Steve Lein

to Original Poster: Revere's not worth nearly as much as you're thinking in a trade, Span would bring back quite a bit more... They are comparable outfielders on defense, and similar runners on the basepaths (Revere's obviously a bit quicker and a better basestealer), BUT, Span's bat is worth quite a bit more. Span's career line in the majors: .285/.359/.387 = .746 OPS, and has topped an .800 OPS twice in his career. Revere's career line in the majors: .286/.327/.336 = .663 OPS, and never topped a .750 OPS at any level in the minors above Beloit. Do not underestimate how big of a difference those numbers paint as far as what type of hitters/batters they are. In that regard, Span is far more valuable (and honestly, that is where 75% -or more- of a guys "value" in a trade is derived). Span gets on base by doing more than just hitting singles, and face it, that's all Revere does (Span actually has already set a career high for 2B's this year). Revere's avg. right now is almost 50 points higher than Span's, but the difference in OBP is negligible. And I'm not at all saying I dislike Revere, in fact I like him a lot, and have always told people who were skeptical of him that he'd adjust to MLB pitching more than fine as far as Batting Avg. is concerned, just not for any type of power, which some seem to expect. Span is also my resident Favorite Twins player at the moment, but I thought he should have been traded this year if for no other reasons than Revere is an obvious replacement in CF and batting leadoff, and Span was worth a decent SP in return. Also, as someone else mentioned above, on a rebuilding team, you don't trade a young guy making the minimum and under team control for years for the older guy whose contract will be over by the time you're done rebuilding when they are so interchangeable on the roster you already have. With all that said, it also has been pretty nice having them BOTH around, right?! Why try to fix something that aint broke?! When Aaron Hicks is here this September though, then you'll really see what an "elite" all-around defensive CF is... q;)

Hit Location is the right section. This is the only data I could find that quantified in any useful way where a batted ball was hit, so I used it. If I can be directed to a better database, I'd like to see it. But I still don't expect my numbers would change much either way. But since my numbers aren't exact above, I'll get into a limited data set of specifics for you. Basically I took the Total Number of Balls hit to LF ("Pulled-RHB" & "OppFld-LHB") and RF ("OppFld-RHB" & "Pulled-LHB"), and created percentages in relation to the Total numbers as the following: 22.5% to LF, 57.1% to CF, 20.4% to RF. I then applied these percentages to the "To Outfield" category. 22.5% of 71730 is 16132 balls to LF 20.4% of 71730 is 14665 balls to RF That difference checks in at 1467, so I embellished a little above q;) Adding CF into the equation using the same ratios as above (16132/30797=52.4% to LF) to split it in 2, with the 40932 more balls unaccounted for, you end up with: .524*40932=21448+16132=37580 .476*40932=19484+14665=34149 And the difference checks in at 3431 more balls "toward LF" than "toward RF", which is a more modest 1.412 more-balls-to-LF-than-RF-per-game-ratio, but that still means theres more to LF than RF. I like the data others have provided showing the differences as time has gone on, and if you look at this same data I used for the 1988 season, the embellished numbers above are spot on, so it has definitely shifted...but not yet really even close to a point where you can say RF is more common. But seriously, don't you remember Little League? There's a reason your coaches put your teams worst player in RF, because it was the least likely spot for a ball to get hit...

By the way, this conversation is awesome q;) and I see a lot of guys got some data together while I was crunching mine.

You guys realize that "Total Chances" and "Putouts" aren't everything that goes into attempting to calculate "Range", right? The data provided for this is interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that more "balls in play" are hit to left field - Range also comes into play on hits. Take for example about a week ago when Willingham wasn't able to cut the ball off on a liner and it reached the wall, allowing the runners to advance another base. Revere cuts that off and holds them back. More ground balls get hit down the left field line for hits (which is a long run to prevent a double for a LF), more grounders go through the hole between 3B and SS for hits (while this usually doesn't require the LF to move much, Revere's speed (e.g.: range) gets him to that ball faster), more line drive hits go to left field where the OF has to run them down, more doubles are hit to the LF gap. Range doesn't just count for outs, it counts for every ball that's hit out there. I do not lack any confidence in saying this, and the "pull percentage" data I provided earlier is pretty definitive in demonstrating that more balls get to a left-fielder than they do the right. But, you want some data? Check out this page (its for the 2009 season, others are very similar): http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/split.cgi?t=b&year=2009&lg=MLB#hitlo Simple addition clearly shows more balls are hit to LF. For fun and your benefit however, I did some of my own number crunching based on what is on that page: Give me the benefit of the doubt for not giving all the numbers used in these calculations, but I'm very confident in my math and statistics (in the academic, not baseball sense) background. This is for data on balls hit to the OF only, thus it also doesn't include such things as ground ball hits, which would skew the data to LF further. Based on percentages of Balls hit data on that page, approximately 16,000 balls were hit to strictly LF in 2009. In that same year, approximately 14,000 balls were hit to strictly RF. That's 2,000 more balls hit to Left Fielders than Right Fielders in one season. This may not sound like that big of a difference to you, but also keep in mind, this does NOT include any data for balls hit "toward CF", which is significantly more than LF and RF combined (by about 20,000 total ). It's taking into account only the "strictly LF" and "strictly RF" thirds of the OF. If you cut the OF in half and apply pull %'s to the CF data, the gap between total number of balls hit "toward LF" and "Toward RF" gets about 3 times bigger. So, if we take the number 6,000 as the arbitrary figure, we can divide that by the total number of games played in the MLB each year: 2,430, and we get: 2.47. So Basically, two and a half more balls per game are hit toward Left Fielders than Right Fielders. Thus, I think "Range" in LF compared to RF can make a pretty big difference in a lot of games. But in retrospect, this very clearly shows why CF is the most important OF position by far.

You all realize Nick is absolutely NOT saying this is what IS going to happen, only what MUST happen if they expect to get back in it, right?! Obviously, it's not likely.

Wow, I feel like my saying more balls are hit to LF than RF should be a known fact about the game of baseball to anyone who understands the fundamentals of it and basic understanding that there are twice as many RH hitters in the league than LH. Anyway, here's some concrete numbers (it is from 2003, but it displays the point): http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/004551.php This guy tallied every hitter in the league up to that point in the season who had over 200 batted balls in play. The percentage equates to the players propensity to pull the ball vs. push it. A value of 50% means on average, the player is hitting the ball to dead center. Notice in a list of 264 players, only NINE of them hit the ball the other way more than pulled. If you believe in the thought that 2/3 of players in MLB bat right-handed (which I guarantee it's very close to), that means 176 of those players are Right handed vs 88 left-handed. That's twice as many guys who tend to hit the ball toward LF more often than RF. That's all the math I feel like doing for the day... /EndOfDiscussion

No, that's not how it works. RF line is 328 feet, gap 367. LF line is 339 ft, gap 377. The deepest part of the field is just to the LF-side of dead center. It's the fact that there's a bunch more open ground to cover that allows you to take advantage of the range. Also, there are far more Right-handed hitters than left-handed, and batters tend to pull the ball more than push, thus by default and years upon years of proven data, far more balls are hit toward LF than RF. It's not about how the ball carries.

Not even a discussion, the range wins over arm in every plane of existence. However, that doesn't mean he's a "good fit" in RF either. That's the one spot where you can't take a "maximum" advantage of his range nor minimize the effects of his arm. If Revere can consistently hit around or above .300, the "ability to get on base" shouldn't be discussed, because he's obviously doing it. There are a lot of teams that would kill to have a .318/.348 table setter in the 1 or 2 spot, even a .300/.330. Believe me, Ben tries to take pitches and draw walks, but he makes too good of contact with his swing. Someone pull up swing and miss statistics for me, I'd bet he's very far below the league average for missing on his cuts. If he takes a hack, he's putting the ball in play. It's not always good, solid contact obviously, but to me it seems it's rare where he doesn't get enough of the bat on the ball where he doesn't put it in fair territory. He has struck out in only 7.7% of his AB's, which if you wanted to know, is exactly half of Joe Mauer's 15.4% rate this year. Is there such a thing as too good of a "contact hitter"? If you're wanting Revere to draw more walks, I think your answer to this question is by default "Yes", no matter how you argue it because of that ability, he's just not one to foul a bunch of pitches off.

Anybody who thinks the Twins can get a "decent starting pitching" prospect for any of their current reliever crop is living in a world of sunshine, flowers, and pots of gold at the end of rainbows. If you want a high-end starter prospect in a return, the guys you have to dangle are named Span, Morneau, and Willingham. Span is one of my favorite Twins, but he almost has to be the centerpiece in a deal for a SP if the Twins feel like contending next year.

Heh, I said this the other day. He's the reverse Samson. Since that day: .304/.333/.793, 6 2B's, 13 HR's, 21 RBI in 24 games. Twins need to get some runners on base in front of him, though!

To me, the flagpole shot isn't even his best HR as a Twin. It was the one he bombed onto the concourse over the batters eye in center field. I was sitting in the LF bleachers next to the bullpen, and when he hit that one I and everyone else around me had the Orlando Hudson "Holy $*!&" reaction (Also did that for Soriano's blasts last Friday night). I don't think I've even seen anyone else hit one off the batters eye in center, and he cleared it. Pretty sure that one is the longest HR hit a Target Field, and Thome owns the top 2 spots for that distinction. -> http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=13665107.

I have to believe when I've seen him he wasn't throwing strictly 2-seamers, but I can confirm the movement he's got. At ST this year he actually walked about 5 guys in one outing I watched. It was like he was getting too much movement (if that's possible), and couldn't locate because of it. That was all mixed in with a bunch of weak contact so he didn't really get rocked though.

I guess I'm not as concerned about a 2% drop-off in walk rate when moving up a level as you. The on-base-percentage is still translating.

Keep in mind the caveat I applied of "at his peak", which means in his best statistical seasons, not over a career.

When I've seen him with a gun trained on him he sat 82-84, topping out at 86. But I'd guess he's a tick or two better than that as a season wears on. I think Seth has written before that he sits 88-90, and can touch 92, so who knows, but I think that's being generous.

Hermsen actually leads all Twins minor league starters in WHIP (1.02). He doesn't walk anybody though (only 5 BB in 48.2 IP with New Britain), so that basically means he's giving up 1 hit per inning. I keep thinking he's going to hit a wall because of his velocity, but he hasn't yet. Maybe he just understands how to get people out a lot better than most.

Everyone is down on Hicks because of the batting average, but I ask you to look at it another way. Each time he's hit a new level, he's hit about .245/.345/.385. When he's repeated a level (Midwest League in his case), he raised it to .279/.401/.428. His .341 On-base percentage at AA New Britain this year is better than the league average and he's also top 10 in the league in runs scored and stolen bases. I also fail to see how his ability to draw a walk has deteriorated, as he's also #3 in the EAS League in that category, and the AVG/OBP split is still nearly .100 (which is an elite level walk rate). Yes he strikes out a lot too, but that hasn't hurt him from being productive. To me, Hicks is going to be the same guy go no matter what level he plays at (statistically speaking, unless he gives up hitting left-handed, than the numbers might improve), at his peak being a .270/.370/.420 hitter who plays gold-glove caliber defense in CF. What's wrong with that. As mentioned, Torii Hunter didn't do anything until he was 25, so I wouldn't worry so much about him. If he gets on a hot streak you might just see him in September this year. I bet in 4 years we're having this exact same conversation about Buxton.

You're basically calling out Plouffe for not hitting a Home Run, because he put a really good swing on that ball and the OF just ran it down.

Well, Keith Law had him rated as #63, Twins pick was 63, so right in line with that. Lot of smoke and no fire with the Twins on Mitch Brown apparently. Kind of disappointed with that.

Rosario definitely gets a boost to his stock by moving to 2B, but that's still not enough. There's a reason Buxton was picked #2 (and would be Top-10 in any draft), and Eddie was a 4th rounder.

shanewahl, that's not thinking behind me not wanting to draft Buxton (And it's not like I "hate" the pick, not even close). He absolutely has the highest ceiling of any of the players in this draft, but with his profile that comes with considerably more risk, and high bust potential as well. Then throw in the fact that he's not going to be a fast mover through the system, and you start looking at 2016 and 2017 as the years he might make it to the Majors. I want the Twins to be rebuilding to be a playoff team in 2014 or 2015, thus he doesn't help for that in any way. If rebuilding for 2014, 2015, they absolutely HAD TO select a pitcher that could sit at the front end of a rotation for those years. Mauer and Morneau (the current "wave" of talent) are 29 and 31 years old already and running out of time to do something with their "prime" years. I would want to do everything in my power to get them the help they need to try and bring Minnesota a title. Drafting Buxton for sure doesn't do that, one of the pitchers could have. That's my thought process anyway.

Buxton easily rates as #2 behind Sano. Better Bat and power combination than Rosario had coming out of the draft, also much faster and much bigger arm. You have to like how Rosario has produced thus far, but still not enough to keep a kid with Buxton's talents lagging behind him. Berrios is just outside the top 10 for me, Bard not in the Top 20. They'll give him the chance to start and work on his secondary stuff, but I'd put the probability of him being a strict reliever at about 90%, think Carlos Gutierrez. Some intriguing pitchers still available, though a few of them might be tough signs: Hunter Virant, Mitch Brown, Ty Buttrey, Alex Wood. Still plenty to restock some pitching, though not necessarily any future #1's or #2's, which it can be argued there weren't many of them anywhere in this draft, or any draft for that matter.

I'm with Seth, Buxton barely cracks the top 5 for me. Appel, Zimmer, Correa, Gausman, Buxton. Twins aren't going to ever sign a top-flight FA pitcher, so if they want one, they have to draft him. Now's as good a time as they're going to get having the #2 pick to do so, even if none of these guys are Strasburg-like.

My answers: 1) Would not be disappointed, but the risk is too much there I think. Remember, before the injury he was #1 on a lot of lists. 2) Yes there is a chance. We don't know how negotiations are going to play out, but if it functions more like past drafts than people are thinking, the Twins should be able to save a decent amount of money at #2 compared to the slot recommendation. Giolito's injury also throws a bit of a wrinkle, in the idea that he might not want to pass up the money if he gets offered say, a top 10 dollar amount (which is approximately $3 MIL). What if he goes to UCLA and hurts himself again or even worse? Then he might not ever get any money.

Many recent Mock Drafts don't even have Giolito being selected in the 1st Round... Twins would need their pick at #2 to sign for a few mil less than the slot recommendation (which I think is very possible) to have a chance at him at #32, but it would be very interesting if it played out that way.