Wookiee of the Year

Did some more reading in the Handbook this morning--lots of great stuff. I didn't realize "Anatomy of a Five Tool Player" included the top three Twins prospects for each tool--that was awesome and I had fun making my own top three lists beforehand to try to predict who'd be named. I also really enjoyed the 2014 draft preview and the comprehensive look at the draft class generally with the breakdown of some of the top names. Also, I had a thought on labeling prospect quality: in terms of maximizing their utility to readers while minimizing your difficulty in generating them, maybe simply giving each prospect a letter grade like with John Sickels' A/B/C scale would work well? Obviously, 20-80 scores with risk factors would be great, but that sounds extremely time-consuming for you guys, where I'd think with letter grades you could take your top prospect lists, figure out where to draw the lines between grades, and then label every prospect accordingly.

I'm pleasantly surprised by the positive reviews of Kepler here. My perception is that to date, he's all pedigree without performance, so I've tended to be a bit lower on him. Next year stands to be a defining year for him. Now that he's on the 40 Man and the option clock is ticking, he needs to live up to some of the potential people think he has. The positive reviews here reassure me there's a decent chance he'll do that.

This is my first year buying the Handbook and I'm loving it! It's perfect for browsing. I don't know what you've done for the layout in the past, but having the pitchers and batters separate and alphabetical is a great format. I can't think of one that would be better. I had a conversation with my brother over Christmas where he mentioned that in high school, he'd batted against pitcher Tim Shibuya, who is now in the Twins system, though he hadn't heard much about him since. It was worth the price of the book alone to be able to whip it out and read him Shibuya's half-page bio. Honestly, this makes no sense to me--you guys provide so much excellent free content, and people come here definitively because they enjoy your writing, so why wouldn't they want to hear about the products you have for sale? I remember some of the negative reactions last year to the Offseason Handbook advertising in particular, but it would be a travesty if someone who would happily give you their money for your product doesn't know the option is available. I hope you're advertising well enough that everyone who wants to be aware of the Prospect Handbook is, at least. I've only skimmed and read a small handful of the articles to date, but here are a few of my "asks" for next year's book (more or less in order of priority): 1) This is a book organization thing more than anything, but I liked the 2013 Draft Review after reading it (it was one of the first articles I read)--then wondered why there wasn't anything on the 2013 international signings. Yesterday, I figured out that's basically what "On the Cusp" is, but it might be useful to group these two articles together in future handbooks. 2) Along those lines, I'd love a page or two that simply list (a) the draft order of the Twins' draft picks in the amateur draft (with just name, position, and school of origin with location) and ( the Twins' international signings listed by signing bonus (with just name, position, and country of origin). It's probably somewhat duplicative of the general player sections, but I'd still find it useful as a supplement to Jeremy's summaries of what happened in the draft and international signings, and I could see it being a useful reference page five years down the line, to see where the names making noise came from. 3) I like Sssuperdave's idea of somehow highlighting or spotlighting the top prospects when they're listed in the general player listings. Maybe just take your listings and denote players as "Consensus Top 10", "Consensus Top 25", and "Consensus Top 40" or something. 4) I have yet to read it, but I'm looking forward to reading Cody's "Anatomy of a Five Tool Player." However, I sometimes listen to Baseball Prospectus's Effectively Wild podcast and I remember hearing one episode right after Ben Lindbergh went to scout school on how the 20-80 scale is applied to pitchers, and how their tools are examined. It could be nice to incorporate that into such an article in the future. 5) I like maxisagod's suggestion of outlining how the Twins' organizational structure compares to others. I have no idea what "the Twins not having a SS A ball team" means, and I've just assumed every organization has R-/R+/A-/A+/AA/AAA as their structure. Is that not typical? Or is it typical, but are their divergences? I'd be interested in hearing about that. 6) I also agree with Rosterman that a little something on the life of a Rookie baller would be worthwhile. Just slot it in after the affiliate year summaries (which I admit I've yet to read), but mainly emphasize how Rookie ball is different from all the other levels. It doesn't need to be a specific "team year in review" so much as an explanation of rookie ball. Personally, I get what most minor league teams are by thinking of them in relation to MLB teams, but Rookie ball seems to be a whole different animal that I just don't know much about. It's a great product that I'm sure I'll be picking up annually from here on out! Thanks for all your hard work!

Solid list, and I can't quibble with "Mom made Pizza Rolls" Face at #1. But this has to be Top Ten material: http://network.yardbarker.com/mlb/article_external/twins_joe_mauer_makes_blind_catch_after_ball_deflects_off_backstop/13797509?story_article_yb_original_head_13797509 (I know there are gifs out there of it, too.)

Good points, twinscowboysbulls. I'm also just not sure how big a deal it is to have a rotation without lefties--how often is that really a factor, and you're picking your starter because of the arm they throw with? In the play-offs it maybe comes into play if you have similar-ability pitchers with a handedness difference, but that's not likely a factor for the 2014 Twins.

Awesome. Looking forward to ordering the bound version as soon as it becomes available.

I'm a big Espinosa proponent, too--and share your thinking (the Lombardozzi trade might make him unattainable, but he's at a great buy-low moment). I know the Nats are seeking a lefty bullpen arm and can't help wondering if Duensing or Thielbar could hold some appeal for them. Or maybe Doumit as a left-handed hitting bench bat. Throw in a semi-decent prospect and maybe they'd bite? I don't know, but Espinosa's exactly the sort of high-upside, long on team control guy I'd like to see the Twins target at shortstop, even with the big risk he doesn't amount to anything. That's what makes him affordable.

It's worth thinking about, but I'm not sure it does hurt scouting advantages... Anybody warranting a $20M posting fee is likely on every team's radar, anyway. And as far as I can tell, the landscape for placing posting fees under $20M is unchanged.

I'm basically exactly in agreement with thrylos--compared to the old system, this system seems worse for Japanese teams, better for Japanese players, and better for small-market teams (buy ensuring more of the overall value of a deal is subject to the luxury tax). And I generally like those changes. While I want to see NPB teams make some money off their players, the bidding war shouldn't happen in the value they extract from the deal, but in the value the player extracts. I just don't see how this can be true. Before, the team mostly likely to place the winning posting bid was NYY, LA, etc... like any of the other worthwhile FA. Now, with the bulk of the money subject to the luxury tax, teams like the NYY that are trying to stay under the cap are hurt. And even if they're not trying to stay under the cap, the money is redirected toward smaller-market teams through the cap. I don't know why the math of Posting Fee + Contract would equal a larger amount than before. In fact, it has the potential to equal less than before because the rich bidders now have more of their total subject to the luxury tax, which makes each dollar cost more. I dunno... At some point, you're creating too much of an incentive for losing.

Brock, I think there's something wrong with your MLBTR feed... it appears it hasn't updated since you added it.

Haven't quite finished the podcast yet, but tell Luke ("What book should I get on sabermetrics?") to try Baseball Between the Numbers: Why Everything You Know About the Game is Wrong, by Baseball Prospectus. It's probably not exactly what he's looking for in that it's not written as a pure introduction to sabermetrics, but it's absolutely aimed at those who are new to sabermetrics and walks through sabermetrician-style reasoning while introducing the foundational concepts as needed. It's definitely the best modern primer I'm aware of.

Great topic--I'll be sure to check out the podcast sometime in the next few days. Lots of good suggestions so far. I like Twins Twerp's (already implemented!) suggestion of the MLBTR Twins widget, and even though I'm a Twin Cities resident, Smcginnity's idea of using the Twins Daily platform to publicize gatherings of Twins fans on road trips sounds positive. For me, Twins Daily is always my first stop for Twins news--and so the more it can be a comprehensive source of Twins news, the better. I know when the site first showed up, the idea was that there would never be game summaries. But Brad Swanson's series recaps are wonderful, and I'd love to see some attention to paid to "something significant happened in today's game" without the mandate that every game needs a recap and a narrative built out of what happened. Maybe the simplest way to put it is I want to trust that if anything worth talking about has happened in Twins world, I'll be able to find it on Twins Daily.

Wow--it's the right move, I think, even if (as Zephrin points out above) it hurts a little emotionally. But mostly, I'm surprised they're announcing it now. I guess it makes sense if they're looking at adding a veteran catcher this offseason, but I didn't think we'd hear anything definitive until Spring Training.

Good podcast, Paul. If Mauer stays behind the dish, I'd support the Twins adding a 1B/DH type. He only gets brief mention on Talk to Contact, but my choice would definitely be Mike Morse. He's: --Coming off a down year, so has upside (and on a one-year deal, could conceivably be traded at the deadline for value) --Right-handed, which fits better with our line-up and means Parmelee might have a spot on the 25-man (which I prefer to Colabello) --A great, fun-loving clubhouse guy, which could help the clubhouse atmosphere and set him up as a role model for some of the younger players --Able to play a corner OF spot, so offers some positional flexibility If Mauer moves to 1B, I'd think it would make sense to sign a veteran, defensive-minded catcher--otherwise we have a catching corps with no above-average defenders headlined by a rookie (Pinto), and if he needs seasoning at AAA I do NOT trust Doumit with the primary catcher job. If Mauer does move, I'd target Jose Molina to serve as Pinto's back-up and trust him to assume primary duties if Pinto does get sent down. I'd also like the Twins to add some SS depth--Florimon is fine for now, but with his bat I wouldn't want him in a starting role for more than a year or two (and I don't want all my eggs in the Danny Santana basket). I'd love to see the Twins trade for Danny Espinosa of the Nationals. He's at a buy-low moment, and the Nats are looking to bolster their bullpen and bench this offseason, so I'd offer Duensing or potentially Thielbar and maybe Burton or maybe Ryan Doumit (as a 5th OF/bench bat/catching depth if Ramos is hurt).

It might make sense... if he wasn't left-handed. I'd rather see left-handers Arcia and Parmelee at corner OF/1B/DH. I guess the right-handed Kubel equivalent is probably Mike Morse. If there's room for Kubel on the team, Morse would slot into that role even better.

I tend to agree with Cody on shortstop, but I agree with goulik that there's no reason to lock Arcia into LF and make RF a One Bobber. The one that surprises me, actually, is Three Bobbers for 3B. Are we certain Sano is locked in there? I'm more confident than I've been in the past, but I can't help but think of Plouffe and wonder about the organization's ability to forecast a prospect's future playing position. I hope you're right that Sano won't be moving to 1B, but I probably would've given only Two Bobbers to 3B based on that chance.

I'm embarrassed to say that I don't know the answer to this question: Do the +/- stats incorporate Innings Pitched (or, in the case of OPS+, Plate Appearances) into their value? My assumption has always been that they do not. If that's the case, then that's pretty big factor in Johnson's potential value that's being left out.

Ah--thanks for providing the breakdown. I hadn't realized Correia turned it around so much in August and September. It's funny how much sequencing has to do with how good a year we think someone had. In 2012, Willingham got off to a hot start, then had a good but not great year. Jamey Carroll started very cold but actually played quite well in August and September. While people remember 2012 as a great year for Willingham, few think of Carroll as providing much value that same year.

Honestly, that's not how I remember it at all. I remember Correia getting off to a strong start, but then his numbers bounced back to typical for his career. (A quick search gives me this from Aaron Gleeman on 8/8: "Kevin Correia has a 5.90 ERA and .329 opponents' batting average in 17 starts since May 1.") Not that he can't function as a back-of-the-rotation arm--you're right, he can hold down that fort for another year. Thanks for this assessment. Honestly, I love this kind of analysis--the sort of "is this the year to..." questions. (I find myself wondering what next year's FA Starting Pitching market looks like--how easy will it be to continue building then? What does that say about how aggressive the Twins should be this year?)

Yeah, Johnson's among my favorite Twins targets. As mentioned above, he's got ace potential, and the Twins aren't going to pay for a True Ace with no question marks--which leaves gambling on high-upside guys. I would happily see the Twins sign Johnson to a one-year deal for up to $10-12 million. If they can get him for less or get an option year out of him, all the better. If not, you've at least signed a guy with real top-of-the-rotation potential who, if he succeeds, you can flip at the deadline or offer a Qualifying Offer at the end of the year. If he falls on his face, well, there's no such thing as a bad one-year contract.

Mr. Goin, thanks so much for doing this. How much is medical data (unknown to the general public) used in evaluating players? I've always wondered about this. Do the Twins have advanced analytics that they use that are based on medical evaluations, and if so, how big a role do they play in evaluating players? (e.g. is it more of an "avoiding red flags" kind of thing or does it go beyond that?) Separate question: Does your work involve much projecting of young players' development trajectories? I tend to see stats as more about parsing out a player's current "true talent," rather than projecting future development. Is that accurate? Final question: How is your last name pronounced? I've heard both "go in" and "goyn." Thanks so much!

Wow, that I had not heard before. Pretty cool little tidbit--thanks for passing it along!

Do you mean that literally--are Vargas and Ortiz friends? Or do you mean it in the Senatorial, "My good friend from West Virginia" way?

I wondered about that some with the Offseason Handbook--some of the Twins Daily guys have referenced the idea that it'll cost the Twins more to attract guys than it might another team, so I do wonder if some of that was baked into those contract estimates. i.e. Those are estimates of what the Twins would have to pay to sign a guy, not necessarily projections for each player's actual contract.

Brock, I think your views pretty much sum up my feelings on the subject. Some of these mascots, logos, and team nicknames are clearly offensive, and others are more borderline. For the sake of decency, it's probably a good idea to eventually change them all, but the clearly offensive ones are the priority. For teams like the Braves and the Chiefs, the name itself might not be inherently offensive, but it's the iconography that accompanies it that often crosses a line. And the best way to address that is likely to remove the underlying nickname. I've also tended to find that if I'm not sure why something's offensive, if I actually listen for the answer, I understand. Although more important than that is realizing that the legitimacy of someone's taking offense to a logo or mascot is NOT dependent on my understanding the offensiveness. But take the Tomahawk Chop for example--I'll admit that for a while, I didn't understand why that was a problem. Then someone asked me to imagine there was a team with a Jewish mascot and when their team rallied, the fans all had a chant where they pretended to count money. Now it makes sense.