markos

As hard as I try to not get too excited about kids that are 6-8 years away from the big leagues, it is a super-encouraging sign to see the team continue to try to acquire high-end talent despite the financial penalties. Hopefully Javier isn't their only big signing in four months.

I have always thought that Arcia's main struggles had to do with actually catching the ball (a lack of range and a shaky glove) rather than playing the ball off the wall. Sure, he might misplay some of those hits, and I can definitely believe that Arcia may struggle with that specific play. However, just how important is that play? I believe that there were way more balls in the gap, down the line, and over his head that Arcia wasn't able to catch (or cut off) than there were balls hit off the wall that he misplayed. And the difference between giving up a triple instead of a double (on a misplay off the wall) seems pretty minor compared to giving up a hit instead of getting the out. Long story short, I think it is a real issue, but that it impacts so few plays to be meaningful relative to all the other plays he struggles with. Therefore, I don't think he will be any better in left field as he is in right.

I agree with this. I think the overall trend-line is correct, though enough teams are secret about their work that it wouldn't surprise me if there are teams that are severely misplaced. It (necessarily) skews heavily on visible features: quantity of job-titles, in-game decision making (bunting, defensive shifts, etc), and perceived relationship between front-office and managers. Those are important factors, but I think the real value lies in calculating player value and making future projections. And most teams are pretty quiet about their proprietary projection models. It wouldn't surprise me if in 5-10 years we find out that one of the successful teams near the bottom of this list (maybe the Giants?) had been quietly utilizing really good models for player projections for years.

There is definitely room to argue about their respective stuff, as they all have several very good pitches. My personal view is that of all the pitches those three guys throw, Meyer's fastball and slider are the two best. They are the only two pitches that regularly get 7 grades (though Stewart's slider occasionally gets a 7 future grade), and I think the gap between a 6 grade and a 7 grade is significant (basically, the difference between saying pitch X is in the top-25% versus top-5%). Right now they are the only two pitches that would be included in a "best fastball|slider in baseball" discussion. So I think his combo of two plus-plus pitches is special, and it easily surpasses Stewart's and Berrios's arsenals of 4 average-to-plus pitches. Again, this is just my personal preference of how to rank "stuff", so I don't really want to get into a heated argument over this. I just wanted to explain my reasoning of why I have Meyer first, and why I think there is a gap between him and the other two.

Meyer, Berrios, Stewart I try to factor in stuff, durability, results-relative-to-age and proximity-to-the-majors when ranking pitchers. Stuff: Meyer ... gap ... Stewart, Berrios Durability: Berrios ... gap ... Meyer, Stewart Results: Berrios, Meyer ... gap ... Stewart Proximity: Meyer, Berrios ... gap .. Stewart Meyer and Berrios are super close, and I can make good cases for both of them as the best pitching prospect. In the end, I think Meyer's superior stuff and proximity trump (ever so slightly) Berrios's edge in durability and results. Stewart is clearly #3.

I don't know how reliable those stats are, but there is the example of Corey Knebel. He was drafted #39 overall in 2013. In 2013 his walk rate was 8.6% in Rookie and Low-A. In 2014 his walk rate jumped up to 13% in AA and AAA. I don't know how much stock you should take in a single example (probably just slightly above zero), but it does seem to happen.

He is #4. Rodon (41), Nola (60) and Jackson (68) are ahead of him.

Baseball Prospectus released their 2015 Top-101 list today. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=25538 Eight Twins made the list, including a few surprise rankings: #1 Buxton // A little surprising to see him still at #1 #12 Sano // Moved up 2 spots even with TJ. #14 Meyer // Wow. 7th best pitcher in the minors. #28 Stewart #48 Berrios #70 Gordon #91 Thorpe // Another surprise. They must not be concerned about his elbow. #99 Burdi Overall, great to see both the unexpected names (Burdi and Thorpe) making the list as well as the expected names ranked so high. I think this is the most pro-Twins list I've seen so far this offseason.

I did kind of say that, and I think for the most part I will stand by that, though with the caveat of having it be one more "serious" shoulder injury. I think for the most part we are basically saying the same thing. I am not advocating for Meyer to be moved to the bullpen right now. I too want Meyer to be a starter until he fails as a starter. However, I think we have different definitions of "fails as a starter" (and there is no "right" definition). I am probably on the more conservative end, and so if Meyer struggles with another shoulder issue this year (making it three years in a row), I would prefer to have him switch roles before suffering something catastrophic. But I can definitely see the viewpoint where "fails as a starter" means something much more serious has happened. And if I recall correctly, I'm pretty sure Perkins dealt with a couple seasons of fairly serious issues before he was moved out of the rotation.

Durability isn't just innings per start; it is also making starts and staying off the DL. I agree with you that it is completely fine if he could make 34 starts every year but only pitch 5 innings. However, the problem is that he has missed roughly 25% of the past two seasons because of shoulder issues. So even with his very restricted usage, he is injuring his shoulder as a starter. Luckily, so far these injuries haven't been season or career threatening. But at the same time, I don't think it is a good idea to have him constantly do something that is putting him on the DL. There are all kinds of reasons why this may just be a temporary thing. He could tweak his mechanics or change his training routine. Or maybe just getting older will help. I don't know, and it is possible that nobody really knows for sure. But if he injures his shoulder again, I do think it is prudent to try him in the bullpen rather than continuing to put him in a position where he injures himself. He might continue to get hurt regardless, but he might stay healthier (Perkins is a good example). He probably won't be as valuable as a reliever on a rate basis, but he is definitely more valuable as a very good (maybe great) reliever over six seasons than as an oft-injured starter who blows out his shoulder after two.

I'm not sure that is completely true. According to a Rhett Bollinger piece earlier this offseason, Meyer was supposed to get called up in September but was shut down with another shoulder issue: "All Alex Meyer had to do was get through one final start at Triple-A Rochester last season, and the Twins' No. 4 prospect (according to MLB.com) was finally going get to his chance to get called up to the Majors for the first time. But it wasn't to be, as Meyer left his start early and was diagnosed with shoulder inflammation, which ended his season on Aug. 30. So while Meyer has tried not to harp on his missed opportunity to come up and pitch in relief down the stretch, the 6-foot-9 right-hander believes he's now primed to make an impact with the Twins in 2015." http://m.twins.mlb.com/news/article/107369412/twins-alex-meyer-ready-to-compete-for-major-league-rotation Also, Rob Antony mentioned in his interview with Twinkietown earlier this week that they still have questions about his durability: "So with three pitches, if he is able physically to handle the workload of a starter, which is probably the biggest question mark just because he hasn't done it yet, but if he is then I don't see any reason why he can't start." http://www.twinkietown.com/2015/2/4/7974951/twinkie-town-2015-q-a-with-rob-antony-part-ii In my opinion, the biggest question mark with Meyer is his durability. That is the main reason why I think a future in the bullpen isn't out of the question. And that is why I think he will start at AAA. The Twins want their young pitchers to demonstrate some durability and consistency before getting called up (think Gibson and May). I would guess they send him to AAA with no pitch or inning restrictions, just to see if he can throw 100+ pitches multiple starts in a row (which he has only done once in his career) without any injuries or setbacks.

Thanks. The tool didn't work for me this afternoon. It is working now and fun to play with. Thanks for sharing.

I would be curious to know what Buxton's and Mauer's bust estimations were after their first seasons at Rookie ball.

I'm a big fan a Turner. Two things really obscured how well he did last year. First, the Florida State League depresses batting stats and makes them look worse than they really are. Second, his slow start had everyone down on him right away. Despite the terrible start, he still ended up with league-average production in the FSL (101 wRC+), which is pretty good for a defensive-minded catcher. I think if his season had gone in reverse - started with 3 months of .787 OPS and then struggled to finished out the year - the entire narrative would have changed and there would be more hype about him. I wished he walked more, but he did limit his strike-outs pretty well. I'm really excited to see how he does in AA this season, as he might be my sleeper pick for this coming year.

I think 'better' is kind of subjective in this case. Berrios had more strikeouts, lower FIP and more innings (a lot more if you include WBC stuff) at Cedar Rapids than Stewart managed last year. Stuff- and ceiling-wise, Berrios is behind Stewart (and Meyer), but he has demonstrated better durability. He has successfully pitched deeper into games with larger pitch counts and thrown significantly more innings than Stewart (and Meyer) the past two seasons. And he has avoided the DL, unlike Stewart this past year (and Meyer the past two seasons). As a bit of a tangent, how much do you factor durability into your pitcher rankings? Or is it too unpredictable to use except in the case of catastrophic injuries?

Great work Jay! Thanks for putting the time into this. A few thought... 1) A 1.70 WAR career is basically nothing. Based on this model, the Twins were expected to end up with a bunch of career minor-leaguers, bench players and bullpen arms, with a handful of average regulars to offset the players that didn't make it to the majors. As it turns out, that is basically exactly what they ended up drafting. 2) I think this also shows that the draft alone was highly unlikely to fill the gap in talent for 2011-2014. Some hand-wavy math: They were 60 games below .500 during those 4 years. Making up that deficit through the draft would require roughly 60 WAR in additional talent. In order to have that happen, the Twins would have had to have been the best drafting team by far. 3) This reiterates just how difficult it is to find elite talent when drafting in the 20s and 30s. Stuck drafting in that position for years, there are basically 3 areas where the Twins could have acquired the type of high-end young talent that is normally only available at the top of the draft: trades, international markets and overpaying HS players in the old slot system. As others have pointed out already, the Twins were late to establish an international presence in Latin America and they never payed overslot for a player late in the draft. And the one trade that actually acquired an elite talent (Gomez) blew up in their faces when they traded that player away before he blossomed into an MVP candidate.

Another point about his height: there has been some interesting research going on (either BP or Fangraphs, I can't seem to find the article right now) about how the change in the strike zone (moving lower), and the hitters adjusting their swing planes to compensate, has allowed short pitchers to get away with pitching up in the zone. The general idea is that a swing geared to hit pitches thrown low in the zone by tall pitchers (sharp downward plane) will struggle with pitches thrown up in the zone by shorter pitches (flatter plane) since the swing plane doesn't match the plane of the pitch. I think the article referenced Sonny Gray and Marcus Stroman as two short pitchers who seem to be able to pitch up in the zone effectively. As an example of a hitter who demonstrates this a little bit, Mike Trout's kryptonite is the strike in the upper-third of the zone. He kills it in the lower part: http://www.fangraphs.com/zonegrid.aspx?playerid=10155&position=OF&ss=2014&se=2014&type=5&hand=all&count=all&blur=1&grid=10&view=bat Another example would be Brandon Moss: http://www.fangraphs.com/zonegrid.aspx?playerid=4467&position=1B/OF&ss=2014&se=2014&type=5&hand=all&count=all&blur=1&grid=10&view=bat

I did a quick analysis using the simplistic WAR estimator devised here: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/06/the_draft_and_w.php The 11 picks discussed in the article have an expected total value of ~19 WAR over their first 6 years of service time. The Hicks pick (#14) has an expected value of 2.5 WAR, while the Boyd pick (#55) has an expected value of 1.2 WAR. As of right now, these picks are ~13 WAR short. Considering that Gibson and Hicks each have 5 years left and Revere has 3 years left, it isn't completely out of the question that those 3 alone will do well enough for this group to hit their expected production. Throw in the fact that there are a handful of players that are still working their way through the system (Michael and Harrison in particular), it seems like this group of maligned draft picks are on track to meet their expectations.

My DH rule change would be to allow an unlimited number of DHs but keep the same 25-man roster size. I think it would provide a lot of interesting roster-construction strategies as teams would try to skimp on bench players and relievers to add some more sluggers and glove-only defenders. Overall, the incentives would probably: 1) improve overall offense 2) add more elite defenders 3) versatile bench players would be super valuable. 4) fewer specialized relievers and fewer pitching changes.

I would have supported adding Rasmus for 1yr/$8MM to compete for the CF position.

I was very bearish on Vargas for several reasons: - Unsustainable BABIP supported initial success - Swing at everything approach (almost identical to Arcia) - 5/1 K-to-BB ratio - Through 234 PAs, his OPS is lower than Pinto and Parmelee through the same number of PAs to start their careers. - Generally mediocre prospect pedigree, and significantly worse numbers than Arcia and Pinto at the same minor-league levels. However, I am now a little more optimistic due to a couple reasons: - Raw power. He hit several of the longest and hardest-hit homers this year. As Arcia has shown, you can overcome a lot of plate discipline issues by hitting the ball really, really hard when you do manage to make contact. - Plate coverage. Surprisingly, Vargas was among the best on the team at making contact on strikes (88%, same as Mauer, higher than Plouffe and Dozier). Contrast that with Arcia, who is among the worst in baseball at swinging and missing on pitches in the strike zone. Almost all of Vargas's strikeout issues seem to come from swinging (and missing) too much on balls. That seems like something that is fixable with more experience, rather than a mechanical issue. That said, I'm not as optimistic as some people on this thread (floor of Prince Fielder!!), and I'm still a little confused why Vargas has been anointed as the starting DH and cleanup hitter with very little debate or skepticism. Considering that it seems fairly likely (as many on this thread have already mentioned) that he could be sent down to AAA sometime next year, having him penciled in (with a backup plan in place) and expecting him to hit 6 or 7 in the lineup seems more prudent.

I'm a little confused by this. Didn't Polanco and May make their debuts as well? Or are you not counting them because they didn't exceed their rookie eligibility?

I thought the same thing when I read that. Crossing my fingers for good health...

Many here have suggested that Arcia made big strides in the second half of the season, but his K% was still over 30% in August and September. I am still bearish on Arcia. Not only does he chasing too many bad pitches, but he is also among the worst in baseball at swinging and missing on pitches in the strike zone. In fact, among players 25 and younger over the past 5 seasons who received at least 400 PAs, he is the worst at both contact % in the strike zone and overall contact %. http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=400&type=c,102,103,104,105,106,107,110,23,50&season=2014&month=0&season1=2010&ind=1&team=0&rost=0&age=14,25&filter=&players=0&sort=8,a That indicates to me that he still has serious holes in his swing that can be exploited by quality pitchers. However, contact rate isn't the be all end all as there are some good names on that show up on that list (Stanton, Puig, Goldschmidt, Freeman), and the Steamer projection for Arcia is pretty strong for next season. Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic. Also, don't get me wrong that I think he's worthless. He is already an above-replacement major leaguer, and I think he will ultimately settle into an average-ish corner-outfield/DH role, much like Kubel did (though Arcia will do it will more flash - more HRs, more Ks and fewer BB). Ultimately, I just think that his swing-and-miss issues will prevent him from ever taking the leap to "star slugger on a contender".

I am in the other camp, as I trust the defensive metrics quite a bit. I also feel like I'm in the minority with that opinion on this website. We can't both be minorities, right? I have a couple comments to make: 1) UZR and DRS aren't trying to measure defensive ability. They are trying to determine contribution to wins by calculating runs allowed or runs saved for (almost) every single defensive play that is made or missed. This can serve as a proxy for defensive ability, but they aren't necessarily the same thing. Consider how offensive stats (like BA, OPS, wRAA, etc) don't directly measure hitting ability, as they don't care if a single was a solid line drive or a little nubber that can't be fielded. The defensive metrics have the same deficiency. They have tracked thousands and thousands of batted-balls and determined which ones, historically, are easy to field and which ones are hard. But that doesn't necessarily mean that any specific 'hard' play was actually hard (maybe it was easy because of good positioning) or any specific 'easy' play was actually easy (maybe it was hard because of sun or wind issues). So there is going to be some disconnect between value calculated and the underlying ability. However, the hope is that after hundreds and hundreds of fielding plays, the value and ability will line up. And I think the year-to-year correlation (though not quite as strong as OPS) does point to a decent relation between the value accounted for a player during a specific season and the player's underlying ability. In the instance of Torii Hunter last year, it could be the case that his season was the UZR equivalent of a low BABIP, and his actual defensive ability is much higher than the UZR number. Again, that doesn't mean that the UZR value is invalid, just like how a good hitter can have a bad season. 2) Similar to how offensive stats used to calculate runs (like wRC and wRAA) are adjusted based on the run environment of a given season, UZR (and maybe DRS?) are adjusted based on the quality of defenders at each position. So a player's UZR can go up and down from season to season even if that player's defensive ability is unchanged. For example, Trout may have dropped from average to below-average UZR from 2013 to 2014 because there were better defenders at centerfield in 2014. This adjustment doesn't much make sense if UZR was explicitly measuring defensive ability, but it is not - it is trying to determine contribution to wins. And if a player isn't one of the top 15 defenders at a position, he is a net negative for his team.