Otto von Ballpark

I'm confused. I didn't try to justify any point by the 25% figure. I already made my point, clearly and repeatedly, before that. I leaned toward going for it, knowing everything we know including the 8% (and 1.6% and 12.5% ). Someone else posited that our odds might still be 5-6% after the trades, which I disagreed with. I also pointed out that a $2 pay cut is a bigger deal to someone making $8 an hour, as compared to someone making $50 an hour. You can ignore that statement if you like, as it has nothing to do with my point at all. I think the call was close. If we were a couple games closer, or a couple games further back, I think it would have been much clearer. That's kind of the definition of gray area where multiple reasonable opinions can exist. I don't necessarily fault the front office for making this call, although I am a little disappointed as a fan, that's all. Since you are still participating here, though, I am still curious if you are willing to answer the questions I asked you repeatedly upthread: "what odds do you put on your scenario (these 5 prospects contributing significantly to a future "great season" where we are postseason favorites)? And what are the underlying numbers you would use to arrive at that figure?"

I am not trying to ignore it. I try to reference it where possible. I didn't reference any numbers at all in the post you quoted there. You can split the difference between 1.6% and 8.4% and 12.%, and I don't think it changes my point. The average of those 3 is 7.5% and it has been trending up since Polanco's return, I am more than happy to use that as the prevailing figure if you'd like.

I admit, 8-12% isn't high. (8.4% Fangraphs season to date projection mode, 12.5% Fangraphs coin flip mode -- obviously if you fully buy the 1.6% figure that's a different story, but I don't even know if Fangraphs buys that fully) But what chances do you put on these four or five additional 40 FV prospects contributing meaningfully to a better Twins team down the line? I'm open to being shown otherwise, but I don't think it's going to clear 8-12% by all that much. Then doesn't that really reduce this to a matter of preference and gut feeling?

It's the general concept of a person with less, having more to lose than an "equal" sacrifice by someone with more. I don't know if that's controversial. I already know the odds were 8%-12%, with a lot riding on our head-to-head games with Cleveland, and I kinda wanted to take our best shot at it with our current team. It doesn't really comfort me to say "hey, our odds only dropped by X%" -- that's no longer taking the best shot with our current team. I know you and others disagree, and that's fine, but I think it's a valid opinion and I'm not trying to misrepresent any numbers or impacts.

I see you are still active in thread, just curious if you any plans to address this post of mine? http://twinsdaily.com/topic/30781-article-dear-twins-dont-sell/?p=777956 "what odds do you put on your scenario (these 5 prospects contributing significantly to a future "great season" where we are postseason favorites)? And what are the underlying numbers you would use to arrive at that figure?"

I think you might be overrating how much these prospects will buy. Likely not Realmuto or anything on that level. Maybe on the level of Odorizzi, Garcia, or obviously guys like Escobar or Pressly. Then again, we already have a deep system of 40 FV prospects, so we could probably have made those moves if they presented themselves even without these 5 additional prospects. Gives us a little better depth to manage it, certainly, but the tangible benefit of that level of is pretty low. There are diminishing returns to stockpiling that level of prospect.

But that isn't apples to apples. What if they turn into a good player on a team like the 2018 Twins, or worse? The odds of them contributing meaningfully to a team better than the 2018 Twins are probably pretty comparable to some estimates of our 2018 chances. Nothing against the prospects -- I like them, they are fair returns -- it's just really hard to predict the future.

Thanks for noticing! There are a few ways to look at it for sure. The Rays have sold (mainly Eovaldi, also a minor move in Venters), and they had comparable "season to date" projection odds as the Twins. But, they had far worse "coin flip" odds, meaning they really had very little control over their own destiny. (I mean, every team needs luck to complete a comeback, but low "coin flip" odds suggests even more luck is necessary.) But otherwise, the teams in comparable "season to date" projection mode odds, or "coin flip" mode odds, have resisted selling so far -- Cardinals (who made some moves but didn't really sell), Pirates, Giants. The Blue Jays and Mets sold, but they had 0.1% odds by pretty much every measure. The Angels did a "soft sell" with a rental catcher, but they had at best 4.4% odds by season to date mode, and like the Rays needed a lot of luck with 1.4% coin flip odds. (See my post above if you have questions about the different projection modes.)

Maybe if we were big buyers, sure. Another Ramos for Capps would absolutely draw the spotlight of the ownership, or even another Delmon Young / aggressive challenge type trade. I was thinking more minor moves (like Smith did in 2009) or standing pat (like Smith did at the deadline in 2008). There would have been little or no risk to the front office's job standing in that.

Hey now, the context of the post was postseason odds. If you want to move the discussion to pennant odds, fine, but please don't imply again that I am somehow being disingenuous in my posts.

I absolutely agree the front office made an honest assessment. But I still think I can reasonably disagree. I don't think the front office was in too much danger in this instance. I mean, I don't think the assistants/scouts have much sway in the decision -- it's pretty much Falvey's and Levine's decision to make and own. And the Pohlads probably don't care too much either way, relative to the good will Falvey and Levine have bought so far (with 2017, and saving a few bucks on Hughes).

You are wrong. No worries, though, I have referenced a couple different figures. 8.4% odds was Fangraphs projections, weighted a bit more to "season to date stats" (what Fangraphs calls them, hence why I try to include that phrase when referencing them too). I think their "normal" projection uses preseason projections pretty heavily, which isn't necessarily bad, but it can obscure some new info and keep some old biases, so I try not to rely exclusively on that: https://www.fangraphs.com/standings/playoff-odds/season-to-date/div?date=2018-07-26 "Coin flip" mode odds were actually 12.5%, and I also tried to include that phrase in those references. I cited that previously just as one illustration of how much we still control our destiny, comparable to San Fran, St. Louis, and Pittsburgh -- our record is worse, but we've only got one team to target and a lot of head-to-head games left: https://www.fangraphs.com/standings/playoff-odds/coin-flip/div?date=2018-07-26 (Also, FYI, when you select a date on Fangraphs playoff odds page, it includes the results of games played that date. So to judge pre-Escobar trade, you'd want to select "7-26-2018" since the trade happened before the 7-27 game. Probably pre-Pressly trade too, since he apparently became unavailable during that night's game. Not that I'm putting a ton of stock in one day's difference or anything, just a best practice.)

I totally get that. I would have liked to see some more changes earlier, even if just internal ones. We could have definitely auditioned new pitchers in the Belisle role -- maybe a starter coming up from the minors in a relief role? Maybe a bargain external buy -- Washington got Herrera pretty cheap last month. Venters and Brach were pretty cheap too. Asdrubal Cabrera at DH, maybe? I wasn't necessarily opposed to a "soft sell" either -- Rodney, like Kintzler before him? Lynn, like Garcia? Especially paired with a interesting minor league promotion. I liked getting Polanco and Erv back, calling up Cave, but yeah, I could see a desire for more, if we weren't going to sell.

There were also more teams between us and that goal last year. At the 2017 deadline, Fangraphs "season to date" projection mode gave us 7.3% chance of making the postseason. This season, at the time of the Escobar/Pressly trades, that figure was 8.4%. There is definitely some room for nuanced opinions around that, so please don't quote just a snippet of my post again and say I am being disingenuous or that I am claiming these numbers are "super meaningful". Please consider the context of my complete posts! Just saying there is room for two sides in this matter.

No, just that if we're going to go for that 8% or whatever, or even try to improve on it, trying to leverage Pressly might have been our best bet. His presence made me feel better about that 8% than, say, if Casey Fien was in his spot providing that performance. I too was surprised by that BP article, it's an interesting piece if you haven't seen it: https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/41401/rubbing-mud-cant-help-falling-in-love-with-ryan-pressly/ (Interestingly, I too cited Pressly's shutdowns/meltdowns in a recent TD thread about Pressly's trade value. The Astros were apparently intrigued enough beyond that, though?)

Just saying that 2%, relative to 8%, is more significant than the same 2% relative to, say, 50%. I thought that was clear. No intent to be disingenuous at all, I thought I was pretty clear about my position in the rest of my post.

But in MLB, even historically bad teams can win 30% of the time. Baltimore is 5-5 versus the Yankees this season, KC has beaten them twice too in 7 tries. (Heck, the Twins are 6-3 versus Cleveland so far ) Going 9-2 in any MLB stretch, even with 7 games against those two squads, isn't something to dismiss entirely. Not that I am basing my opinion on that stretch alone, or just the Toronto series, or just the Gibson gem vs Boston. They had a rotten few months, absolutely. But perhaps getting Polanco back helped? Garver getting comfortable, maybe Cave too. The return of Erv. And I'm not totally sold on Cleveland either, they still have some weak spots -- their lineup is pretty top-heavy, they are still missing Miller, a guy named Bieber is starting tonight.

How much? And how much does that affect a future contending Twins season? I understand it's hard to put numbers on that, but honestly, when you look at prospect odds and the uncertainty inherent in long-term projections in general, I think it's actually pretty comparable to our odds of catching Cleveland in 2018. (And if the market is working like it should, then they should be pretty close, no?) That's not to say, my way (play it out) is right and your way (sell) is wrong. But neither is the reverse true. It's just different preferences at this particular juncture. Heck, I'm not even that stridently on the "play it out" side -- I'm much closer to a fence straddler that was simply leaning that way on that particular day. Had we sold after the Cubs series, or the Milwaukee series, or the KC sweep, I probably would have been leaning in your direction.

I'm not trying to present it like it's "super meaningful" but it's one of the few reference points we have. I think one can absolutely disagree about its meaning. What I object to, is that a few folks on the "sell" side are disagreeing quite specifically and stridently with me that the number could have any meaning whatsoever, or that an unspecified future odds number is now much greater due to our course of action. I think both sides can be logical here -- I just happen to be on one side, and you are on the other. No harm in that. Although a 2% drop, on 8% odds to begin with, is a 25% drop relative to where we were before. (And frankly, I'd also disagree with that limited drop in the odds. Sano doesn't look ready to take anyone's place right now, much less Escobar's, and Prospectus just compared Pressly favorably to Chapman, Hader, and Diaz -- the downgrade for the next 2 months to Moya, a guy who apparently couldn't beat out Belisle for mop-up duty all summer, is perhaps not captured well by the projections. For a team in a position where we need every marginal win we can get to actually pull off the upset, this was more than a 2% drop. It was a bigger sell-off than Kintzler and Garcia, for sure.)

4 of the 5 prospects we acquired were rated by Fangraphs preseason at 40 FV, and the other was not rated. We already had 30 prospects rated at 40 FV or better, before the latest draft. Fangraphs had this to say before the season: "The Twins have a deep system with promising players at all levels, featuring a variety of profiles and pedigrees. They’re positioned well, with a competitive, mostly young big-league team and a farm system that has at least one solid contributor emerging each year to fill holes." How much did that really change with these 2 trades?

Walker had 51 walks in 560 PA at AA in 2015. That is 9.1%. Again, as I thought I made clear in the rest of my post, I am NOT comparing Walker and Rooker as players at all. Do you have any response to the other names I listed in my post? Do you have any good comps for Brent Rooker, in terms of age and K rate at AA?

They didn't have a whole lot of good assets in 2011. We got 2012 picks #32 (Berrios) and #42 (Bard) for losing Cuddyer and Kubel, respectively -- that seems pretty good, actually. 2014, I guess we had Perkins, but by that time he had been eclipsed by Andrew Miller. Maybe we could have gotten a Soria-like return for him? Soria netted Jake Thompson and Corey Knebel that deadline. But even then, Knebel's only had one really good year (although it was really, really good), and Thompson has kind of busted so far.

Do you have any numbers on those odds? Not trying to be snarky, this is an honest question. Because you have employed a lot of qualifiers to diminish the Twins chances for 2018 that have raised the bar for your future expectations, to the point where it's not so clear those odds are all that different. For example, viewing the goal as building a great team that could be a favorite to win the World Series once the postseason begins -- that sounds good, but how often does that happen? I don't know if it's ever happened for the Twins in the wild card era. I guess in 2006 we had the top seed, but after losing basically every SP not named Johan and using Jason Tyner as a playoff DH, we probably weren't the favorite. So what are the odds for us to have such a "great season", 1 in 10 if you are charitable? 1 in 20? Arguably no better or worse than Fangraphs "season to date stats" projection mode (not "coin flip" )gave us for winning the division as of the Escobar trade (8.4%): https://www.fangraphs.com/standings/playoff-odds/season-to-date/div?date=2018-07-26 Maybe the Twins new front office is trying to change that, forgoing some regular division contention for aiming to build that "great team" of the future, but given the revenue/payroll figures you often cite, it's very debatable if that is a wise strategy in this market. Then on top of that, you are adding an additional qualifier that the specific 5 mid-tier, low-minors prospects we just acquired will contribute significantly to that 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 "great season". I don't think it's a controversial statement to say that prospects, especially that level and quantity, are hardly predictable with that any level of precision. Even if you forecast them to collectively give you more future WAR than Escobar and Pressly, you really can't say with much certainty when or how it will happen -- it might come in seasons like 2018 again, or worse. It might come in increments of 1 WAR per season, which are not uncommon augmentations for any team in any given season -- you don't necessarily need to sell in our current position to secure those kind of assets. So that's why I am asking you for something more concrete about your odds. Otherwise, all we have is platitudes about your gut feeling -- which isn't necessarily bad, we are just fans on a message board after all -- but the certainty with which you are dismissing my dissenting opinion suggests something greater than that. I've shown you 8.4% odds for the Twins winning the division, what odds do you put on your scenario (these 5 prospects contributing significantly to a future "great season" where we are postseason favorites)? And what are the underlying numbers you would use to arrive at that figure?

Maybe I still wasn't clear, there was no metaphor. "Coin flip" is name of the odds mode that Fangraphs tracks: https://www.fangraphs.com/standings/playoff-odds/coin-flip/div?date=2018-07-26 Those odds are kind of a shorthand for how much destiny control a team has. So despite have a slightly worse record, the Twins as of last week had about as much destiny control as a variety of other teams who still consider themselves in the race, thanks to having only Cleveland to worry about (and ample head-to-head opportunities remaining).

"Millenial fans I reference"? Where? Or is this just a way to be demeaning?