Mr. Brooks
-
Posts
8,256 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
13
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 Mr. Brooks
-
But most of the other options that he'd be replacing in the Twins rotation are also likely 0 WAR (or similar) players.
-
I'm not sure I've said that I "like" the Sanchez signing. Just that looking deeper into the numbers,I don't hate it, and think there is a chance he becomes a smart bounce back candidate. I also think, and have made clear that I think this trade was fine as well. They need arms, and didn't give up much. If they aren't going to sign a top of the rotation pitcher, then the more arms they can throw at those last 3 rotation spots to see which stick, the better, IMO. I just disagree with the opinion that we've just landed a sure thing #3 or #4 starter. That disagreement doesn't mean i don't like the move. Every single option after Berrios and Santana have huge question marks, anyone of them could wind up as the best or worst of the remaining options, because they all have so many question marks.
-
Even if only 2 or 3 are using words like fleeced and drunk, many others are making it clear they think it was pretty one sided (in the Twins favor). And, we don't know that he makes us stronger. Last year he was a 0 WAR player. If he continues his downward trend, he could actually cost us wins over whoever he replaces. Hoping last year is correctable is a fair optimism, in fact it's been my stated hope. But, it's far from a sure thing that he's going to be a useful starting pitcher for us.
-
If you don't think it's sustainable, then what exactly are we disagreeing about?
-
I checked them. 26 innings at a .143 babip. What are we supposed to glean from that?
-
I've been responding to people claiming we fleeced the Rays. If the Rays place a high value on Palacios, then we didn't fleece them. That's all I'm saying.
-
That .269 career mark includes last year's .227. If you are going to attempt this exercise, shouldn't you use his career babip prior to 2017? Also, 17 more hits is pretty significant. That's the difference between a .300 hitter, and a .265 hitter. Guys are in the HOF because 17 more hits per year dropped in, compared to the other guy. Finally, does any pitcher, even the best you can come up with, tend to sustain that low of a babip, fly ball pitcher or otherwise?
-
Yes, my whole point is that it's a very fair trade. In fact, if I had to lean one way, I'd say the Rays got the better deal. I don't understand why people are saying we fleeced them, or they must have been drunk to make this trade.
-
Ok, here is Odorizzi's babip by season: .295 .271 .271 .227 One of these clearly looks like an outlier. And, like I said, an absurd babip like .227 isn't sustainable, by anyone, not even the best pitchers in the history of baseball. Clayton Kershaw's career lowest babip? .251 (career. 270). Even between all time great pitchers, and fringe #5 starters, you'd only expect a sustainable difference of .25 to .30 points. So, yeah *most* of the time balls in play are going to result in outs at *roughly* the same rate, regardless of pitcher.
-
I don't believe anyone thinks that FIP is the only stat that matters. Some do believe that it does a better job than ERA at encapsulating the things a pitcher has more direct control over, though. Especially in smaller sample sizes, like we are dealing with with Trevor May, he only has 200 career innings.
-
Mentioning May as being in the mix isn't really saying much. Nearly all of the options for the rotation are flawed in some way. Are you seeing people inking him into the rotation?
-
If you don't think there are certain limitations to offering $130+ million dollars to a 31 year old pitcher, that don't apply to trading a borderline top 20 organizational prospect, then we should probably just agree to disagree. I have no idea if the Twins could have offered more for Darvish. I have no doubt that Pohlad has a say in a contract that big, and I have no idea how high he's willing to go. I doubt Pohlad cares much if they want to trade Jermaine Palacios.
-
Even in the case of a "salary dump", you still try to get the best prospect you can. Is it more likely that other teams were offering more, but the Rays said, "nah, it's just a salary dump, and the Twins called first, so..."? Or that the Twins offer was the best? You are correct we don't know what was offered, in which case we should probably consider the more likely of the two.
-
Not necessarily. I think everyone would agree that different hitters are going to be able to sustain a higher babip, due to how hard they hit the ball, and hitting more line drives. Conversely, some pitchers should be able to sustain a lower babip, if they have movement or deception that gives up less hard contact, and/or less line drives. The key is comparing each player to themselves. (for the most part, some outliers are not sustainable by anyone. ) When a pitcher suddenly sees a 50 point drop in babip one year, compared to his career babip, it's almost certainly luck based. And,.227 isn't sustainable by any pitcher. Greg Maddux had a career babip of .281. Pedro Martinez, .279. Tell me a pitcher that you think limited hard contact the best, and I'll bet his career babip is in that same range.
-
FIP and xFIP are actual results. Just a different way of measuring them.
-
Slegers is probably the most mlb ready, though I don't really consider him a "prospect". Then probably Jorge, then Gonsalves, then some combo of Enns/Littel/Romero.
-
Because there are significant limitations preventing teams who would like to have Darvish, from actually topping the Cubs offer. Only so many teams are actually competitive enough that it makes sense to spend that kind of money on a 31 year old pitcher. Of those teams, only so many have an owner who would sign off on a $130+ million dollar contract for a pitcher. And of those few remaining teams, 3 of them are sitting out to reset their luxury tax. What limitations apply to trading for Odorizzi? None. Any team that really wants him isn't sweating a 10-20 organisational prospect or two. By far the most likely reason, is that not many teams find him as a very attractive option.
-
Actually, his insanely lucky babip would explain WHIP and opposing batting average.
-
And I suppose that if Palacios is in fact exactly what everyone thinks he is (roughly 20th org prospect), and the Rays settled on him because nobody was really that interested in Odorizzi, they'd tell their fans what? Yeah we traded for this prospect that is just, meh? Of course not, they're going to pump up how much they love him to their ticket buyers, regardless.
-
Well then we in this case we didn't fleece them did we? People can't have their cake and eat it too, by saying we have up almost nothing for him, while also saying that Palacios is this stud prospect that no team could have topped. It's one or the other.
-
The Cubs gave Darvish his 6th year and opt out, in a year in which the other 3 big spenders were sitting it out to reset their luxury tax. How is that comparable to trading an organizational fringe top 20 prospect? If other teams think Odorizzi is really valuable, there aren't really any constraints on beating that offer.
-
Odorizzi actually has a higher FIP and xFIP the last two years than Gibson. So Odorizzi also has big problems the last 2 years. I didn't selectively choose anything. I gave career metrics that show the results of things the pitcher controls. A pitcher can only control so much of what goes into ERA and WHIP.
-
Probably because Odorizzi had a really lucky 2017, which resulted in a lower ERA. If his ERA had matched his FIP or xFIP, he likely would have gotten closer to what Gibson is going to get.
-
But if he's a really valuable player, other teams would try to beat our offer, wouldn't they?
-
How much would you be willing to trade for Gibson? Odorizzi is basically Gibson, though they get there in different ways. The Rays don't need to sober up, this seems like a pretty fair trade.
