Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Jham

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,320

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Profiles

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Jham

  1. Jham
    Fangraphs even explicitly cautions users on the weighting, particularly of HR which typically occur in small samples. Thus it created a separate stat, xFIP which assumes league avg hr rates. That said, FIP, xFIP, and SIERA are all good stats that carefully and scientifically weight the input data based on historical correlations with run prevention. But... the game is changing in regard to, and perhaps because of, the areas these stats emphasize: k's, bbs and HRs. 2 things i'd like to see is if the counting stats have the same run prevention correlations in the modern game as they used to. I'd really like to see how much more stable Fip is from year to year compared to era. Still don't get trying to predict era.
  2. Jham
    No, the weighting matters. Presumably, you're comparing pitchers based on FIP and suggesting the pitcher with the lower FIP (objective) is a better (subjective) pitcher. But the score is weighted, and the weighting may favor Ks over limiting walks or getting ground balls. The real question is why the heck we try to predict era at all. shouldn't FIP and xFIP be relatively constant?
  3. Jham
    Defensive metrics continue to improve. No doubt. I think all skeptics like cheif and myself say it's to acknowledge the blind spots. Many say they do, but don't really. Statcast is a game changer. It can track both the route of the defender, the trajectory and speed of the batted ball, and the place on the field it lands. The illusion is that it takes all into consideration. FSN will show Buxton on a route and catch and show it as caught only 6% of ther time. But that's not the route. It's simply based on how many balls of that trajectory are hit to that particular spot on the field and turned into outs. Useful, but with modern shifting the data can be heavily skewed. We've all seen the can of corn to the left side turned into a hot because of an extreme outfield shift. The left fielder would get crushed on that ball because statcast would show that ball as a FO 7 twingo spot 97% of the time when in reality he had no shot. Shifted the other way in the infield, a 2b might be called under that ball and statcast might have the play as nearly miraculous. Statcast tracks both but assembling is still difficult. SSS exacerbates this since one unlucky shift play can skew the numbers given the low number of chances. Then there's the arbitrary position adjustment for WAR which I contr want to get into again...
  4. Jham
    No, but the right side may still shift with the entire infield playing back at double play depth. You can use Ken Griffey Jr or Bryce Harper if it helps. And since it's all hypothetical, we can also assume some of the infielders are giant penguins. It makes me smile to think about and it still drives home the idea that at some time, you reach a tipping point where the smart play is to bunt. To me, for most players in most situations, the tipping point is 2 or more penguins in the infield.* (not supported by data, very sss)
  5. Jham
    What if it's extra innings at Target Field with a runners on the corners 1 out? "Those idiots gave up a chance at more runs!"
  6. Jham
    The nice thing about stats is that it can simply very complex analysis. It's drawback is that it can simplify very complex analysis. The stats regarding shifting and bunting are all based on historical data that may or may not apply to the evolving game. "never bunt" (based on run production) evolved into sometimes bunt, even sacrifice, when it's late and close (based on win %)... Further analysis showed that very successful bunters or perhaps poor sluggers may make the bunt a good play. But the historical data doesn't take shifts into account. and counts bunting for hits the same way as sacrificing. And a lot of the data is pitchers I'd imagine. Anyway, there's a tipping point for every player where bunting becomes a good play which also happens to be situation dependent. Bottom line, nothing is absolute. People can argue all they want because they're both right.
  7. Jham
    Thad Levine on Miguel Sanó: “I got a chance to see him when I was down in the Dominican and literally lay hands on him as appropriately as possible, hug him and touch as many muscle groups as I could.” He must have started from the head and worked his way down...
  8. Jham
    And Buxton 0-3 with 3k. COME ON!!
  9. Jham
    Couldn't trade him before because you never trade away young controllable position players. Can't trade once value drops because you're selling low. Can't sell once value drops even lower because no one will buy. Some called for his trade years ago when his value was sky high. Even his minor league numbers didn't match his hype. Powerful, talented, affable, but fragile and perhaps a bit overrated.
  10. Jham
    I'm not sure if you actually believe what you're saying or just spouting talking points. I'm not the one claiming that inheriting wealth entitles one to not only a larger share of the pie, but also the knife that cuts it.
  11. Jham
    Carl Pohlad was beloved owner and business man who built a banking empire, won 2 world series, kept Puckett by making him the highest paid player in the sport. What exactly has Jim Pohlad done or accomplished to deserve to be one of 32 MLB owners in the world? Free market is driven by 2 simple principles: supply and demand. MLB isn't a free market because demand is somewhat fixed on the production side: 32 teams x 25 roster spots. Also, Lux tax pulling down large contracts and cost control over 3 with team control for 6. And supply is fixed on the consumption side: 30 teams in the league. Demand has sky rocketed because of the availability of content (tv and internet). Everyone is making money. Still 30 teams. Baseball is (pro sports are) actually a good example of why the free market has limitations. The market suggests that more teams should enter the market until profit is sufficiently depleted. But at that point, the product becomes watered down as talent is stretched over more teams. Eventually you'll have a cheaper less profitable product that people will stop watching. The owners even recognize the need for some level of competitive balance to ensure the viability of the resource for all interested parties. So they agree to share profits to keep the whole league strong. A redistribution of wealth for the common benefit of all. But it's only socialism if the players want a share, right? The owners don't have to share their books during negotiations. That should be your first ref flag.
  12. Jham
    http://twinsdaily.com/articles.html/_/minnesota-twins-news/minnesota-twins/from-the-handbook-building-on-buxton-r6238 "After splitting last season between toe tapping and leg kicking, Buxton proclaimed that he would be one hundred percent a leg kicker in 2017. This spring, with a newfound sense of clubhouse swagger, Buxton declared that the “leg kick is me now” and he is going to “stick with what I do.” In fact, one of his biggest influences, Torii Hunter, spent the offseason sending him encouraging text messages to stick with the leg kick." Ain't nothing new. Guy's been spun around by as many hitting instructors as sliders. Hunter is gone-ish. Molly and Bruno are gone. I don't think he's saying he won't take help or coaching. I think he's saying his success or failure will be his own. He obviously decided to ditch the leg kick. So it's not like he's totally against coaching.
  13. Jham
    This mutual exclusivity is tiring and unproductive. If we're trying to get better in the long run, why sign players to 1 year deals? Being in some guys that help now AND going forward. There were even some "build around" guys available if this "wait and see" doesn't work out. If Sano and Buck bomb again this year, where are we left? What if only one of them makes it? What if they're both only ok to pretty good? This is how you end up trading away all of your good players and hoping your prospects exceed their ceilings for decades at a time. IE the perpetual rebuild. Good teams perpetually add AND UPGRADE their talent whenever they can. They don't wait and see.
  14. Jham
    Pretty sure this makes us a better team, just not sure how or why. He's an upgrade over somebody...
  15. Jham
    Get lucky. Sign better talent. make smart extensions. Better player development. Smart coaching and player usage. Bringing up prospects who can contribute. And trading prospects for more immediate or certain returns. These are all also ways to get better. I'm dubious as to who would trade for Rosario in exchange for a young controllable pitcher sp upgrades the staff. Who has that much pitching?
  16. Jham
    Pitch is in a different spot, but his first swing shows the bat leading the way. Classic keep the bat in the zone contact swing. The 2nd shows lower hands and better swing trajectory. He's trusting his wrists and eyes to make contact and throwing his hands at the ball creating a noticeably crisper snap and more power. Just as importantly, his teammates love him. His fans love him. He begs into games when heat waves was causing others to pull themselves out. That goes a LONG way in a 162 game season with inevitable losing skids.
  17. Jham
    I mean, maybe one day they'll give a trophy for "most economical winning percentage" or play 1 World Series every 7 years, but until then, any one given season, your best bet is actually trying to field the best team and then dealing with the tail end of contracts when they come. The key is to have super stars during their prime. Then add value wherever you can around them. You can trade for it, buy it, or draft it. Everyone knows you overpay for stars at the end of their deals. That's part of acquiring (or keeping) stars. Why not up the AAV and keep the years down? Well, 1) most of the time the teams bidding have luxury tax threshold issues and extending the cost out benefits the team. 2) why would you want to pay the same for less years? As we saw with Mauer, you can still usually get some production from the last few years. The small market teams look at long contracts as commitments. The large market teams see them as financing.
  18. Jham
    My only trepidation is that to me, it seemed that his spot is maybe the most easily replaced (would Cave be a definite step down?) and more importantly one of the easiest spots to upgrade if your team tops out. This FO will not upgrade above contracts it already possesses.
  19. Jham
    I mean, you guys are both right. There's a different scale for Free Agents than extensions. There are opposite pressures. Bidding in the FA market and team control on the extension side. One pulls up, the other drags down. The cost per WAR on the FA market is skewed because less valuable players drop out the bottom. The guys with positive WAR who aren't signed don't get count as zeros. Players of Kepler's production level are virtually worthless at a certain age because almost every organization has guys with upside who can do what he has done for league min. Or you can sign a retread to a minor league deal or even an ML deal which boosts the number since they're counting the guys who sign and not the ones who don't. Kepler got his money because he's youngish with upside. If his same production were available but he was 31 when most players hit FA the market for him along with the perception of him would probably be platoon or 4th outfielder. League is changing. Skewing toward super stars and rookie deals.
  20. Jham
    I know. I'm just frustrated because I think many of us sense that this core is running out of time. If they fail, we're waiting on the next core with only the remnants of a failed core to build upon. We have no franchise player to build around. 2 players who are already who we were hoping Mauer would be are out there. We have little tied up in future salary. Adding a key stone player gives flexibility, a back up plan, and solidifies plan A all at the same time. With most of the big shooters struggling with cap issues and 2 superstars watering down each other's market, this opportunity just might not come around again. Even if it Josh Hamilton's out, We aren't otherwise over-committed and have a deep enough farm system to weather it if we are smart about it. Now is the time.
  21. Jham
    You don't "have" to do anything. You can expand payroll with a pretty darn good excuse: Harper's aren't available for just cash almost ever. Big dogs not hard in pursuit. Controlled core still cheap with another wave coming. Having Harper for 2 waves rather than 1 isn't bad. Imagine if we traded Buxton Rosie AND Kep for prospects. And we started Harper, Cave, and Garver. (for example) Conceivably we upgrade 3 different line up spots. (lose some on d). Then next year we add in AK and Rooker on Rookie deals. And remember, we probably got 5 ot 6 future big leaguers waiting from trading the current OF. Also, we don't have to do all these moves now. We can keep Buxton or Rosie or Kep for another year and You can try to do the math on cost. But which outfield do you like best out of those options?
  22. Jham
    Personally, I don't think Kepler's defense (metrics a product of sss) is sustainable even if his offense improves. Maybe I'm wrong, but i think a full season of Cf would expose him as an adequate to good corner outfielder. That's just my opinion.
  23. Jham
    Evidently we believe in this core afterall. Time to bring in Bryce Harper and put the boot on the AL Central's neck for not 1, not 2, not 3...
  24. Jham
    Not a fan of extending a player a positive test away from maybe never playing again. I always like polanco because he swims hard but doesn't have contact issues. But until I can see his slugging isn't PED related (took him 2 months to go yard after his recall) I wouldn't have offered. price was right though.
  25. Jham
    Not a fan of extending a player a positive test away from maybe never playing again. I always like polanco because he swims hard but doesn't have contact issues. But until I can see his slugging isn't PED related (took him 2 months to go yard after his recall) I wouldn't have offered. price was right though.
×
×
  • Create New...