additional difference based on their opponent locations. It just so happened that both teams played the NL West last year, and KC had to go to Col and Arz and have LAD and SFG at home, while Cleveland basically did the exact opposite. So I think that gets factored in as well. I'm not sure that all adds up to 90 runs, but it does account for some of it. Using another method, if you look on baseball-reference, its pitcher WAR calculation has a bunch of factors that get weighted by the park factors for the season. If you back out the defensive adjustment, you basically end up with the expectation that an "average" pitcher would allow 4.0 runs per 9 against Cleveland's opponents, while an "average" pitcher would allow 4.5 runs per 9 again Kansas City's opponents. That difference over a full season is ~80 runs, which is pretty close. Now I'm no expert, so I can't guarantee that I didn't use these statistics in an inappropriate manner. But at least for me, it does give me a warm fuzzy that a 120 run difference in defense isn't COMPLETELY crazy.

That seems to be a big part of it. However, they are currently projecting Nunez and Sano to get ~230 PAs during the season, and they are both big negatives as well (particularly Nunez, -12 over a full season).

Continuing down this line, the Rays are an interesting comparison as well. Both the Rays and Twins have 13 names either on the list or mentioned 'in the picture'. Of the Twins prospects, 11 of the 13 were drafted/signed by the Twins - only Meyer and May were acquired from other organizations. For the Rays, only 6 of 13 were signed/drafted by the Rays, and of those 6, 3 were in the 100-150 range and 3 were in the 'in the picture'. Despite having 18 first-round picks over the past 5 years and aggressively spending internationally, they have had a really hard time developing impact talent on their own. Drafting in the 20+ range is really hard for everyone.

Prices would probably be higher, but I think the current situation (especially the previous iteration prior to the bonus pools) has definite advantages for the Twins. First, many deals don't come down completely to just a straight bidding war, but often are influenced by relationships teams have developed with the players, trainers and their families. Many of the top players (like Javier) already have deals arranged with teams, which indicates they aren't necessarily going for top dollar. A team that has made significant investments internationally (like the Twins) will be at a major advantage to teams that haven't (like the Orioles). If there is a draft, then that advantage goes away almost completely. Second, the current system allows teams to acquire top talent without having a terrible record. The Twins definitely took advantage of this in 2009 when they signed Sano, Polanco and Kepler. Had an international draft been in place at that point, the Twins would have had the #22 pick and definitely would not have been able to select Sano, and probably not Polanco either. This advantage has mostly disappeared with the new bonus pools, but since teams are willing to go over the limit (and acquire extra money via trades), it is still relevant.

I disagree with this. There may be little doubt that MLB wants an international draft, but I don't think it needs one. I think an international draft will predominately hurt the overall development and compensation of international prospects, and primarily benefit the owners and MLB players. Personally, I think the Moncada situation just shows how underpaid players are in the amateur draft. It seems rather unfair that these systems are negotiated as part of the CBA where minor league players are not represented.

Credit to everyone except me, apparently. Sorry!

I wonder if the Blue Jays are now looking for some rotation depth (Milone? Pelfrey?).

I try to ignore Ryan's public comments as much as possible. His mantra is always the same: say praise and mute criticism for proven veterans, while doing the exact opposite for youngsters. I'm sure that has earned him a fair amount of respect and loyalty from players (both within the organization and ... um ... without?), but it certainly doesn't provide any insight into him actual thoughts and expectations about players. And inevitably, he ends up saying things that are clearly crazy, such as this gem about Milone and Meyer having "somewhat close to the same stuff." Anyway, I've always thought his public statements are more politicking than actual insight, so I'm not too concerned about this clearly crazy comparison.

I also think this. I was able to see Sano for a game back in 2013, and he is big but also moves pretty well. He may not have the specific agility/quickness for 3B, but he isn't a slow plodder either. I recall some prospect writer compare him to TE. I suspect that if Sano grew up in the US, he probably would be a TE/DE in college right now.

Yep, but it varies for each player based on their own history, position and age. And it is important to balance it against the potential reward. Given the paltry number of 2B who are actually above-average past age-32, it seems highly likely to me that any free agent seasons the Twins potentially buy-out would be, at best, for average production. Again, using the Kipnis/Carpenter contracts as a template, paying $15+MM per season for (hopefully!) average performance doesn't seem like a huge coup for the Twins. I definitely don't think the reward balances out the risk in this case.

Hunter and Santana both signed multi-year extensions with the Twins that bought out two free agent years. Maybe the Twins should have tried to extend them further, but at least with Santana that would have been a mistake. I would also argue that the Morneau extension was a mistake (in hindsight). If my math is correct, they had him under team control through 2010, and then had to spend $30MM for basically replacement-level production for 2011 and 2012. I don't know how much money they saved in arbitration costs, but I doubt it was more than $30MM. This is the risk with extending Dozier now. He has 4 seasons where he could get injured or just become terrible, at which point the extra two years are worthless and expensive. And list of above-average 2B that are 32+ is fairly short - basically only 2 or 3 per season. As others have said, final judgement will come down to the terms. But anything similar to the Kipnis or Carpenter contracts is too rich for my blood.

One of the baseball presentations at the Sloan Analytics Conference involved using spring training stats to improve pre-season projections. The presenter, Dan Rosenheck, was able to find a small but significant improvement if you adjust with spring training stats that stabilize quickly (K%, BB%, GB%, ISO, etc). So it seems that certain spring training stats are meaningful to a certain extent. http://www.sloansportsconference.com/?p=3608 Presentation slides: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gb92yc96fme14rr/spring%20forward.pptx?dl=0