Otto von Ballpark
-
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
-
Of course, the A's are dealing with a payroll capacity that's maybe ~70% of the Twins. There's a argument that the Twins are unnecessarily limiting themselves by playing exclusively in the "value" transaction waters, when they have the resources to take better risks than Oakland. FWIW, the A's may have also gotten better value out of Bailey -- a fungible prospect and league minimum salary in exchange for his pennant race services. I think this contract might have been better received if the Twins had actually scored Bailey at the deadline too, instead of leaving the postseason rotation as thin as we did. -
In terms of fWAR, Martín Pérez posted a 1.9 last year. At $4 mil for a one-year deal, was that "really great"? How much did it move the needle on the Twins 2019 season? I think that's the issue with Bailey. I don't think anyone disputes that he could provide decent value to the Twins on this contract -- but value doesn't necessarily equate to meaningful impact.
-
Bailey's K% jumped last year, but still not even up to league average (21.4%, versus MLB non-pitcher rate of 22.4%).
-
2.9 fWAR, based on his FIP. Bailey's actual runs allowed only resulted in a 1.8 bWAR for 2019 -- 75 starting pitchers posted higher bWAR marks in 2019. Sometimes FIP looks like a good bet, but Bailey's career seems to be a story of FIP outperforming his ERA. Fangraphs gives him 16.4 fWAR for his career, but only 10.0 RA9-WAR, and as mentioned, bWAR likes him even less (5.9). Reminds me of Ricky Nolasco, who had 20.7 career fWAR when we signed him, but only 11.2 bWAR. And of course Nolasco was 2.5 years younger and without the arm injuries... Bailey's not necessarily a bad pitcher, but given his age and track record, he seems firmly in the average / back of the rotation camp. Is that what the Twins FO had in mind when they brought up the term "impact pitching" this offseason?
-
From the other thread: True, although Cruz was just a 1 year FA deal himself. And after Cruz, we signed Parker, Perez, and Marwin -- interesting moves but probably of limited impact. I wouldn't say that example suggests a lot more "impact" activity remains this winter.
-
Start of spring training is correct. We did the same with Pineda a couple years ago -- signed him in December, put him on the 60-day IL in February.
-
No, it means left side, as opposed to up the middle or right side. You can see this by just taking the total MLB pitching split for groundballs, where it shows 53167 total batters faced. If you then add left field to the groundball split, you get a subset of 20374 TBF. Do the same for center, you get 17153, or right, 15640. Add those 3 together, and you get the same 53167. So every groundball in their system is also tagged with either left, center, or right. There is no distinction between "infield" or "outfield" groundballs. Edit to add: And back to the White Sox specifically, you can look at the advanced fielding stats for Tim Anderson and see that in 2019, he was much closer to average in range (RngR) than in errors (ErrR). He was also above average in double plays (DPR or rGDP). That profile is consistent with preventing hits at a league average rate, but having below average DRS/UZR metrics. https://www.fangraphs.com/players/tim-anderson/15172/stats?position=SS#fieldingadvanced https://blogs.fangraphs.com/glossary/
-
Just to be clear, by "left field", I mean "left side". AVG on ground balls to the left side was .234 in 2019, both for the CHW pitchers and for MLB as a whole. Up the middle, CHW .278, MLB .269, and to the right side, CHW .190, MLB .202. Which makes me wonder if errors are the primary source of those negative DRS figures. https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders/splits-leaderboards?splitArr=11,76&splitArrPitch=&position=P&autoPt=false&splitTeams=false&statType=team&statgroup=2&startDate=2019-03-01&endDate=2019-11-01&players=&filter=&sort=23,1
-
Just thinking that two guys in this class may not want to sign in the same place and have to compete with each other. (We do have spots for both at the moment, but the presumption is we could/should trade for a better SP yet this offseason.) Even with Pineda's suspension, neither Wood nor Walker probably wants to get squeezed out by May 10th. And no, I don't know how the Mets signed both Porcello and Wacha. FWIW, Porcello got a higher guarantee and is a NJ native, plus Wacha is a former client of the Mets GM. But generally, teams generally don't sign FA starters once they already have 5 spots presumably filled. Of course, that's presuming they have multiple comparable offers. If the Twins offer a few extra mil in base salary over the next highest bidder, maybe that would be enough enticement.
-
That's not necessarily a bad profile. Wasn't that the case with Phil Hughes too? Arrieta? Walker was a 1st round pick, top 10 prospect, debuted at 21, best season at 24 before he got hurt at 25, still only 27. Should be affordable, not much risk, with upside. Wood would be good for a similar role too. Could just come down to which one your scouts (and medical staff) like the best.
-
As a poster, I want to say you proved no such thing. You've been given many examples of successful aggressive moves by comparable revenue teams and you've simply created new criteria to dismiss them all, to the point where your criteria is trivial more than meaningful. Even by your own self-selected criteria in this thread, you can't reasonably dismiss Cueto (and Zobrist) simply because "the World Series only lasted 5 games." And as a mod, I note that by your own description, you are not addressing specific posts or posters in this thread, but rather general arguments you perceive across the site. You have repeated these same general arguments in many threads previously -- see the comment policy example of "inserting a pet idea into thread after thread": http://twinsdaily.com/topic/8228-twins-daily-comment-policy/?p=164092 You are welcome to create a blog post if you want to write about this general topic further. Otherwise, when participating in the discussion forum, I ask all TD members to stick closer to the actual discussion thread topics -- and if you feel others are causing the discussion to drift, try to reel them back in. A good way to do that is ask for clarification on a point they are making, tying it back to the thread topic, rather than going further off on a tangent. I'm locking this thread, as it has outlived its usefulness.
-
These projections do account for defense -- it's fWAR for pitchers (based on FIP), and includes dWAR for position players. Now, those individual dWAR figures at this point might be based on opportunities in front of a league-average K% / GB% staff, or in front of the 2019 staff, etc. (Later projections will be more refined, especially when projected team standings come into play.) So you could be right that swapping in a Keuchel will change the number of defensive opportunities and could produce some slight shifts in the numbers. But I think the emphasis would be on "slight". Keep in mind that even as a durable SP, Keuchel still throws a relatively small percentage of his team's innings (less than 14%), he still gets quite a few Ks and flyballs (just less than average), and the White Sox actually converted ground balls to left field into outs at a league average rate last year, even with those below-average DRS figures. If the negative effect is primarily errors, note that error rates are pretty low, and it might be offset a little by an increase in double plays. Plus, remember that DRS is on a run level -- it takes about 10 DRS to equal 1 win (or 1 WAR). So even something like a -2 DRS change might look bad on the DRS scale, but it barely registers on the win/WAR scale.
-
Agreed. Although pitchers in this class may not prioritize signing with a contender either -- they might actually want the longer leash afforded by a less competitive team. So even two at the level of Walker and Wood might be hard to get, if they are truly in demand.
-
Call it sample or result, but you are claiming there are only 2 single team seasons in 20 years that can serve as a blueprint for Twins success. If that was true, then there is no meaningful blueprint. Falvey and Levine aren't limited by the 2005 White Sox or 2015 Royals (minimizing Cueto), just as the Twins ownership wasn't limited in hiring its current FO from those two teams. It's just trivia/noise, with the effect of derailing 2019 Twins discussion rather than advancing it. You were not responding to a specific post, and you addressed your post to "many here". Remember this is a discussion forum, not a personal soapbox. If you disagree with a specific post, and you feel you must reply, reply specifically to that post, and keep it focused and polite. Or you can choose to ignore it (an often under-rated option!). But please don't add more noise to the rest of the discussion. And as always, if you feel a post violates the site comment policy, please report it rather than responding: http://twinsdaily.com/topic/8228-twins-daily-comment-policy/
-
So in the same paragraph, you lay out a response you'd like to see from other posters, and then you preemptively dismiss it? Like I just said above, let's focus more on exchanging our own ideas and less on inventing reasons to invalidate others. (And if you truly want to read emotional reactions to our playoff loss, the October TD archives are available to you. You shouldn't expect or encourage such posts in a December thread about a separate topic.)
-
A two team sample, based on your own chosen parameters, isn't the "hard fact of history", it's trivia. Especially when you do things within that trivial sample like minimize the contributions of Cueto, or exclude the 2014 Royals just because they lost game 7 of the World Series (as if that single game's result should have any effect of the Twins decision-making in 2019). We get it, you clearly believe the Twins don't need to make an aggressive signing or trade to win the World Series. There is nothing wrong with that opinion. But there is also nothing wrong with the opinion that a smart aggressive move could help the team. So let's re-focus the discussion as a friendly exchange of opinions and ideas, and less on using trivia as a weapon to invalidate other opinions. The latter just isn't fun (and that's a fact! ).
-
If your sample size is two teams, I think the conclusion has to be there is no blueprint, rather than there is only a narrow one the Twins must follow. And even within that two team sample, you're doing some big minimization by saying that the pitcher who threw 8 innings of 2-hit ball in the decisive game 5 of the ALDS wasn't a "difference maker" in his team's championship run. (Not to mention his complete game 2 hitter in game 2 of the World Series, the night after his team had to use their bullpen for 8 innings.) I realize it doesn't fit your narrative, but those spots and performances were precisely why his team paid to acquire him in trade, not for his August and September regular season (they had an 8 game division lead at the time of the trade deadline). I am sure his team was very happy with the results of that aggressive move.
-
How much do you think guys like Ryu and Wheeler are making in "secondary income opportunities"? There have been a few discussions on this board about how baseball players aren't particularly marketable compared to other athletes and entertainers. It's worse nationally than locally, but I kinda doubt the Philly cheesesteak equivalent of Sheboygan sausages is a much more lucrative endorsement opportunity, especially not relative to player salaries. Even a $100k difference would only represent half of one percent of Ryu's annual salary. Honest question, how much do guys like Plouffe and Buxton take home from Sheboygan? I could see a lot of better paid vets not even bothering with such deals.
-
First of all, I wouldn't call it lying. I think Bumgarner, like most FA, truly believes he could have gotten more if he hadn't concluded the process. Just like they believe one more at-bat and they would have won the game, etc. One probably doesn't get too far in pro sports without some impressive self confidence! As for why, there really is no downside. The player strokes his ego with a higher value, the agent get to claim a larger figure in future negotiations. The player's new team looks better for getting a bargain. The player looks better to his new home team fans. Seriously, look at all the people here praising Wheeler as a good family man who they can relate to, basely solely on that little nugget of info! That's why I take such reports with a grain of salt. Not that players don't have preferences, of course, but I think they fit into the market (i.e. tiebreakers, counter-offers) more than override it (i.e. I'm taking significantly less to sign with one team).
-
No, the other poster was correct: "A player will have 10 days to accept or decline the qualifying offer, during which time he can negotiate with other teams to survey his market value." http://m.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/qualifying-offer
-
Who's Alex Sanchez? I'd be interested in a few of those guys -- but as lotto tickets rather than our top offseason SP addition!
-
Was Martín Pérez an "impact pitcher" acquisition last offseason by this definition? (Cue the "negative impact" jokes.) He had a -0.9 bWAR in 2018 (-0.1 fWAR) but the two years before that he was 1.8 and 2.3 bWAR (or 2.2 and 2.3 fWAR). He was younger too. I'll grant Odorizzi was better, but they seem to be in a similar class by the parameters you've introduced here. Odorizzi might show the upside of aiming in that class, but Pérez seems to show the downside (and also serves a reminder that this coaching staff might be very good, but we can't expect them to be perfect at turning guys around either). I hope the Twins were (and still are) aiming higher than two SP additions from that class this winter, coming off a division title, lots of payroll space, and lots of prospect capital. Seems almost recklessly conservative to not aim higher than that.
-
The Odorizzi acquisition definitely had an impact, but the term "impact" is from this offseason -- and has a very different context than the impact you are describing here. I think if our "impact" pitching acquisition this offseason is coming off a 0.1 bWAR season in 2019, and posts a 1.5 bWAR full season mark in 2020, with only one year of control beyond that -- I don't think I would view that as favorably as Odorizzi, even if we "win" the trade and get good value in the process. Hence my original reply, why the Odorizzi example isn't really all that applicable or reassuring in the context of this offseason's goals, even if the Odorizzi move was just fine for the time it was made.
-
Obviously this is all hypothetical, but I'm not sure aggregate stats are the way to go. With his dominant 2nd half, Darvish could have been an asset in the 2019 postseason, and on a 4/81 deal going forward. As far as Cruz, more likely Darvish would have impacted other contracts from the same offseason -- Lynn obviously, and maybe Reed? Reed's money even carried over into 2019 and would have arguably been a better "bullet to dodge"! And remember, we were almost $10 mil under our 2018 payroll in 2019, so it wouldn't necessarily have taken much more than Reed's $8 mil to fit Darvish into a 2019 budget. But even if it did, the late signing of Marwin was probably more likely to get squeezed out than the early signing of Cruz. Obviously this is all hypothetical, and there are all kinds of "butterfly effect" things that could have happened in the meantime, but it's not clear to me at this point that signing Darvish would have been worse than the moves we made and/or the remaining moves we are currently left considering this offseason.
-
It was a solid trade -- but was Odorizzi an "impact pitcher" at the time, or in his first season here? Teams generally aren't trading guys with fewer question marks than the FAs. Also, Wheeler and Bumgarner only got 18% more than MLBTR estimates, less if you discount Bumgarner's deferred money and extra year. Maybe we wouldn't have had to pay 30-40% if we had been aggressive earlier? And this cuts both ways. Two years ago, we only offered Darvish 40% *less* than MLBTR's prediction. I'd be more open to sitting out a hot market if we had been more aggressive in a slow one.
