Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Otto von Ballpark

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    20,669

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    74

 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 Otto von Ballpark

  1. Otto von Ballpark
    I think he means, guarantee X% of revenue to players. If total salaries fall short of that percentage, the league sends the union a check for the difference, and they divide it among the players.
  2. Otto von Ballpark
    And like Marte was, Polanco is still a year away from arbitration. Seems like he would have more incentive to negotiate than some others. (Berrios is also still a year away from arb.)
  3. Otto von Ballpark
    Could just mean they're just not that far along yet in trade talks. Or they know Realmuto won't sign an extension, so it would be pointless to agree to a trade contingent on an extension.
  4. Otto von Ballpark
    Yeah, I'd like to aim higher than either Perez or Pomeranz. But there are definitely reasons to prefer Pomeranz -- better peripherals, more extensive experience out of the pen. Also cheaper / easier to cut.
  5. Otto von Ballpark
    And Perez has actually been decent for most of that time. Career 97 ERA+, even after his awful 2018. 198 and 185 innings pitched in 2016 and 2017, respectively (with 104 and 100 ERA+ marks too). I don't necessarily like the signing, but mainly because I wanted an addition at the top of the rotation or pen. But Perez has had a good career, and stands a good chance of slotting in the middle of our rotation or pen, or at least as a quality 5th guy.
  6. Otto von Ballpark
    To that I'd say: how much are the proponents of WAR actually trying to frame their muffins as "healthy" -- versus how much are skeptics simply seeing that as an excuse to pick it apart? In this very thread, we've seen someone dismiss WAR because "there's no way Billy Hamilton can be equal to Mike Trout" -- nevermind that WAR doesn't say that, and no one said it. And other sentiments that suggest Daniel Palka might be unfairly underrated by WAR -- when his entire profile (traditional stats and scouting) seems to match his 2018 WAR exactly, as a one-dimensional, fringe MLB regular. I am not trying to pick on anyone, or be combative -- I genuinely enjoy discussions on this site, I wouldn't be typing these long screeds if I didn't. And I think that WAR is a tool that can add depth to those discussions. So I really want to know if and when people perceive that WAR is being used inappropriately, so I can understand their concerns and try to improve my usage of WAR or even just my explanations and interpretations. Perhaps this thread has run its course to that end, but I hope you keep this in mind in future discussions.
  7. Otto von Ballpark
    That's not quite what it says. True, a run is a run is a run on the scoreboard -- but over the long run, it's worth more to a *team* to score or prevent runs at positions where the talent to do so is more scarce. That is what WAR is estimating, to complement what we know from the daily scoreboard. The defensive spectrum has been known in some form or other since the game began. The skill of playing as an average defensive CF, SS, or especially catcher is much more rare than the skill of playing as an average defensive 1B (or god forbid, DH!). And with that rarer defensive skill, it also means that, on average, it is slightly harder to find an average MLB bat at those positions too. Historical data bears this out. So a team isn't capturing as much value from Ernie Banks at 1B as compared to SS, or Joe Mauer at 1B compared to C. WAR is reflecting that. And baseball teams are bunched close enough together in talent that I guarantee front offices wouldn't shrug it off as "a run is a run is a run" if they can help it -- they are going to want to reallocate those resources to improve their team relative to their competition. WAR isn't necessarily an absolute measure of a player's performance. It often can be used that way, because teams generally don't play guys out of position too much or for too long -- but it's important to keep in mind that it is really a measure of a player's value within a team, or their value as deployed by a team. I'll gladly include an asterisk if I have reason to discuss Darin Erstad's WAR at 1B, but that doesn't mean WAR is good for absolutely nothing (say it again).
  8. Otto von Ballpark
    I discussed this upthread. What exactly is the problem that you see? The positional adjustment isn't perfect (again, an impossible standard), but how teams deploy resources across the 9 positions affects the value they receive from those resources. WAR and its related discussions are better off incorporating a calculated estimate of that value rather than ignoring it, or relying solely on an "eye test" to do it.
  9. Otto von Ballpark
    I think context matters. An MVP discussion isn't that important to require all sorts of caveats about using WAR. It's a simple fan ranking, the digital version of bleacher discussions since the game began. WAR has just finally allowed those discussions to gain a little complexity and nuance beyond the previously irrefutable "he looks good" or "he doesn't look good enough". I think using WAR in that context is perfectly appropriate, even if WAR isn't perfect (an impossible standard anyway). In the context of recommending or judging transactions, usually a little more nuance is called for, and most often it is provided. Those discussions often use projections, which by definition smooth out some of the rough edges of WAR measurement. Like the Realmuto discussion here the other day -- we were in talking in terms of WAR, but no one was simply taking Realmuto's 2018 WAR as gospel or anything. It was just one data point feeding his 2019 projection, which in turn was balanced by other factors and even presented as a range of possibilities rather than anything certain. And again -- this is a tool for the fan's toolbox. We knew the front office isn't pouring over Realmuto's WAR totals -- there are a million other factors which they are looking at. But those factors are often either off-limits or indecipherable to fans, so we simply use the tools we can -- WAR, projections, comps -- to guide our discussions, often as a "sanity check". Some posters really want Realmuto, but wonder if the prospect cost is too steep, or they wonder if a SP might be a better investment, and they can use WAR and projections to get an idea of parameters to discuss those questions in a way that fans never could before. Also, FWIW, it seems to me that Fangraphs isn't shy about noting when defense makes up an abnormally large part of someone's WAR. Maybe not in every list or ranking, but when they specifically discuss Buxton's 2017, or Kiermaier, or even Bryce Harper's 2018, the defensive component of WAR is usually highlighted. Sometimes they stand by their measurement, sometimes not -- but noting it at least allows the reader to factor that into their own opinion.
  10. Otto von Ballpark
    How does the positional adjustment "considerably weaken" cross-positional comparisons with WAR? Cross-positional comparison using WAR is impossible without the positional adjustment.
  11. Otto von Ballpark
    FWIW, the Rays signed Chris Archer to a 6 year deal, plus 2 team options, after just 23 turns through the MLB rotation. Johan took the last 17 consecutive turns in the Twins rotation in 2003, including the postseason, plus had 17 additional starts over 2002-2003. The Rays also signed Matt Moore to a 5 year deal, plus 3 team options, after he had just 1 MLB start.
  12. Otto von Ballpark
    I don't think that is an accurate characterization of driv's post. He said would be interested in a Gibson extension, but not "if the price [to extend] is basically the same as what it would be in free agency". In that case, you may even "replace" Gibson with Gibson next winter -- just no point in locking into it now if there is no discount.
  13. Otto von Ballpark
    FWIW, Marte was still a year away from arbitration when he signed that deal. (And likewise a year further from FA.) Marte was looking at a roughly league minimum $578k when he signed. Kepler is already guaranteed $3.125 mil this year.
  14. Otto von Ballpark
    I never said or implied otherwise. As promised before, I will bow out of this tangent with you now.
  15. Otto von Ballpark
    Vast majority? I don't know. Most of the WAR use around here seems pretty responsible. And at Fangraphs, or MLBTR. Are there still fanatics who insist with absolute certainty that a 3.5 WAR player definitively had a better season than a guy with 3.1? Probably, but I don't really encounter them much anymore. It seems much less than the strident stats vs. scouts days of early sabermetrics. If not, it could just be that it's spread to a larger audience of fans (and announcers!), who will misuse anything they can get their hands on, be it WAR, batting average, etc. Most seem to at least imply that it is an estimate -- 3.5 WAR suggests a player had a better season than 3.1. And context matters too -- if the context is an award or a ranking, maybe it's sufficient to rank the 3.5 guy ahead of the 3.1 guy without further caveats. But if the context is player acquisition, most would admit that difference is less conclusive or meaningful.
  16. Otto von Ballpark
    That hypothetical does not illustrate a problem with WAR. WAR is estimating a player's value to a team. After the first couple Buxtons (heck, after the first one, presuming his current bat wouldn't play in a corner), the other Buxtons would be of decreasing value to their team. True, any of the 9 Buxtons could theoretically play CF and capture the highest WAR value -- it seems arbitrary to give it to just one. But that's not what WAR is trying to estimate either. WAR isn't (and can't) give theoretical credit to a player for something his team doesn't ask him to do. It can't credit a pitcher for value they could create as a starter when his team only uses him in relief; it can't credit a prospect for what they could contribute in MLB when his team keeps him in AAA. Does the positional adjustment (Rpos) feel a little theoretical and arbitrary? Perhaps. It's debiting Palka for something didn't exactly happen on the field. But keep in mind, WAR is measuring a player's value to a team, not in isolation. And we know each team is subject to the defensive spectrum -- it's harder defensively to be (or find) an average CF than an average 1B. If a team chooses to use an average CF at 1B, there is actual value they are leaving on the table -- and I think it would more arbitrary to ignore it rather than at least try to estimate it.
  17. Otto von Ballpark
    Did you read the link I posted from B-Ref? I think you are expecting a precision from WAR which isn't intended. It's an estimate of value. No one who is using WAR properly will claim that a random CF at 3 WAR is definitively more valuable than Kepler in RF at 2 WAR, for the reasons you mention and also simply the general concept of errors in our measurements. (Even if they play the same positions, rendering Rpos equal, most take WAR numbers with a plus/minus 0.5 margin of error, perhaps more depending on the defensive component.) If WAR didn't exist, I think most would estimate Palka's overall value exactly the same -- better than replacement, but below average. MLB team behavior seems to confirm this -- teams don't consider 27 dingers alone as all that important or valuable. This isn't a new WAR thing. Tony Batista was losing jobs with that profile before most knew that WAR existed.
  18. Otto von Ballpark
    No way in the world? Pillar, Hamilton, and Bourjos have all been considered MLB contributors of value recently, with careers OBPs less than .300. Lagares too at exactly .300, and Leonys Martin at .303. Buxton's .285 is lower than these guys, but not by much -- it's not as if there is a bright dividing line at .290 or something. (And historically, keep in mind that leaguewide OBP is down 15 points from just 10 years ago, OPS is down 50 points from 20 years ago, and strikeout rates are way up too, which might explain the lack of unadjusted comps from the 1990s and 2000s.) Obviously this isn't MVP or even all-star level -- it's much closer to average. And value based on speed and defense is less sustainable long-term, due to injuries and age -- very few guys (generally infielders?) can make a 10+ year career out of doing this. And expectations were undoubtedly higher for Buxton than these others guys. (And Buxton's performance has been variable enough to question whether he could actually sustain his overall career OPS.) But my specific point, that a player can contribute overall value in MLB with Buxton's career batting line, is true. This was considered true long before the advent of WAR and defensive metrics too. (Ironically, the early proponents of WAR probably would have agreed with you, that measurable offense trumps any possibe defensive value.) Edit to add: I think we are in agreement when you say "I am willing to put up with him around his fictional 162 game average.Then again, if he does that I try look for another option in CF for 2020.Honestly." Nobody ever looked to commit to Hamilton or Bourjos long-term, and I wouldn't do so for Buxton if that is the type of player he proved to be. But he still could provide us some value in the short term.
  19. Otto von Ballpark
    Isn't WPA highly context-dependent? Similar to RBI? Sounds like Palka hit a few more dingers in closer games. I don't think anyone considers that a repeatable skill. Palka posted a respectable 111 OPS+ as a rookie, but his peripherals were pretty bad (6% BB%, 34% K%) and they weren't much better in the minors. And he's already 27 years old now, with zero or negative defensive and baserunning value. Barring any shocking development going forward, I really don't see how the Twins could regret losing him -- similar or better players are available as nontenders or bargain FA every year.
  20. Otto von Ballpark
    It's a medicinal leech. The player's union apparently prohibits the team doctors from trying bloodletting on him.
  21. Otto von Ballpark
    Check out the section "Rpos, Positional Adjustment Runs" at the following link: https://www.baseball-reference.com/about/war_explained_position.shtml It is worth quantifying, and this is probably the best way. It's not going to apply perfectly and evenly to every player -- Kepler might be an example of that. Maybe he is capable of playing a league average CF, but isn't given the opportunity? In that case, though, the player is usually able to record above-average defensive performance in the corner outfield, which offsets some of the negative Rpos credit. And teams are incentivized to correct these situations too -- the Twins are likely wasting resources by keeping an average CF in a corner spot long-term. So if this is really the case, the Twins will try to find a way to get him opportunities in CF, either in Minnesota or elsewhere as a trade asset. But Palka is a really odd case on which to raise this question! By all accounts, he's a bad corner OF, so much so that he was often banished to DH. He's also a bad hitter aside from the dingers, sometimes even finding himself on the bench on one of the league's worst teams. His WAR suggests his performance was above replacement level, but below the level of a competent starter. I'd say it has pegged him pretty well, no? Even the league's behavior seems to conform with this conclusion -- Chris Carter was considered nearly worthless after leading the league in HR, a better hitter in Cron was non-tendered, etc.
  22. Otto von Ballpark
    If Buxton was a consistent .672 OPS hitter, capable of playing a healthy 162 games to make his 162 game average relevant, his present value case would actually be better than it really is. That is all I meant about understatement. Buxton's chief problem is that he is often well below a .672 OPS and/or hurt, moreso than that his career OPS is only .672. Keep in mind, the comment to which you first responded on this thread was "Even if Buxton’s bat struggles again, he continues to provide value through his defense and base running abilities." Quoting Buxton's .672 career OPS in response to that is actually reinforcing the point -- it's only .057 below average for the position, and it's not that hard to see excellent defense/baserunning making up a .057 gap in OPS. And an average player is undoubtedly contributing value as the original poster said, even if we would like it to be more, and even if it's not sustainable long-term as defense/baserunning erodes with age. That is all I was responding to, and that is all I intended to discuss. So I will bow out of this tangent now.
  23. Otto von Ballpark
    But actual defense (Rfield) is calculated relative to position, it is not absolute. So Palka is -11 Rfield compared to other corner outfielders. Hicks is +3 compared to other CF. Rpos is simply an attempt to put them on the same scale. It's even worse than that for Palka -- 40% of his starts were at DH, which has no defensive baseline with which to compare. DH is Palka's primary source of negative Rpos credit, and judging by his -11 Rfield in only 62 starts relative to the average defensive corner outfielder, this DH penalty is absolutely justified for him. You don't even need Rpos to see it. The 1991 Twins intuitively knew that Shane Mack was more valuable than Chili Davis, even more than the difference in batting lines and defense relative to position would suggest.
  24. Otto von Ballpark
    By definition, there won't be many .672 OPS (80 OPS+) regulars. In order to do that, one needs to play a premium defensive position, and one needs to be one of the best defenders in the game at that position. It's going to be fairly uncommon. But Buxton does play a premium position, and there is evidence he is among the best defenders. If Buxton actually had a full season .672 OPS as your first post in this thread alluded to (and called a "black hole"), Buxton would likely contribute just as much value to the Twins as Greg Gagne did, or rookie Knoblauch did. He wouldn't be a star, but he'd easily be an average or above average regular overall. That doesn't mean that Buxton and the Twins shouldn't strive for more than a 80 OPS+, or that there aren't glaring concerns about his game right now. Chiefly, the ~.550 OPS months, which are truly black holes, and health are the obvious ones. If anything, the .672 career OPS, which you introduced to this thread, actually understates the concern about him -- that was what struck me about your post. I'm not making excuses for him, or coddling him, as you so often object.
  25. Otto von Ballpark
    It depends when you do the contract. A 7 year deal for Johan in 2004 could have turned out just fine.
×
×
  • Create New...