Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Otto von Ballpark

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    20,662

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    74

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Otto von Ballpark

  1. Otto von Ballpark
    5-4, actually. The Cardinals were 3-4 in Lynn's postseason starts, the Rays were 2-0 behind Cobb. Although none of that is recent: Lynn's last postseason start was 2014, and Cobb's was 2013 (and his K/9 has fallen by 2 since then).
  2. Otto von Ballpark
    Almost -- the player would also have to clear waivers first, to remove the Rule 5 restrictions.
  3. Otto von Ballpark
    I feel like you and others in the "don't sign Darvish" camp are letting the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good". Do we wish Darvish was a few years younger, or was coming off a Cy Young season? Sure. But then he wouldn't be available, certainly not for 5/125 and zero prospect cost. And it's just not realistic to expect that the Twins group of SP prospects will produce a Darvish level performer within the next 2 years, at least, just because of their inexperience. So what's your alternative? Do nothing? Sign a lesser player (who might still cost $60-75 mil) and hope to get lucky? Keep in mind Cobb and Lynn are essentially the same age as Darvish, and while each has been effective in the past, starting at 6.5-7.5 K/9 doesn't give them as much room to fall and remain effective as they age compared to Darvish at 10 K/9. There are rarely if ever perfect players or deals in baseball. If you want a good team, you're going to have to make some good (but not perfect) deals for some good (but not perfect) players.
  4. Otto von Ballpark
    Keep in mind that Darvish turned in excellent starts for the Dodgers in both the NLDS and NLCS. And the Dodgers offense only scored a combined 4 runs in his two WS starts. And this was the first full season back from TJ for Darvish, as well as for Lynn and Cobb. Who's to say they all wouldn't have faded similarly if asked to pitch into November!
  5. Otto von Ballpark
    True, but for the purposes of comparing Darvish to these pitchers, K/9 is a decent approximation, and it is more readily available.
  6. Otto von Ballpark
    I assume you mean "how many times does he pitch 9 innings" (since the 9 in K/9 stands for the innings). Workhorse Ervin averaged 6.4 IP per start last year. Darvish averaged 6.1 (and was at 6.2 before he was traded to the NL). Archer was 5.9. Arrieta and Lynn was 5.6 (again in the NL), Cobb was 6.2. For their careers, Ervin is at 6.3, Darvish 6.4, Archer 6.0, Arrieta 6.0, Lynn 5.9, Cobb 6.1. What SP acquisition would target right now, and why?
  7. Otto von Ballpark
    I don't think that's quite the best way to phrase it -- that group of SP prospects may not all wash out. But the important consideration for the Twins right now is that the odds of that group producing even one top-of-the-rotation contributor in 2018 are incredibly low. And those odds aren't much higher for 2019 at this point either, given their collective inexperience at present (not just in MLB, but even AAA). The Twins have very little hope of augmenting Ervin and Berrios near the top of the rotation for 2018-2019 without venturing into FA or trades.
  8. Otto von Ballpark
    Minor point, if we're already at $110 mil with Gibson, but shouldn't that be $135 mil or $125 mil with one of these FA starters, respectively? I don't see any of them going for less than $15 mil annually, and Darvish will probably be closer to $25 mil. To the extent they have to "take less" because of market conditions, I think it will be years rather than AAV, no?
  9. Otto von Ballpark
    None of those prospects listed are projected to make the opening day roster. In fact, 3 of them have yet to even throw a pitch at AAA, and the two that have appeared in AAA have a combined 8 appearances at that level, both with ERA's over 5. 2018 is likely just about getting their feet wet in AAA/MLB, like Meyer and May in 2014. You're not likely to gain a lot of information or confidence in their future ability to be top-of-the-rotation arms until 2019 at the earliest. Wouldn't it make sense to target a top starter now, to pair with Ervin while these prospects continue to advance, with an eye toward this new starter replacing Ervin as the staff vet after 2019? If not now, then when? It would be different if we had multiple Berrios types right now, well-regarded guys who have already made significant strides in MLB and should hold down a spot if not break out. But we don't -- we only have 1. We could use reinforcements, now, and it doesn't appear we gain anything by waiting a year or two.
  10. Otto von Ballpark
    Furthermore, I'd want to see more than a 1 year split for a player. Otherwise, comparing his stats in pitch 1-50 versus 51-100 in one season is subject to similar random variation as single-season home/road or platoon splits. I don't know where to find the wOBA pitch count splits, but just looking at opponent OPS, Darvish was actually better in 2017 from pitches 76-100 than 51-75, and in 2016, he was pretty effective all the way through 75 pitches, and in 2013-2014 he was arguably worst from pitches 1-25, etc. When you break samples up in this fashion, you're going to get a lot of results that can't be explained by any neat theory (other than random variation). Now, if the Twins have some knowledge of his mechanics or pitch movement/velocity consistently breaking down after X number of pitches, or remaining notably different after surgery, that would be worthy of concern. But we don't know that, and the samples are so small that these surface stats aren't even any kind of reliable indicator of that. The fact that they've publicly stated they are "in" on him, with his market widely considered to be in the ~$120 mil range, tells me that they probably don't have many specific concerns which would rise to a "red flag" level. At that point, it's him versus Archer versus Arrieta/Lynn/Cobb and just getting one done.
  11. Otto von Ballpark
    MLBTR has reported zero Greinke information for the last month: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/zack-greinke/ I really doubt they are that desperate to move him. In fact, if/when Darvish signs for a comparable amount, Greinke's remaining contract will hardly seem "over value" anymore.
  12. Otto von Ballpark
    It is a cute theory, but that's about it. Why would Arizona eat $30 mil to get rid of Greinke's remaining 4/130, just to sign a bad defensive corner OF for 5/125 or more? That's not saving money at all, and arguably a talent downgrade. I understand that they have explored some options with Greinke, but I would shocked if they found this proposed deal acceptable.
  13. Otto von Ballpark
    With deferred money, the present-day value of Greinke's contract was considered 6 years, $194 mil. Of that, 4 years and roughly $130 mil remain. If Darvish is getting a similar deal on the FA market, I don't see why Arizona would be eating cash and taking back less than elite prospects to move Greinke. Greinke is a few years older, but with only 4 years left on the deal and coming off a 6.3 bWAR season, that helps mitigate the risk quite a bit. FWIW, Greinke has a limited no-trade which includes 15 clubs. Even if that list doesn't include the Twins, it significantly depresses his value on the trade market and thus increases the value of Arizona simply keeping him.
  14. Otto von Ballpark
    No.
  15. Otto von Ballpark
    Greinke was worth 6.3 bWAR in 2017. Arizona will not be selling him for less (in terms of talent + assumed salary) than a Darvish FA contract.
  16. Otto von Ballpark
    Here are Darvish's IP ranks for his final 5 seasons in Japan: 5, 3, 16, 5, 1 Also, there are some extenuating circumstances from his MLB career. The Rangers skipped him three times in 2012, probably with an eye toward keeping him strong through his MLB debut season and postseason (it's a longer season than Japan, correct?). He finished that year with 191 IP plus 6 more in the wild card game, then threw 209 the following season. And while elbow injury / TJ surgery is always worthy of concern, it was largely a fluke of timing (or even a team consideration, delaying the surgery?) that it wound up affecting 3 seasons (2014-2016), despite a normal recovery period. Presumably the signing team will take out some insurance on the contract in case of catastrophic injury. The Rangers skipped him again in 2017 as they were out of the race and preparing to trade him, and the Dodgers were so far ahead when they acquired him they were able to skip him too with an eye toward the postseason. (He did ultimately top 200 innings in 2017, combined regular season and postseason.) I don't see much to suggest that his past IP totals should be of particular concern.
  17. Otto von Ballpark
    A large part of Lynn's "consistency" is just the fortuitous timing of his surgery. Lynn pitched the full 2015 season, then had TJ surgery in Nov. 2015 and was back in MLB for the full 2017 season. Overall, he was out of MLB for ~16 months, but he was lucky that it only spanned 1 season and 2 offseasons. Darvish was shut down with elbow inflammation in 2014, but didn't undergo TJ surgey until March 2015. (His team likely postponing surgery as much as possible because he was a bigger investment than Lynn or Cobb?) Darvish was back in MLB ~15 months after surgery, basically the same as Lynn, but spanning two seasons and only 1 offseason. He has not missed significant time otherwise. Cobb has missed a bit more time in his career, but the timing of his surgery was the worst of this group -- May 2015, after it was presumably detected in spring training that year. Cobb returned to MLB ~15 months later too, but due to the timing, it looks like 2 full seasons were wiped out. Also, I'm not sure why you'd say Lynn is most consistent in strikeouts, unless you are only looking at raw totals -- which is basically double-counting his surgery timing advantage above. Otherwise, his 2017 K/9 or K% is actually a lower percentage of his peak starter K rate (2012) than doing the same comparison for Darvish. This despite Darvish's peak K rate being so much higher.
  18. Otto von Ballpark
    This is correct, Gibson still has an option year remaining, and is still 133 service days short of the 5 year service time threshold where he could refuse a minor league option. So we should have free rein to option him as late as August 10th or so. Of course, if Gibson performs poorly enough to require optioning again, he could potentially clear waivers and be outrighted given his likely ~$5 mil salary (and he can't refuse the first outright assignment short of 5 years service either). That would not only get him to AAA, it would also reclaim his 40-man roster spot -- basically what we did with Milone and his $4.5 mil salary back in 2016 (although Milone was indeed out of options).
  19. Otto von Ballpark
    Sure, like any business would do. I wouldn't call the current state of affairs "alarming" as you did, but to each his own. I'll drop this aside.
  20. Otto von Ballpark
    "Baseball is dying" predictions are about as old as the sport itself. I am sure the sport and business will continue evolving like everything does, but no, I don't believe it is in any kind of "sky is falling" mode as you have described.
  21. Otto von Ballpark
    I highly doubt that it would be treated like a shot clock or play clock. It has no effect on the viewer, it is just an impartial reminder to the players about following the rulebook-defined pace. I'd wager that within a month or two, it wouldn't even have any effect on the players, they would already be trained to follow that pace again, just as they have done for the rest of their baseball careers (high school, college, minors). There is no purely "natural" solution to this problem. You can't do any umpire-based solutions -- umpires will fail to enforce them effectively, just like the pace-of-game initiatives from a couple years ago, and just like umpires already liberally allow time to be called, just because they want to avoid conflict. And I don't necessarily blame them. But that means you need something external and objective that they will follow just like the players, hence the clock. Just installing an external, objective clock to remind players of the already defined rulebook pace is the most "natural", effective solution you will find. It doesn't really add or change any rules. Do you know there's already a between-innings clock in MLB? At least, I have seen it at Target Field. Doesn't really have much effect, because between innings time isn't the root problem, but it just exists in the ballpark, the umpires and players follow it, and the fans ignore it. There's also a pitch clock in the minors that is treated similarly.
  22. Otto von Ballpark
    Actually, the pitch clock might be the least intrusive / most "natural" way to do it. No changes in rules or definitions, no subjective rulings to argue or be ignored, just a mostly invisible, objective clock to train players to keep their routines within the rulebook definitions (what is that, 12 seconds with bases empty? 20 seconds with runners on?). I don't think anyone has much noticed the pitch clock already in effect at minor league games.
  23. Otto von Ballpark
    Wasn't that just among people that listed baseball as the "favorite" sport? Which doesn't really matter, if millions of younger, non-white people are making the trek to the ballpark every year as a social thing, or out of interest for their second or third favorite sport (something they wouldn't have done, or couldn't afford to do, just a couple generations ago, when baseball was the primary "favorite" of a larger share of people). I'm still not really convinced baseball is taking the matter all that seriously yet. Could be posturing or a bargaining chip with players; could be for show like the toothless initiative from a couple years ago. The length of game and pace of play stuff has just gotten kind of ridiculous, particularly in the postseason, with enough publicity that MLB has had to address it somehow.
  24. Otto von Ballpark
    More on this -- on average, there are only about two mid-inning pitching change per game these days (1 per team), virtually no change since about 1990 or so. Even back in the 1970's, it was regularly topping 1.6 per game (0.8 per team). http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/tangotiger_blog_are_there_more_mid-inning_relief_changes_these_days Nothing that would remotely explain the explosion in average time of game.
  25. Otto von Ballpark
    Here is some evidence to the contrary: https://www.sbnation.com/a/mlb-2017-season-preview/game-length They compared video of very similar games from 1984 and 2014. The conclusion:
×
×
  • Create New...