bird

It was all Antony, but he DID read Billy Smith's notes on how he single-handedly snared Miguel Sano.

And who is actually fun to watch.

What a great idea for a promotion! Bring up Walker too, and go for a single-game strikeout record. You'd have to sit Kepler and Polanco, and Mauer would have to play out of position, but...

Now now, let's not be too hard on General Soreness. He's been a good soldier.

Yeah, I guess if I'm a GM of a contending club, my ideal for a #4 starter is Kyle Gibson. Or maybe Cheatin' Ervin Santana on a one or two-year contract.

Maybe Lovable Buddy Boshers can be marketed.

Does reformed cheater Ervin Santana have panache?

Good point.

I'm just hoping the proven closer tag helps gets us an overpay for Kintzler...

In a perfect world, I'd ask the teams to rank the players according to the order in which they would select them today for their own team, staying blind to positional need. But, from a practical standpoint, we're kinda stuck with WAR. We just need to be more judicious about how much credence we give it. Again, I wouldn't use anything in the way WAR was used in the analysis thrylos did, because it isn't measuring what it intends to measure in reality.

Yes.

Welcome to Target Field for keeps, Mr. Polanco.

I also appreciate the effort that goes into such an ambitious attempt to analyze the relative skill of these organizations. As you might predict however, I find the analysis to be terribly flawed, almost to the point of complete uselessness. The primary reason has to do with the absurd connection that gets made between the success (as measured by WAR, which is its separate problem) of a given selection and an opinion that the skill of the selecting team is what is at play here. Think about it for a moment. Let's take a hypothetical 15th round selection in 2008 that generates 20 WAR in his 5 years of MLB when this study goes to press. Every team in baseball would select that player in the first round if he was available to them in a redraft. However, all 30 teams lacked the foresight to draft the player in the first round. They all lacked the skill to project success for that player 15 times!!! So, adding up a bunch of WAR numbers and declaring one team to be more skillful than the next is folly. The second reason, which is an equally fatal flaw, is the failure to adjust for draft order. The studies are too numerous to even mention regarding how favorably skewed collective WAR numbers get due to the inclusion of those premium early picks. Here's a thought: let's take the 2008 draft as our example. Now, since this was a weaker draft than maybe the next, perhaps the players selected #5 through #15 in this year are regarded as a "weak crop", and the same group a year later is regarded as stellar. Because of this important nuanced reality, it makes sense to compare teams who are faced with similar talent options, right? So, in Rd1 of 2008, I would compare the success of this group of selections, #9-#20: Aaron Crowe, Jason Castro, Justin Smoak, Jemile Weeks Brett Wallace, Aaron Hicks, Ethan Martin, Brett Lawrie, David Cooper, Ike Davis, and Andrew Cashner. This gives us a window into the selections of 11 teams in a single round. In Rd2, you'd compare Destin Hood, Robert Ross, Tyson Ross, Shane Peterson, Joseph Austin,Tyler Ladendorf, Joshua Lindblom, Thomas Adams, Kenneth Wilson, Robert Stovall, and Aaron Shafer. And on, so maybe a team looks bad compared to the teams that picked Dee Gordon and Jason Kipnis 5 picks apart in the 4th, and Chris Herrmann gets compared to Tommy Milone in the 10th. It would be a much more meaningful analysis, especially if one avoided 2010 and later at this juncture, where the WAR accumulation is close to meaningless right now. I don't know how the Twins would stack up in this methodology. My guess is better. In the example above, I'd guess that the combo of Aaron Hicks and Tyler Ladendorf would compare favorably.

yeah, but it's hard to know practically nothing, and after perusing the Cubs roster here, I came pretty close

Geez, I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.

I appreciate your comments. I know I take some of the comments here too literally, and I know I have had a lifelong irrational distaste for injustice. But dammit, spycake, this is important! This is the Twins!

I have no issue whatsoever with a point of view critical of the quality of any decision the GM signs off on. He's 100% responsible. I was trying to comment on the disconnect between a decision and a result. People constantly point to results around here and unfairly attribute 100% of the blame. And yes, we like to blame someone. Arcia sucks, so lets blame (name here). If lots of poor decisions get made, yeah, then the pitch forks come out and we see some pretty unfair stuff in these threads. I think it's accurate to say Ryan has been demonized a bit around these parts over time. I appreciate the balanced views that I see.

Fair criticism, spycake.

I didn't intend to open Pandora's Box for a re-hash on TR. Justification is an irrelevant concept when one assesses the quality of a manager's decision-making. Let's not confuse that with reasonableness, which would examine things like logic, assumptions, probability, analysis, due diligence, and the like. You know, there are a lot of us at TD who applaud one decision and fault the next. Generally, we tend to fit into a more critical camp or a more tolerant camp as it relates to players, or managers, or FO. We tend to get along fine, even as we argue that our pal is being too harsh or too forgiving. It's okay if a person thinks it was unreasonable to sign Nolasco as long as they state their reasons rather than simplistically pointing to his record or making some tiresome and boring rant about roster construction and accountability. So yes, I agree that it would not be accurate to describe most commenters around here as people who would unfairly savage the GM strictly on the basis of results with no regard for what went into the decision process, but there are a lot of commenters who savaged Ryan regarding Nolasco strictly on the basis of his results.

Over the past two years, a lot of people have absolutely savaged Ryan for Nolasco's results without conceding in even the most subtle fashion that the decision itself might have been an excusable one. I have not objected to anyone's opinion about their view on the quality of any of Ryan's decisions, although I often disagree or think the criticism is overly harsh. I object to the trashing of Ryan, or anyone else, on the basis of results when the quality of the decision is ignored. You can make a bad decision and get acceptable results, and vice versa. But the thing you can count on from me, in terms of pushback on criticism, is unfairness. And I recognize that I can be wrong about what's fair criticism and what's not, and welcome that debate, even when it creates some good tension in the thread between respectful participants.

It's not terribly surprising, alarp33, but to be generous, it's myopic, simplistic, and small. Like most complex billion-dollar businesses, there are a ton of very complex variables that come into play. Other people, and uncontrollable factors are ignored and the pitch forks come out. I have a poor opinion of anyone who unfairly demonizes a person like a small handful of people have done to Ryan. He did some good things and is not 100% responsible for either the terrible results or all of the better decisions for that matter.

This didn't stop a lot of people from absolutely savaging Ryan retrospectively about this decision. Goes to show us that, analytics or no, a decision that isn't half-bad can produce awful results. Then we often find a scapegoat upon whom to place 100% of the blame for the results while cutting zero slack regarding the quality of the decision. It's refreshing to hear Jack accept some blame for the imperfect part of the Nolasco decision. Learned that bit of humility somewhere. Maybe Ryan?

Rebuilding takes different forms, and rebuilds are delayed when a team trades a guy like Santana for a C prospect. The talent level on the Cubs and Astros is so far ahead, it is ridiculous. Neither of those teams are great examples of shrewd trades that added a slew of talent. That's not what advanced those teams faster. Draft choices and international signings, yes, much more so than great results in circumstances similar to what the Twins are confronting here at the trade deadline. Now, Atlanta? They shrewdly found an idiot to trade with down in Arizona and are on the upswing because of that IN ADDITION to having a good slot in the draft for a few years. So they ARE a good example of how to leapfrog the competition among their fellow rebuilders.

What makes it a smart move in theory to move him now is if you find a buyer willing to pay a large premium for what they think Santana might do for them right now in the middle of a pennant race. In my mind, if you don't get that premium, he's probably more valuable to you than whatever return will be offered this off-season.

But...but...what about his makeup?