Major League Ready

The throw should have been on the fly but it did not skip. It bounced pretty high.

My guess is that reporters don't ask because the subsection of fans that are curious about how they are handling Raya is a very small minority.

It's possible they are working on something(s) between starts and they are managing the overall load.

No. I said it's absurd to suggest he would continue to hit at an -56 OPS+. Don't generalize what I wrote toy fit your narrative.

I don't really have any idea what to expect from Kepler. My objection was extremely specific. You said they lost a -56 OPS+ hitter and that's a ridiculous statement. The odds of him being that bad in in his next 40 or 60 or 80 or whatever PAs is extremely low if he is no long injured. That's it. End of story. I didn't have any disagreement with anything else you said which is why I did not comment on any other part of what you had to say. Lot of stinking it up right now. What's to disagree with there?

I was certain you would not actually address to question being debated which was if they lost a -56 OPS+ hitter when Kepler went down. I did not comment on anything related to your disagreement with the other poster other than your suggestion Kepler was a -56 OPS+ hitter. Let's see if you can actually address that question. Does it make sense to conclude max Kepler would be a -56 OPS+ hitter going forward as you did in a previous post? Edit: You did basically address the question so my error.

I didn’t say he should assume he would immediately return to his career norms. I suggested that you were ignoring a couple things when you wrote “ the Twins lost a 103 OPS+ hitter is not accurate. They lost a -56 OPS+ hitter.” The first thing is that it makes no sense to make such a claim with a very tiny sample size. The second is that it is ridiculous to assume a career 103 OPS+ hitter would continue to produce at a -56 level. Therefore, they were not losing a -56 OPS+ hitter. BTW …. Polanco had a wRC+ of 3 through his 1st 20 PAs. It is 136 since those 1st 20 Pas so it’s not at all absurd to suggest Kepler might return to his career norms, especially given he was hurt.

No. Their loss is not what he had done in 21 PAS. They are not losing that production. It's already occurred. Their loss is what he would have done going forward. The premise he is a -56 OPS+ hitter based on his most recent 21 PAs is absurd.

He was sucking. But to be fair, the sample size was very small and I doubt anyone would bet on him continuing to produce at a level of -56 OPS+. Put another way, if you were betting on his OPS+ the next 50 games he plays, where would you set the +/-? It certainly would not be -56. I suspect if any of us were betting, it would be much closer to the 103 than -56. I would make a very substantial bet at the mid-point between those two numbers.

Kirilloff and Miranda.

Doc, a lot of the angst over Polanco is that he was not part of a trade that brought in a front of the rotation SP. It’s perfectly understandable that as fans we want the ideal trade to be made. In this case, that’s a top SP with multiple years of control. The problem is that one SP that matches this description was traded this year and it was made by a division rival. Of course, it’s very rare for that type of trade to be made between division rivals. It’s also a very reasonable assumption that many teams would have traded for one of Seattle’s starting pitchers. Yet, none of them were able to get that done. This is where being upset at what was not done becomes rather unreasonable.

Apparently, you know what I meant to communicate better than I do myself. First, Polanco is not a 1B. Even if they put him there, Kirilloff is the better option against RHP and Santana better (historically) against LHP. So, he is not playing 1B. His only option is 3B if Lewis / Lee, and Correa are injured at the same time. Of course, that happened but what are the odds? The team is pretty much cooked if that situation persists and keeping Polanco would not come remotely close to making this team a contender.

IDK. The point was solely that you referred to Polanco as the better player than Julien which you avoided completely.

These posts were very clearly directed at if there was anytime other than DH where Polanco would be the best choice. It's a big reach to say this suggests that Santana was justification for getting rid of Polanco. Now, you do have a point if you fell they should have anticipated injuries in the first week of the season to Lewis / Correa and Lee.

That post was very clearly directed at if there was anytime other than DH where Polanco would be the best choice. It's a big reach to say this suggests that Santana was justification for getting rid of Polanco.

I was reacting to the 2nd post in this thread you said "Does that mean that Polanco would have been 1st, 2nd 3rd, 4th or 5th... which would have knocked Julien down to 2nd or 6th? So thank heavens we got rid of the better player so Julien can rise up that depth chart? Perhaps I did not understand what you meant but it sure reads as though Polanco is the better player and the reference is to Julien.

You will have to show me that post because that was not my position. I said over and over the reason for moving logic was ... A) Julien is the better player and $10M less. B) Farmer the better platoon player and versatile back-up and he can cover SS where Polanco cannot. C) Lee will likely be ready soon.

Their mistake that is making a difference was not trading Polanco. It was signing Santana. They should have signed Hoskins. His salary for 2023 is only $12M. They would only be at $132M with Hoskins. If that was a problem, they could have flipped DeSclafani immediately or just not taken him in the deal. They could have traded or non-tendered Thielbar. With Hoskins, they could send Kirilloff to the OF or use him as a DH. This would be a better team than what they have or if they had kept Polanco.

Polanco's wRC+ 2023 was 118. It's 89 this year / Julien's wRC+ 120 in 2023 was 136. It's 120 this year. So far this year, Polanco's OAA -1 / Juliens OA 2 In what way is Polanco the better player?

Defense is more important than offense from a catcher but offence does matter. He is 11th on the team in wRC+ with -11 and 11th in OPS at a paltry .310. That's bad. He rates 48th out of 53 Catchers with 17 ABs or more. The sample size is so small as to be relatively irrelevant, but he has been bad.

Insisting the analysis is cherry picking is not an explanation. It's a statement. I simply asked you to offer an explanation as to what set of data would make more sense than to use the best teams these organizations have ever fielded and look at how many players were acquired via every potential acquisition method. Show me where someone explained what set of data would be better to show how the best teams have been constructed. Now that you have been asked to explain what makes this data set "cherry picking", you want to quit. This does not require a lot of effort. Tell me what specific data set would best facilitate determining the best acquisition strategies. I used 5 years from the 3 teams with by far the most successful seasons since the turn of the century and the 3 best years from the next tier of terms of success. Every potential method was totaled for each team. So, are you going to run in hide or are you willing to support the statements you made so ardently?

I found the 101 course helpful in the 201/301/401 and the 501 course that was required in my MBA program but thanks for the advice just the same. The data includes the 5 best seasons for the teams that had the most playoff appearances, and all of the acquisition methods were covered. Also included are the 3 best seasons for the next tier of teams which of course did not have nearly as many good seasons. It would be great if you or any of the other posters you referenced would explain why this is cherry picking. I am even more curious as to if you are willing to actually explain your position. I just seems fair that if you are going to be this critical that you be willing to explain the problem with this approach with some specificity.

I would bet we can find the same type of posts about Stewart if we look back to the start of last season right along side hundreds of posts condemning Paddack. This is a no cost back-up plan to tide the team over until Duran and others make it back. As Doc pointed out, the braves thought he had value but I guess he is not good enough to provide depth until we get some guys healthy.

I guess I did ask what you have to say. However, instead of insisting the problem is my ignorance, why don't you explain to all of us a better way to isolate the impact of acquisition methods. I would think someone with your deep understanding of business analytic would be eager to illustrate the correct way to show how successful teams are built with the bonus of demonstrating my ignorance. I would also love to hear why this is cherry picked. The number of 91 win seasons was provided. Oakland, Cleveland, and Tampa Bay have far more seasons than any of the other teams in the bottom, half of revenue. It's clear they have been successful more often than other teams. I took their best seasons. I only used the best 3 seasons from the Twins, Dbacks, and Brewers because while they have been more successful than some other teams, they had far less 91+ win seasons than Oakland/TB and Cleveland. How is that cherry picking. Do we not want to be successful more often? Do we want to know how the most successful teams have built rosters? Please enlightenment us!

You could not be more wrong. Do you think I only looked at how many players were acquired before they were established. I posted the method no less than a half dozen times and probably 10. I broke down the categories of acquisition as follows. Drafted / International Draft / Acquired via trade or waiver before accumulating 1.5 WAR in a season (1.2 WAR for RPs) / acquired as proven. This is defined as a player that has produced 1.5 WAR in a season and the last category is free agents. In other words, I determined the percentage for every type of acquisition as opposed to your interpretation of "one variable", Posted below is a summary table. I used the 5 best seasons for the Ray, As, and Guardians and the 3 best seasons because they had far more 90+ win seasons and the 3 best seasons for the Twins, Brewers, and Dbacks. The win table is at the bottom. What do you have to say now? Rays (Summary) 5 Seasons Cleveland (summary) 5 Seasons Oakland (summary) 5 Seasons Average Wins 96.8 Average Wins 95.2 Average Wins 100 Drafted 4.2 14.28 37% Drafted 3.2 6.94 23% Drafted 3.2 9.42 26% Intl Draft 0.4 4.06 2% Intl Draft 3.4 11.62 26% Intl Draft 0.4 7.92 8% Trade as Prospect 6.6 11.78 39% Trade as Prospect 4.6 13.82 40% Trade as Prospect 5.8 7.72 35% Trade for Proven 1.2 3.28 9% Trade for Proven 0.4 3.7 13% Trade for Proven 1.2 6.58 17% Free gent 1.8 4.92 13% Free Agent 0.4 2.66 5% Free Agent 2.2 5.4 15% Twins (summary) 3 Dbacks (summary) 3 Brewers summary) 3 Seasons Average Wins 97 Average Wins 95 Average Wins 95.67 Drafted 6.00 18.43 42% Drafted 2.67 8.80 22% Drafted 2.67 9.13 31% Intl Draft 1.67 4.37 9% Intl Draft 1.67 4.77 12% Intl Draft 0.33 0.53 1% Trade as Prospect 2.67 9.13 22% Trade as Prospect 3.33 10.60 27% Trade as Prospect 5.00 9.97 32% Trade for Proven 1.67 4.33 10% Trade for Proven 1.67 7.00 16% Trade for Proven 2.00 5.47 16% Free gent 3.00 7.70 17% Free Agent 3.33 10.37 23% Free Agent 3.00 6.63 20% # of 91 seasons. 91 Wins 1 Yankees 16 2 Dodgers 13 3 Cardinals 10 4 Red Sox 12 5 Braves 10 6 Oakland 10 7 Cleveland 9 8 Tampa 7 9 Astros 7 10 Giants 6 11 Angels 7 12 TWINS 5 13 Mariners 4 14 Rangers 4 15 Phillies 4 16 Cubs 5 17 Brewers 4 18 Nationals 4 19 Dbacks 4 20 Mets 3 21 White Sox 3 22 Tigers 3 23 Blue Jays 3 24 Reds 2 25 Rockies 2 26 Orioles 3 27 Pirates 2 28 Padres 0 29 Marlins 1 30 Royals 1