Jump to content
If free agency is too rich for your blood, click here for the 35 players most likely to be traded this offseason. ×
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Mike Sixel

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    48,924

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    340

 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 Mike Sixel

  1. Mike Sixel
    Sano is not coming up anytime soon next year, imo. There is zero reason to trade Plouffe at this point. Zero. Sano might not even stick at third. I don't think I trade Plouffe at all for the next two years.......no way.
  2. Mike Sixel
    This might be our most respectful payroll thread ever......much more polite than previous attempts.
  3. Mike Sixel
    Can't believe the Hu thing......it was a good write up.
  4. Mike Sixel
    http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/evaluating-the-prospects-minnesota-twins/
  5. Mike Sixel
    That's not what the 17% means...... The number being discussed is "how much of winning can be explained by payroll, not by other stuff". About 17% of how many wins is correlated, and maybe caused by, how much a team spends. But the focus on one year's number from a study covering 25 years is kind of depressing......
  6. Mike Sixel
    And as I've pointed out, the fact that a team that loses a ton, gets high picks that work out, can win a lot, but then lose eventually if they don't spend to keep their players around......and, that 17% is a bad number, that is ONE YEAR on the chart, 5 of the last 10 were over 20%.......
  7. Mike Sixel
    I think there is no reason to hold back Burdi also. I was 100% wrong on that pick for sure. His pitches are ready right now for a bullpen role. As more and more teams are doing, call him up before he gets hurt.
  8. Mike Sixel
    As a fan, I root for shirts and not individuals....so not all fans are like you (but I bet most are more like you). The A's don't lose 90 games under Beane, they just keep reloading.
  9. Mike Sixel
    Here's a thought experiment....... For the low budget teams that won a lot the last years, would they have won more or less if they had replaced one of their SP or regulars with a good FA? The stats are somewhat guaranteed not to be fully about payroll, since salaries are artificially constrained by the FA rules. TB was good and cheap for years. As their players got closer to FA, they dealt them, and they got worse.....what if they had been able to keep them? What if they had been able to add a legit FA in those cheap years?
  10. Mike Sixel
    I'd take a 17% improvement in the club right now (and I know that's not what the number means.....). quoting the 17% is also kind of bunk, in the last 10 years of that study, the number was over 20% 5 times........ Post 122 said that they didn't win more games this year than last year, even with the signings. The implication was that they "were the same", when I'd argue that not having Hughes, Suzuki, and even Nolasco, they win less games than they did. There are plenty of posts here arguing there is "no" correlation between wins and payroll, when that is not true. A slightly different take on 2012 from Fangraphs: If you spend less than the league average, even in the year when there was "no correlation"....resulted in this: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2012-payrolls-and-wins/ Top 10: $140 million, .525 Win% Middle 10: $88 million, .511 Win% Bottom 10: $66 million, .464 Win% Rather than look at one team, look at tiers of teams.....that 17% exists largely because salaries are constrained by the FA rules. Teams that draft well and don't spend much can win.....but even they would be better if they spent more.
  11. Mike Sixel
    From a Freakonomics article: USA Today reports team payrolls from 1988 to 2012 – across these 25 years, a team’s relative payroll (team payroll in a given year divided by the league average payroll in that season) does have a statistically significant relationship with a team winning percentage. So across all the years for which data exists, payroll and wins are statistically related. We should note, though, that explanatory power is somewhat low. Only about 17 percent of the variation in team winning percentage (i.e. the R2 from the equation) across the past 25 years is explained by a team’s spending on talent. So much of the variation (specifically, more than 80 percent) in winning percentage is not explained by payroll. That being said, there is a statistical relationship. More spending seems to get you something. http://freakonomics.com/2012/10/11/money-didn%E2%80%99t-buy-happiness-in-baseball-in-2012/
  12. Mike Sixel
    I think the point isn't "pitch to contact is a good idea", I think the points are: 1. Strikeout pitchers are really expensive. If you are a lower revenue team, you need to find another way, maybe. 2. If you go with another strategy, you need to change your fielders to fit that strategy. That's what the Pirates have done, at least that's what they claim to have done. Isn't that a good idea?
  13. Mike Sixel
    The argument that they didn't get better with the FA acquisitions is a bit off.....they may not have won more than last year, but would they have won as many as they did w/o Suzuki, Hughes, and even Nolasco? Take out Hughes, put in ??? Take out Nolasco, put in ????.....are people arguing they would have won even this many games w/o them? Are people really arguing that adding good players through FA, and keeping your good players around, does NOT increase the odds of winning more games?
  14. Mike Sixel
    Garza Young was not like this at all. The Twins didn't give up a slew of prospects for a proven player, just like always, they gave up proven players for a prospect/1 year guy......in other words, the Twins were on the OTHER side of that trade. No one in that list for Sano looks like even a certain MLB player other than Sano. Odds are, less than half the guys in that list will deliver even 4 WAR in their career. That's the nature of prospects.
  15. Mike Sixel
    It is clearly a skill....and it is clear pitchers have control over it too. No one is arguing with Suzuki on that. I bet he doesn't like that stat partly because it hates him as a catcher.
  16. Mike Sixel
    It is more likely Sano, who has never played in the majors, will turn around a franchise, than a guy that has proven to be one of the best hitters in the game? Can you explain that belief?
  17. Mike Sixel
    b meant, to me, "we needed more money to remain competitive", not that they would succeeding being competitive.....that's the whole reason for the stadium, more money so they can spend more on players, right?
  18. Mike Sixel
    He said revenue, not payroll, though I agree with both.
  19. Mike Sixel
    I always forget that one.......how about, TR doesn't do it much? Not sure why I always forget that one. That's all off topic, though. I like the list, and it is probably better than previous lists in this range, but no one screams they are making the majors (other than Hu.....) as an everyday player or starting pitcher. There are players here, imo, that will be on rosters for multiple years though. If only we could accurately predict which of them.....
  20. Mike Sixel
    We can probably quibble on the timing of the move, but it was inevitable. Frankly, I would have done it the year before.....he's too valuable to risk the added increase in probability of injury (man, that sentence sucked)
  21. Mike Sixel
    I guess, if you totally discount baseball inflation, the payroll is bigger.....but want to bet on if it is if you take into account the inflation in payroll in baseball?
  22. Mike Sixel
    So basically he is just lying, or every source is way off on the revenue.....I know which side of that bet I'd take. "we don't see it going down significantly" sounds a lot like "it's going down, but not so much you poor suckers should worry about it anymore than you did about Kubel and Bartlett being signed last year".....but that could be my personal lens on the team.....
  23. Mike Sixel
    Clearly they spent more money.....but as we all know, if you borrow it, then pay it back over time, you didn't effectively spend that much up front....especially if your investment is going up faster than the interest. Let's just say that a: they spent some, not enough, money on the stadium and we got suckered, b: they have not lived up to any semblance of a commitment to fund payroll higher than the what they had (and yes, they said they needed the stadium to be competitive, which they mostly have not been, being competitive is code for "we need more money to pay more salary" isn't it?), c: we don't know with certainty what will come to pass, but we can generate some hypothesis based on the past......
  24. Mike Sixel
    Not really....several guys had started to slump, several got hurt, it isn't about Cespedes much at all, from what I read, unless he had some magical ability to make people in Oakland better that he lost after the trade.....
  25. Mike Sixel
    It's still hard to figure out what happened to the A's.......but it is a lesson for the Twins, imo. The A's had the best O in the game, traded for more pitching, and somehow got worse. Just because your offense looks good, doesn't mean you can assume it will stay that way. Just a thought.
×
×
  • Create New...