Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Jham

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,320

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 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 Jham

  1. Jham
    I don't get the lack of k's with his velocity and breaking ball. control must be pretty inconsistent. His velo and curve are major league level. but control is part of "stuff". a big part.
  2. Jham
    That's precisely what I was saying. We're arguing the same thing. I think many are learning on WAR without considering the fact that it's an estimate of intangible "value". It's most accurate when comparing players of the same position. Posters are using it as proof rather than reference. My only point on Palka was that he was a rookie. I didn't make a point on Buxton at all. Some are saying he can still help the team by being a glove only CF based on WAR. when the correct phrase is "he can still post a positive WAR in cf". similar but different. Literally my only intention was to show where I thought the posters' disagreements might be originating; ie overvalue of cf defense.
  3. Jham
    Not what I said, Mike. just the position adjustment seems arbitrary compared to the other factors they're using in calculation. Like you said. It isn't perfect. I simply pointed out 1 way it's not. Doesn't mean we shouldn't use it at all.
  4. Jham
    I'm not disagreeing with the premise of position adjustment. Merely the execution. You're basically saying you can say who is a more valuable fielder between 2 different players by looking at their uzr then adding the adjustment. I don't think it's that simple. I think the adjustment seems arbitrary. There's enough players like Kep that play multiple spots, it shouldn't be impossible to check. But every team has to field every spot including DH. If you could field 9 Byron Buxtons, they'd all have different WARS with CF Buxton indeed getting an award for showing up. Again, I'm not referring to any specific player. I'm certainly not saying use WAR without the position adjustment. My point as was Ewen's is that WAR itself has some gaps and flaws. CF defense seems to be 1.
  5. Jham
    Ok. fWAR uses uzr (also positional). I get that. I'm just saying that I've seen no explanation as to how they came up with the positional adjustment that doesn't look arbitrary. I don't see how being bad at your position can be better than being good at another position (other than flexibilty, Riverb). Ball hawks, are also rewarded as I stated. Most outhogs are cf. I'm not suggesting that Palka is better than Hicks. But he hit 27 HR as a rookie. I just don't think WAR is a perfect stat for comparing them.
  6. Jham
    But defense is also factored in. So you're factoring it twice. Putting Palka in center wouldn't make him more valuable. He'd be a liability there. That's not more value. It's less. The defensive metric would bear that out. Does Kepler really need a different WAR calculation when he plays CF than RF?
  7. Jham
    Hicks v Palka... Buxton v blackhole all based off the ubiquitous "bwar". Look how it's calculated and you can pretty easily determine where the most likely discrepancy arises. "position adjustment". CF are given a 2.5 runs bump just for showing up. Corners are docked 7.5 runs. (Explains Kepler's elevated war as well). Where's the basis for the adjustment? Not actual defense, since that is calculated separately. If Buck and Kepler traded spots, would Kepler be the more valuable defensive player? No. If Rosie moved to CF instead of Kep last year, what would their WAR have been? The idea that it's harder to put up runs saved in CF than the corners isn't well founded IMO. and neither is the position adjustment. This is compounded by the fact that good cf are ball hawks who run down many balls that the corners might be in perfect position to catch. Thus it is harder for Rosie to increase his radius while Buxtons catch radius looks huge. The actual amount of runs saved is skewed for both. As is their WAR.
  8. Jham
    Hilde's change up is almost unhittable when he's on. Very few pitchers have a pitch like that. I'd give up on the adding new pitches and deliveries, and work on placement and rest. His MiLB record and MLB success suggests closer upside. We screwed up Duffey having him develop another pitch. How about throw your good pitches more often, to start.
  9. Jham
    Our cheap controllable talent won't be as cheap and will be losing years of control soon. We don't have much of a choice but to go for things now, imo. Given that this core has made 1 run and we've been building toward this year, that we have the money, that we've added no one for the future, and that we've extended no one either, I don't see how we can give something other than an F at this time. How expensive will an OF of Buck, Rosie, and Kep be in 2 years? Would you rather have that OF or Harper, Garver, and Field then Kiroloff in 2 years? Plus the prospects you get by trading your current OF.
  10. Jham
    Falvey for sure side-stepped. when asked about the pitching staff he literally skipped over the rotation. Then he raised the A's random gold strike as their plan? That's pretty unlikely. BUT if it were to work, you'd need someone to develope into an untouchable K machine. We have no one that could develop into that. The closest we had was Ryan Pressly who was still under contact and probably extendable. Instead we traded him. A strange move if our plan was to develop a Bull Pen first pitching staff. So they either have no plan, have switched plans and set us back, or are lying about the plan. I think it's 3. Why would they tell fans and media they're not trying to win?
  11. Jham
    4 pages and not 1 poster said they wanted to give up on Buxton. He's never been the site thing his minor league stats implied. Shops still had concerns about the setting and miss to his game and his pitch recognition. His power is natural but his swing never really has been. I'm not against a reasonable extention, but if he says no, I'm not against a reasonable trade package either. More than jrm mind you.
  12. Jham
    How is Kepler's bat even a consideration for first base at this point? Aren't we trying to win? Might as well resign Mauer at that point.
  13. Jham
    Which part do you disagree with? That we can't get value trading him presumably? I guess it just takes 1. Seems like a guy the Astros, Yankees, or Jays could work with.
  14. Jham
    I was just repeating the narrative. Oops. But I always thought playing pro at 16 is an advantage. Same with the "Sano is still only __ years old" argument.
  15. Jham
    The time to trade Kepler was 2 years ago. Now, the value is in keeping or even extending him. He reminds me somewhat of Christian Yelich. But also of David McCarty. Maybe someone will overpay for him, but I doubt it. Better now to play it out and hope his talent comes through. I've always thought he was a little overrated. Started baseball late but started his career early. Wasn't a big time prospect until he developed power which came at the expense of contact and left side splits. Stays closed down on the ball. Needs to open his chest and pull the ball. All of his hard hit balls are pulled anyway. Embrace it.
  16. Jham
    That's not incorrect. We're looking at the same issue from separate views. I see your argument as a little too "get younger just for the sake of getting younger" for my taste. I happen to think, regardless of league trends, the age aspect, on both ends, is really about maximizing each player's productive window under their rookie contract. This would lend itself to some players, flame throwers, wipe out sliders, elite speed guys to debut sooner. It might also lend itself to a patient approach with fringier types who may develop late. The Twins have just had an abundance of fringe types. The goal is to have the player under control for as many peak years as possible.
  17. Jham
    You know what a straw man argument is right? I never said the league isn't getting younger. That was in fact the very point of my post. Literally, I said nothing is more valuable in today's game than the young cost-controlled star. These players afford the ability to sign top players and remain out of luxury tax liability. These players also allow small market teams to compete if they can get lucky. Maximizing cost-control, number of prime years vs developmental years, and trade value of guys the league loves more than you do is sound management.
  18. Jham
    Your path of building from our prospect core is really close to what we've been doing. The facts show that the twins failure to rush players was a mistake? Which players were the Twins too slow with? Everytime fans get angry about not seeing so and so, they finally make it up and we see why they weren't fast tracked. The game has changed so much from the days you refer to. Young talented players could come up with flaws in their game because pitch fx fangraphs and stat casts didn't instantly tell the entire league where the holes in your swing were before you even got the call. Specialty relievers and power pitchers didn't overwhelm young hitters with undeveloped approaches. In today's game, almost nothing is more valuable than the young, talented, and cost-controlled star. If you start the clock early on your stars, you risk burning all your options on the late-bloomers, losing cost control a year early on super 2s, and getting to the trade/ play/extend zone before you have a great idea of the player you have. You risk losing the players peak seasons for no reason other than your own curiosity and impatience. And the ones who bust? How do you even know? Maybe they just weren't ready? But now you've killed the trade value of a nice chip. Look at Gonsalves. If we'd called up Gibby when fans wanted, we'd have traded him or dfad him before ever getting to his potential.
  19. Jham
    Who is "the young talent" you speak of? The only players in the system who figure to be upgrades are several seasons away. Similarly, rebuild to what end? Our last young core is arb eligible and figures to be down right expensive in a couple years. The pressure to trade or sign will be real in just a year. When you get young you have everyone coming up at the same time, they all get expensive at the same time which limits your ability to add. Rinse repeat. Also, how is anyone untouchable? Lewis and kiriloff are nice players but each have questions still. If Lewis can't stick at short his stock falls quite a bit. Alex may never develope mlb corner position power. Graterol has a short high effort delivery and prior ucl.
  20. Jham
    That's a relief. I hope it's true. He's been coddled at times. If this is a continuation of that, those that think they're helping him are actually hurting him. Glad things seem to be figured out.
  21. Jham
    Very inciteful. I also wonder if one would have signed, others would have followed.
  22. Jham
    You know, this has been a tough year. I hope he takes some time to relax and clear his head. He'll get back with everyone when it's time. Speaking out of anger and frustration probably makes things worse. Winning cures all. If Buck plays well and the team wins next season, he'll be the golden child again.
  23. Jham
    Which part was inaccurate? Which part not reasonable? Despite all that, you literally agreed with me. That plan A was probably Buxton being good. Somewhere around halfway through the season, the plan changed. That this is a year or even a 3 year plan as van suggested ignores a lot of evidence to the contrary. There were tons of opportunities to option Buck prior to when he was optioned. In fact, optioning him early could have avoided this awkward September. If you remember, he was recalled from the DL and played, not optioned. Then DL'd a 2ND time instead of optioning. Then rehabbed instead of optioning. Then finally optioned. Keep in mind Buck accrues service while on the DL and rehabbing. And can't be optioned off the DL. If he wasn't ready to come off when his 10 days were up, he could have continued on the DL and accrued more time. He could have manipulated his own service time by milking the migraines or toe and didn't. But not faking an injury isn't really praise worthy... He probably expected the same fair play in return. For that, I'd be mad too, but we'd given him a lot of extra service time already over the last few years including a lot of time on the DL.
  24. Jham
    The truth is usually somewhere inn the middle, but posters and media keep pushing this narrative without looking at the actual evidence. Buxton was not sent to the DL with a new injury. Hee could habe been optioned instead of DL'd if the main consideration were service time over playing Buck. The rehab scenario you complained of could have easily occurred earlier when he went down with a migraines the first time. If you think the team was planning on Buxton NOT bring an integral part of the team this year, you are a different sort of crazy. You can make your point for Buxton without inventing conspiracy theories. Was service time eventually the main factor? obviously. Was manipulating service time plan A B or C this year, or for 3 years like you said? Sorry, no way. Buck has had a hugely frustrating year. The service time issue want the Sunday, merely the cherry on top. Winning cures everything. If the team is good next season and Buxton is playing well, the relationship with the FO will heal itself.
  25. Jham
    Ok. So it could be piggy back start, 2 days rest, available in pen. I'd send 1 down immediately and replace the other on day 6 (or earlier if you need fresh arms). Repeat with fresh arm(s), and recycle on day 11. So (up to) 10 up, 10 down. Negates having a designated long man or 5th starter and provides additional pen strength since usually your 5th starter is not available. You trade some Romero innings for Stewart innings. But have a more effective Romero who can come in in a traditional relief role days after the piggy back. Prevents over work by providing fresh arms and protecting against short starts by planning for them and always having a fresh arm available.
×
×
  • Create New...