TheLeviathan
-
Posts
21,580 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
49
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 TheLeviathan
-
Now you're changing the data again, which is fine I understand your reasoning on it, but you can't do that and then apply my comments the same. The truth is, you misapplied the stat initially and your second data set supports my label. It takes being an "ok" defender to last that many years as a starter at that position. Not everyone can be good, he fits well in the middle tier. (And that's being more complimentary of him than, say, defensive runs saved would be to him) Now perhaps 2012's number was out of character because of the injury. That would make sense. It's also possible that year's stats are important for the sample to be accurate. (UZR is a stat often considered to be a "more the merrier" stats) I'm not sure either of us is qualified to make that distinction, no?
-
As jorgen's graph shows, his age is where you start to see that drop become less gradual and more percipitous. Right around 30 you see a 5% drop, then it's 7% every year from there on. Which starts to look cliff-like over a three year span. It may not happen for Drew for any number of reasons. But that is a useful guide for what to expect from the position as the player ages. I'm concerned about the offense too. Just not convinced this player, at his current price, is an answer to that. But then you posted a proper sampling of UZR and it showed exactly what I said he was - correct?
-
No, I said using one year of UZR is not valid. I read, I can't remember where, that one year of UZR is roughly equivalent to using 50 games by a hitter. It's a sample size issue that invalidates it. The defensive metrics almost all show Florimon was a top five shortstop last year. Drew was in the middle. I could see how someone would be ok with that drop in order to add that much offense to the position. Florimon was a great defender and an awful hitter last year. Drew was an ok fielder and a good hitter last year. I can sympathize with the reasoning to make that change. what I don't get is trying to repaint reality to make that change even more appealing.
-
No, but the defense of him got to the point that we were using one year of UZR to imply Drew's defense was...what? better? almost as good? Whatever you want to call what your attempt was, it was incredibly misguided. You want to overpay for a year of him? Two years of him? I could probably get behind that. Anything past two years? I'm out, I'm not interested. And I, and others who share my opinion, have plenty of valid reasons to do so.
-
10th out of 17. I would call that an "ok" defender, exactly as I labeled him. Florimon, at least last year, played at a much higher than "ok" level. The question is, does Drew as he ages, sink even further than "ok"? And, since trends indicate a strong likelihood he will, is that the kind of player you want to commit to? Maybe the immediate offensive boost would be sufficient for some. It's reasonable for others to conclude it's not.
-
I don't mean this to offend - you've been vocal about not understanding/appreciating defensive metrics. UZR is not an effective tool for comparison based on one year's data. It is incredibly unreliable to the point of worthless. As evidenced by jokin rightly giving more context in the post after yours. So no, one year of UZR is not valid support.
-
The numbers indicate it's a strongly supported opinion. The opposing view isn't well supported. In fact, the only support I've seen for it so far is conjecture about how well he positions himself, how his "experience" helps him (veteran savvy anyone?), and how a stat that needs multiple seasons of data has a one-year data set in his favor.
-
Well, it's a fact insofar is that is how the trends looked in that study. Does it necessarily hold for every player? Absolutely not. Drew may well survive as what he is (a roughly average/ok defender) for longer than others. He also might go from "ok" to "blech" and still be on the payroll for 10 million. This would be following typical aging tendencies rather than defying them.
-
Even UZR fans would tell you one year's worth of UZR is not a valid use of the stat. I'm not overrating Florimon's defense. It's much better than Drew's. You are welcome to the opinion signing Drew would be smart. Saying it's because he's a better defender? No, that's not valid.
-
Somehow I don't think anyone is advocating that. Yet. But we're really going out of our way to make Drew flawless these days.
-
When you figure out how to let MLB allow us to have one guy field and another guy hit for the same position the whole game - let me know. Otherwise, defense and offense matter. Florimon is a vastly superior defender and a vastly inferior hitter. There are valid reasons to not want to give up defense in the name of offense.
-
And one year's UZR means as much in this debate as how often each ate Mcdonald's last year, because one year's UZR is irrelevant. I've found, in general, that dWar corresponds most frequently to quality defenders. But it, like all defensive metrics, has it's flaws. But it's still a vastly superior one-year measure to UZR. I'd also add that if we've reached the point that putting Drew on a pedestal requires us to claim he's a better defender than Florimon (utterly preposterous really)...than rational discussion the matter is probably over for both sides.
-
The Twins haven't done enough to address shortstop - I've been heavily in the camp of trying to use some of the Cuban defectors as options for this. Would be much better money spent IMO. As for Hardy - he's been a significantly better fielder than Drew his entire career. He hasn't started to decline yet, that's true, but exceptions (so far) prove the rule...no?
-
.6 Dwar is a "good defender"? I'd call that an "ok" defender. In fact, that has stayed relatively consistent his entire career. It appears you are basing "good defender" on error totals. Which I completely disagree with.
-
Career arcs show most shortstops are decling in defensive ability by 27 years old. There are strong trends to show he will be a subpar fielder by next year, much less two years from now. I would prefer not to make dramatic sacrifices defensively at that position. Even for significant offensive help. Not to mention flush 10M on him at 34 years old. If you go around trying to fix every hole as fast as you can (one offseason), chances are you never really fix them. Just make shoddy, expensive patches.
-
And I hope by 2016 we don't have to rely on a shortstop who was good, not great, in his peak who is WELL into his decline arc of his career and making 10 million. THere is a good chance he's as bad at the end of the contract as the guy he's replacing now.
-
No matter where you borrow that, the impact is the same. The Twins don't need to get better offense at the expense of defense. We've seen how awful up-the-middle defense can negatively affect an entire team. But if WAR is your go-to - essentially Drew is worth one extra win. Do you pay a 2nd round pick and 20-30M for that win? I'm not convinced it is and it appears most of the other potentially interested teams feel similarly. His demands have to come down significantly before he'll get much action.
-
It gives you an idea of the value he's brought. I don't, however, use it for projecting future results. Mostly because a composite of stats eliminates the nuance that I believe is far more valuable in analyzing trends and how likely they are to continue. So for projection - no -I don't think it serves any value in that regard. The years are the concern to me, not the total dollars. I do see some concerning signs of decline and I doubt his personality/makeup. Losing cash in the short term if he flops is no big deal. Continuing to lose that money as we start to have our young players more established on the roster does concern me.
-
If the price comes to that - then sure. I had read his initial demands were 4/48 and that he's still sticking to a minimum of 3 years. There is an awful lot of speculation about what he can be had for. I'm only on board for less than 3 years with him unless the third year is an option.
-
If that's what matters to you to project him - great. But again, it's perfectly valid for nick or the Twins to look at those other stats and project a declining player who is overpriced. That's every bit as speculative as his personality. Neither of us know what that ankle looks like and whether or not it's going to be a lingering issue as he gets older. It was an injury that cost him over a year of playing - it's worthy of concern. With Drew, I don't care about the per year amount. I care about how long we're tethered to a guy who I don't trust to maintain a level of play worth half of what he's asking for.
-
And that's a fair conclusion, but the facts are still facts: his righty/lefty splits have been bad recently. Last year his home/road splits are not encouraging. He's entered the years where decline phase is very possible and his numbers hint that he may have entered it. He's had a bad reputation in the past. His last 3/4 years have demonstrated health concerns. The notion, and it's not necessarily being peddled by you but you're defending it, that this is a no-brainer signing just doesn't hold water to me.
-
I disagree - any attempt to post his weaknesses or reasons for hesitation are immediately met with rebuke. There are positives and there are negatives with him,but only the negatives are met with challenges. If they can get him for 2/20 - go for it. Hell I'd give him 2/30. I just don't want to commit longterm to a guy who is showing red flags of decline.
-
That becomes a false argument in 2, 3, or 4 years if they are looking to further add payroll and he's a waste of it.
-
How does 12M on the 2016 team for a long-declined, no longer startable shortstop help the team? Not every long-term problem NEEDS to be solved by April. Now if you can get him for two years? Hey, I'm in, pony up.
-
It also doesn't scream "come pay me 50M for the next four years" Don't get me wrong, I'd be ok with Drew. That said, there is a little bit too much adoration for his game going on around here in my opinion.
