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
  2. Otto von Ballpark
    For those wondering, here are the results of our highly scientific pre- and post-debate polls (margin of error 100%):
  3. Otto von Ballpark
    Yes. For arbitration-eligible players on 1-year contracts (even if the contract was signed outside of arbitration, like Cave's): if they are cut more than 15 days prior to opening day, the team only owes them 30 days termination pay ($129k of Cave's $800k contract) if they are cut after that point, but before opening day, it's 45 days termination pay ($194k in this case) if they aren't cut by opening day, the full contract is guaranteed I know it happened to Emilio Bonifacio a few years back, but it's pretty rare to see such a player cut during spring training, despite the potential cost savings for the team. My favorite contract rules resource the Cub Reporter includes this note, which might explain why: NOTE: The Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) is very sensitive about salary arbitration, so if a player is awarded a contract by an arbitration panel and then is subsequently released by his club prior to or during Spring Training, the MLBPA will almost always file a grievance on behalf of the player, claiming the player was released for economic reasons only (which is not permitted), and asking that the released player receive 100% of his salary as termination pay. In that situation, a club would have to show (by submitting official Spring Training game stats) that the released player was out-performed in Spring Training games by another player (or players) competing for that roster spot.
  4. Otto von Ballpark
    With over 3 years service time, Cave could elect free agency if we tried to outright him off the 40-man roster. However, by doing so now, he would forfeit the remainder of his $800k salary. (Players need 5 years service time to simply refuse the assignment, without having to elect free agency or forfeit the contract.)
  5. Otto von Ballpark
    Puckett had some similar poor overall numbers in that span, but as I noted earlier, a positive WPA. In the very first game, ALCS Game 1, Puckett was responsible for the top play by WPA: down 1 in the 8th, he hit a first-pitch double to drive in the tying run from first. That hit also chased the starter, then Puckett later scored the go-ahead run in that rally. Then ALCS Game 4, on the road, Twins down early 1-0 after losing game 3, Puckett hit a solo HR to tie the game at 1 in the 3rd. Then in the 5th inning, ahead by a run, Puckett led off with a single, advancing to third on an error, and scored on a sac fly. Those 2 runs proved to be the margin of victory in our first road win of that postseason. Not quite “we’ll see you tomorrow night” stuff, but Puckett had a hand in taking a 3-1 series lead vs Detroit. (He also added an RBI single to chase the starter in our clinching game 5 road win too, although we were already up 3-0 in the 2nd inning at the time.) Puckett also had hits in the first 4 World Series games, although nothing too decisive, it seems. Game 2, a first pitch, 1-out single in the 4th and came around to score our 2nd run of the game, starting the rally that chased the starter again.
  6. Otto von Ballpark
    Actually on second thought, it appears the Rangers still have 3 open spots on their 40-man, so they could have claimed Colina just as easily now as they did in October, then waived him again themselves before the Rule 5 draft if they wanted to clear that spot.
  7. Otto von Ballpark
    Also worth noting: Although such spring training arbitration cuts are relatively rare, the Twins could technically cut Cave before opening day and only owe him ~$129k-$194k.
  8. Otto von Ballpark
    Although the Rangers (or any other team) would have had one less spot to protect a Rule 5 eligible minor leaguer by claiming Colina off waivers today, as today was the deadline to add minor leaguers for Rule 5 protection.
  9. Otto von Ballpark
    I thought the Caveman deserved his own thread! Many are probably wondering why the Twins would sign Jake Cave today. After all, he was already under team control for 2022 as a first-time arbitration-eligible player, and arbitration contracts don't have to be tendered until December or actually arbitrated/signed until January. It appears the Twins leveraged the possibility of dropping Cave to protect a Rule-5-eligible minor leaguer today, to get Cave to sign a reduced contract now. Cave was estimated to receive a $1.1 mil award in arbitration, per MLB Trade Rumors. So by signing him for $800k instead, the Twins potentially save about $300k, and we likely just DFA'd Barnes or Astudillo to make room for the minor leaguer instead. And for his part, Cave gets to have a guaranteed deal and not be thrown into free agent limbo, coming off a poor season and ahead of CBA uncertainty. Cave still has a minor league option year remaining too, so even if he stays on the 40-man roster on opening day, he may be optioned off the 26-man roster to become AAA depth. So in conclusion, it seems Cave's spot isn't too assured, as the Twins likely threatened to drop him today, but he's probably locked in for the opening-day 40-man roster, at least.
  10. Otto von Ballpark
    The answer is no -- those are generic accounts used to hide the identities of the actual debaters, to better encourage neutral debate and reaction.
  11. Otto von Ballpark
    Maybe you two could debate whether to have a second debate!
  12. Otto von Ballpark
    I crunched some numbers: Cumulative road OPS for the AL from 1986-1995 was .721. Puckett was at .793 on the road for that same time period, so about 10% better than league, or a 110 in OPS+ terms. Puckett's overall OPS+ during those years was 132, which might imply his home OPS+ would be 154 or something. A stark difference, to be sure! But I wonder how much to penalize him for it, if he was uniquely taking advantage of it, far better than any of his teammates or opponents.
  13. Otto von Ballpark
    FYI, using Mauer's peak or even career to define this range can introduce a "selective endpoint" problem -- most other careers or peaks don't line up exactly with Mauer's timeline, and other players may have contributed value outside those years where Mauer generally didn't. (This is similar to the conditions that allow Jack Morris to be one of the best pitchers of the 1980s -- that is true, although many of the other best pitchers of the 1980s were also among the best pitchers of the 1970s or 1990s too!) That said, unlike Morris, Mauer still ranks well by many other measurements, so this isn't a knock on him! Just a statistical thing to be aware of. Edit to add: FWIW, Puckett ranks 11th in fWAR across his career too, and also 11th for his 10-year peak (1986-1995).
  14. Otto von Ballpark
    On home/road splits, OPS+ and wRC+ already include park factors. (And to the extent that Puckett derived more benefit from the Metrodome than the park factor suggests, isn't that also a demonstrated skill above his peers?) For their careers, Puckett and Mauer are practically even in both OPS+ and wRC+, although we know Mauer had a decline phase. For best single-season by those measurements, Mauer's 2009 has the advantage; his advantage narrows when looking at any 3+ year peak.
  15. Otto von Ballpark
    For Puckett, there was that weekend in 1987.
  16. Otto von Ballpark
    Don't take this like I am ragging on catchers or something -- that's not the case at all. They're valuable! I agree with you 100% that historically they aren't given enough credit for the Hall of Fame. This is just a specific question about how much MLB catcher ranks can be relied upon, in cross-positional comparison, for something as general and subjective as "better player." If we cite how Mauer ranks among MLB catchers, we have to acknowledge that the line forming that group is drawn way, WAY earlier than any other position. Many top amateur players have had their catcher's mitt taken away (or are never given one in the first place), with no thought about what their skillset might be behind the plate. (And you yourself speculated in this very thread whether the Twins should have moved Mauer off the position in the minors.) Doesn't mean Mauer wasn't great and enormously valuable, of course. Just that the same conditions that allow him to be among the very best catchers ever also allow Chris Hoiles to have a claim at an all-time top 5 season at the position.
  17. Otto von Ballpark
    But for all of baseball history, the most talented players generally aren't even allowed to play the position professionally. It's still an inequivalent pond in which to judge Mauer's fish relative to Puckett's, no matter if you are looking at one year or 100 years.
  18. Otto von Ballpark
    Same basic issue here. Era comparisons aren't perfect, but at least you're comparing them to a few hundred full-time peers every season -- it's a good sample. But a positional comparison -- whether best, or average, or replacement -- is looking at a tiny subset of only 30 players per season. Mauer's advantage there may be more about the variability within that small sample, rather than a reflection of greater absolute talent. And of course, position groups aren't equivalent samples either. There may always be more big fish (baseball talents) in the center field pond as in the catcher pond. That's good to know in some contexts, but in others, it's less relevant.
  19. Otto von Ballpark
    Adjusting to compare across eras makes sense -- otherwise it's virtually impossible to compare between them (deadball era, lively ball era, etc.). But that's different than adjusting for position within an era. Joe Mauer being farther ahead of an average or replacement level catcher circa 2010 than Puckett being ahead of an average or replacement level CF circa 1990 doesn't necessarily make Mauer the better player. (Again, "better" is subjective so one could define it in terms of relative positional value, but many would define it otherwise.)
  20. Otto von Ballpark
    Ladies and gentlemen, meet Moe Jauer! Bats right, throws left. 5 feet, 6 inches tall. Plays every position except catcher and first base. Signed a contract for eight dollars, paid over 184 million years. LACTOSE INTOLERANT.
  21. Otto von Ballpark
    Hmm... seems I should have flipped it, and instead asked which one from this group would you protect. In any case, should be interesting to see who they add (and who they drop) tomorrow.
  22. Otto von Ballpark
    What if, when they add the DH to the National League, they add an extra DH to the American League? Surely, Nelson Cruz would have a place in a Twins 10-man batting order!
  23. Otto von Ballpark
    You're right that the opt-out improves the deal for the player and makes it worse for the team, as compared to a straight guarantee. But given the backloaded salary structure here, and the fact that the opt-out comes so late in the deal, the player benefit is relatively small. If he is good enough to opt-out, the Jays will still have received 5 years from him at a bargain rate. Fangraphs has estimated opt-outs as adding about 6% extra value to a deal for the player, although those were $200+ mil contracts (with earlier opt-outs, I think). I'd guess the value of Berrios's particular opt-out would be less than that. Now, none of that really tells us anything about the Twins -- just that the opt-out and escalators don't make the deal much better for Berrios than the reported 7/131 number.
  24. Otto von Ballpark
    This is something I've been wondering since 2018 or so. Were the Twins unwilling to offer Berrios a better deal than those signed by Polanco and Kepler? Were they unwilling to top the Luis Severino contract?
  25. Otto von Ballpark
    5/83 isn't a meaningful baseline for the comparison. Berrios is still guaranteed 7/131, unless he elects to forgo the last 2/48. I think any team would give Berrios 5/83 right now, but not every team would give him 7/131.
×
×
  • Create New...