Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

nytwinsfan

Provisional Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,784

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 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 nytwinsfan

  1. nytwinsfan
    Fair enough.
  2. nytwinsfan
    He's definitely one to watch. Seems like he has a lot of tools for a young guy, and he is a cold weather HS multi-sport player, both of which are factors that sometimes hide additional upside once they start practicing and playing just one sport year round.
  3. nytwinsfan
    From the time Meyer went into relief on May 25, he had the following stats: K/9: 10.08 BB/9: 4.10 HR/9: 0.34 Avg. .244 WHIP: 1.41 ERA: 3.08 FIP: 2.95 With the exception of the BB/9 (which is also driving up the WHIP), those are very solid numbers. If he can get the walks down to 2.5 or even 3 per 9 innings, he can still be a very valuable relief pitcher. Getting the walks down is still the big issue.
  4. nytwinsfan
    If you cherry pick small sample sizes of 8 years (2002-2010) for one team, then sure, you can back up almost any point. But the whole point of the phrase "statistically speaking" is that it doesn't show up in the data until you get to large sample sizes. You might say, well if it doesn't show up in the data for a long time, then why do we care since we will be dead by then. Two reasons, (1) because your son or gradnson will be around then, and we are concered with long time horizons, since by our initial assumptions, we are talking about flags flying "forever." (2) More fundamentally, even over the short run, I argue the team that makes it to the playoffs most often will win the most world series, on average. You may disagree with that, and I could be wrong, but being able to pick an 8 year period for one team out of 30 where that didn't come true doesn't even remotely disprove the assertion. It doesn't even come close.
  5. nytwinsfan
    Well, given that there were 4 teams from each league, you would expect the Twins to get to the world series just 1.5 times out of those 6 years if they were an average playoff team. So the Twins underperformed over that period. But then they made it to the World Series (and won twice) two out of two times in the late 80s-early 90s, which is way better than expected outcome. If you look over the last 30 years, which is still too small of a sample size, but still better than the last 15 years, the Twins' much much bigger problem has been not making the playoffs, not failing to do well in the playoffs.
  6. nytwinsfan
    I'd make moves (not just at the trade deadline, but in any trades and in drafting) to maximize the number of playoff appearances. Playoff baseball is a crapshoot. Even the best teams have only a slightly higher chance of winning the world series than the less good playoff teams. 7, 5 or 1 game series are not large enough sample sizes to allow the best team to rise to the top every year, or even most years. So the strategy should be to maximize playoff appearances. Yes, Flags Fly Forever. Not only do I not disagree, I agree completely. But I claim that the the team that makes it to the playoffs most often will have the most Flags Flying Forever, statistically speaking. So in expected value terms, going all in for one or two years often doesn't make sense, since it will reduce the likelihood of you making the playoffs for years to come. Does that mean never trading prospects at the deadline? No, but it means mostly doing so when it is likely to help you on the margin make the playoffs, not when it is likely to make you a slightly better playoff team. And also it means that you have to weigh the future expected value of those prospects in helping you make the playoffs in future years, versus the marginal increase in the chances of making the playoffs this year.
  7. nytwinsfan
    Me too, but I think they should be strategic about it, which is what they have been. Sometimes they go big (Sano, Javier) and other times they spread it out over a number of good, but less high-profile picks (Polanco, Diaz, Palacios, Vielma, Thorpe). It totally depends on the scenario. If there is one year to go big, however, it is probably this ucoming one. There are at least four very good reasons to do so this year, as opposed to previous years: (1) the Twins will have a much smaller cap compared to the previous four or five years, so going over the cap gives them marginally more than it would have in past years; (2) this year's international crop of players is supposed to be one of the best in years; (3) many of the biggest spenders, such as the Dodgers, Red Sox, Cubs, and Yankees will not be involved in the big signings since they are limited to $300 K; (4) an international draft may be coming soon, which will blow up the system. While there might (would likely?) still be penalties for those teams that went over the previous year in an international draft, this injects an uncertainty into what those penalties are, and just how severe they will be. Here is the argument for spending big in the international market this year in greater length: http://www.baseballamerica.com/international/2016-year-break-international-bonus-pool/ I hope the Twins go huge this July. This is their chance.
  8. nytwinsfan
    This is a very solid list. Having a hard time seeing anything here I don't agree with. At most I might have very slight variations (maybe Palacios ahead of Blankenhorn). Might have Cabbage near the end. Overall amazingly good list.
  9. nytwinsfan
    I would be interested, but only with a significant discount based on his mediocre performance and concussion last year. Do we have any idea how he's doing health-wise? We'd want to be pretty sure he is likely to bounce back, because the last thing the Twins need is a second (and possibly third, depending on how Pinto recovers) catcher owed money who will take up a DH/1B spot.
  10. nytwinsfan
    Ok, that's fair. Good point. Still not an Ace, and not clearly a #2 either. I'll grant that he is probably in the #2 range then. I get your point, but playoff baseball is such a crapshoot. There is too much chance involved over such a small sample size. If you want to maximize the number of World Series championships your team wins, I think you basically want to maximize the number of years you are in the playoffs. I think Berrios and Kepler for 6.75 years each is much more likely to do that than 4 years of Gray. I think Berrios has a good chance (probably close to 50%) of being a #2 starter or more. Combined with his upside, the value of Kepler, and added service time available for both, I just think it is a no brainer. Berrios for Gray straight up would be a tougher call, but I'd still probably go with Berrios. But in that case I would admit it isn't clear cut.
  11. nytwinsfan
    I suppose, but the names mentioned in return were: Gibson, Dozier, Berrios and Kepler. Gibson is the only one of those I might consider for a guy with a concussion.
  12. nytwinsfan
    Why would we want Lucroy, especially for the guys you mention? He just came off a career worst year with a concussion. Seriously?
  13. nytwinsfan
    Over his last 3 years (Gray's entire career) he was 32nd in FIP and 34th in xFIP and SIERA. Also, 32nd in WAR. Definitions of an "Ace" vary, but they all or almost all agree that there are fewer than 20-25 of them. So actually, your definition is the one that is off: See Keith Law (15-20): http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/49119/mlb-insider-keith-law "I define "ace" or "number one starter" as "top 15-20 in the game." See Kiley McDaniel: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/scouting-explained-the-20-80-scouting-scale/ "Most scouts agree there are only ever 8-12 pitchers that could be called #1s or aces at any given time, but then there’s like 20 #2s and like 75 #3s. See John Sickels: http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/8/7/3226335/defining-1-2-3-4-5-starters "For me, a Number One starter is a guy who anchors your rotation, will be in line for the All-Star game most seasons. . . There aren't a lot of these guys active at any one time, certainly not enough for every team to have one." And this makes sense if you look at WAR totals. Last year, according to Fangraphs, there were only 13 pitchers that were worth 5 WAR or more. Basically, Aces. Then, there were another 19 worth 3 to 5 WAR. So 32 pitchers worth 3 WAR or more last year. Are you comfortable saying a pitcher worth 8.4 WAR, or on average 2.8 WAR per year over the last three years was a number 2 starter? Borderline, maybe. But not a clear #2. And certainly, without a doubt, NOT an ace.
  14. nytwinsfan
    I think you mean by this that you judge pitchers by ERA rather than Wins. If so, I would suggest to you that ERA is a team stat as well, since it includes the effect of good (or bad) defense, not to mention ballpark and luck. You would be better off using FIP or SIERA. Under both of those Gray has been a very good pitcher (somewhere between a #2 or #3 starter), but not remotely an Ace.
  15. nytwinsfan
    Yeah, but I think the the word "ceiling", by definition includes the exceptional year. I don't think Gibson's exceptional year would ever look anything like that. Maybe 3.5 WAR and a 3.30 FIP, at most. But sure, agree to disagree.
  16. nytwinsfan
    Maybe we have different definitions of the word "ceiling," but generally I think of a "ceiling" including anything that might reasonably happen. I think it is at least reasonably possible (i.e., at least greater than 10%) that Hughes will regain his velocity. Are you really going to argue that the guy that had a 5.8 WAR season with a 2.58 FIP has a lower ceiling than the guy whose highest WAR was 2.5 and lowest FIP was 3.80? Sure, Hughes has more seasons in the league, so maybe Gibson will have a high upside season coming, but I dunno, seems pretty clear cut to me.
  17. nytwinsfan
    I think you have quality and quantity switched around . . . Also, in what universe do Nolasco and Gibson have higher ceilings than Hughes, Santana, Duffey, and May? I realize that Nolasco had some good FIPs in the past, but his ERA has constantly been higher, and tellingly, so has his SIERA, both of which are likely due to his high fly ball tendencies. Also, Hughes, Duffey, Santana and May have also all had good FIPs in recent years.
  18. nytwinsfan
    I agree that it is highly speculative that Escobar is likely to hit better long-term by just being a SS, rather than utility man. I also think there is a decent chance he regresses a bit next year. However, all that being said, while Desmond might be an upgrade, I just don't think his cost is worth it, given that we (1) have Escobar, who has a very good chance to be at least league average, and (2) we have so much bigger needs at catcher and relief pitcher.
  19. nytwinsfan
    Even if that is the case a few years down the road, a few years down the road we'll also have Gordon or Palacios almost ready, or we'll have Nolasco and Santana off the books and be in a position to sign a good or decent SS. There are much more urgent needs at catcher and relief pitching.
  20. nytwinsfan
    What about trading for Gary Sanchez? I know nobody likes dealing with the Yankees, but he might be available for the right price.
  21. nytwinsfan
    Beane wouldn't do that, no way. But Terry Ryan would. We'd have to throw a top 5 prospect in a minimum.
  22. nytwinsfan
    This was good, except the part about Escobar is just entirely wrong: Wrong wrong wrong. Also, wrong.
  23. nytwinsfan
    This makes total sense from experience. Completely agree. Terry Ryan et al are great at drafting and developing, and mostly horrible at trading/FA. All the more reason to put the thumb on the scale in NOT trading our prospects for established players.
  24. nytwinsfan
    Fangraphs' SIERA stat tries to take into account groundballs/flyballs/line drives. Think of it is a FIP modified by what kind of contact the pitcher gives up. Gray's stats: 2013: 3.04 2014: 3.56 2015: 3.80 Career: 3.59 That 3-year (also for Gray, career) number of 3.59 is very good. But it makes him 34th in baseball over that period of time. Is that a very good pitcher? Absolutely. But there are not 34 Aces in baseball. Arguably, there aren't event 15-20. Gray just is NOT an ace, and calling him one doesn't make it so. He is a number 2 starter at best, with recent injury issues and declining performance each year. Would I trade him for him straight up for Berrios? Maybe, even though my gut tells me no. But for Berrios AND Kepler? No way.
  25. nytwinsfan
    No F'ing way. Gray's FIP has been 3.46 and 3.45 the last two years (and his xFIPs were not even that good). If Berrios alone isn't better than that by his second year, I'd be disappointed. Duffy had a 3.24 FIP this year (including his probably nerve-exacerbated first start against the Blue Jays) and May had a 3.35 FIP this year as a starter (it was better as a reliever, as one might expect). Why does anyone have the urge to trade our best prospects for a number 2 or 3 starter? Let's stick with the prospect we have who has a high probability of being a number 3 starter and an outside chance at being an ace, plus a potential four-tool outfielder who has ample potential to be an above-average regular.
×
×
  • Create New...