Doomtints

Looking at the splits for De Leon in his 4 starts is interesting. He was very good against LHP, but there were a few RHP who had some success against him. He allowed 5 home runs in those 4 games. Many of the hitters who hit well off of him were rookies like him. This is not unusual considering he was a September call up playing against others who were September call ups. But this signifies that the home runs may be on the Dodgers -- they didn't know how to pitch to these new players. The only veteran of any consequence who got a hit off of De Leon was Starlin Castro.

That's not a decimal. Everything after the decimal point means days. Age 24.063 = Age 24 and 63 days. De Leon made his MLB debut at age 24.028, or just after his 24th birthday.

More than that. If you remove Dozier's top and bottom HR totals over the past 4 years, you remove 60 of his home runs and are left with 51. There would be no quicker way to get a wrong answer in reality, even if your teacher might mark it as right. I agree that Dozier is probably good for a hair above 30 HR each year for the next couple of years.

Kershaw just sat out half the year due to injury. He also missed time in 2014. He never played more than 122 innings in a year in the minors. Also, players who go to college are always debut older than those who don't by about 4 years....

"Elite power for his position" isn't a value statement? What is it then? Also, the line you quoted was not what I was responding to. As for power, Dozier's SLG last year was .546. Very good, but not elite. There have been recent years where second basemen have had higher SLG percentages than that with a mere seven home runs. Last year he was outslugged by someone who hit 25. Knowing that, if you are the Dodgers do you still focus only on Dozier? If you are the Twins, how high to you set the bar for a trade?

It matters a lot in this discussion. One of those would be a future HOFer and would greatly affect what the Twins should get in a trade. If the "top HR hitter" is 2 home runs above the competition, could you save your prospects and trade instead trade for the #5 HR hitter, only sacrificing half a dozen HR in the process? Yes, that would be a smart move to keep your top prospects and keep your money. If the "top HR hitter" is 30 home runs above the competition, passing on him for the #5 HR hitter is suddenly becomes a real, actual drop in value. Thus, the fact that Dozier's HR lead is due to hitting 2x his career norm in one year is worth looking at for any team. Teams would be dumb not to do that. Also, if the Dodgers are looking for power, wouldn't they be chasing SLG instead of HR? Some players with half the HR as Dozier have similar or better SLGs. How much does HR even matter here? We could be getting deep into a discussion that is simply a red herring.

No one is arguing that if you take away Dozier's 42 that he isn't worth anything. The point is he isn't as far ahead as everyone else as is being suggested (at least until Dozier proves he can do it again). He isn't in that "super human" territory as is being suggested (at least not yet).

Entry level statistics teaches that you get rid of the highest and lowest numbers. But what if either of the highest or lowest numbers are within a standard deviation of the norm? You've started to remove valid data just to deal with some other number that is skewing things. And you're not *really* dealing with that outlier data by this process, you're just finding a way to feel more equitable about removing it. But getting the right story from data isn't about feeling fair about it. (And it's also not about removing data you don't like, it's about finding some other way to deal with it). Not looking at Dozier's competition, here are the various methods discussed for dealing with Dozier over the past four years: - Straight up HR/yr average: 27.75 (111 total) - Mean + Median HR/yr average: 26.63 (106 total) - Replacing highest and lowest with the average: 24.25 (97 total) - Replacing the outlier with the average: 23 (92 total) - Removing the outlier altogether: 23 (69 total) - Removing highest and lowest: 25.5 (51 total) If I were making a recommendation, I would use the 26/yr projection as it's the system that does not ignore his great year, it simply weighs it less. If 2016 becomes his norm, then that will work itself out over time in the calculation. With Dozier's small sample size the story is about the same regardless of the method you use -- 42 home runs is a hell of a lot more than anyone would have expected in 2016. It would thus be a gamble to expect it in 2017, but you can take ~25 home runs to the bank until he shows that 2016 is repeatable. You could also use regression analysis to deal with outliers, but I'll only get into what that indicates for Dozier if anyone is interested. (It's 23.39/yr.)

Yep, that exists. It's still not the right way to do it. The way I outlined is one of the many better ways to deal with outliers, but it takes more work than the elementary grade school level link that this is. Another way to deal with outliers is to take the mean average, take the median average, and then make a new average based on those results. This method smooths things out nicely without actually removing or changing any data (it simply reduces the weight of outliers) but works best with larger data sets.

Except that's not how you would do it. If you wanted to do this sort of analysis, this would be the process: 1) Remove the peak year's data for each player. 2) Determine the yearly average for each player using the data left in the data set. 3) Project that average onto the year you just removed. This would be a very circular process which would yield the same point I already raised. You don't account for "outliers" in data by removing them. You account for outliers by assuming the data would have been "normal" instead. In other words, you replace the outlier with the average. If you simply remove the data altogether, you create another outlier! Zero is an outlier too.

That's not how you would do it. If you were removing peak performances, you would then need to project the average over the remaining years in the data for that year you just removed. You would not simply just remove the data, you would replace the data with normalized data. So yes, I have a point....

Carlos Silva got 9 fWAR in his 4 years as a Twin, playing as a Twin at roughly the same age that De Leon would. "De Leon is worse than Carlos Silva" is a very strong opinion which we can review in about five years.

The original statement was, "Dozier leads others at his by position by double digits at HR." My response was, "But that double digit lead is only due to one year of unusual production." After that we went a circular route back to my original statement due to someone misinterpreting my point. So why are we arguing? I have no idea. The point is, his HR lead is not head and shoulders above his comps due to being a future HOFer. The big lead is due to his career year. This is worth pointing out. The distinction here is huge.

Small sample size. He has only been at A or above for full years since 2015 (below A-level, the seasons are very short). It is not unheard of for pitchers to be on innings limits that first year of A ball. De Leon was injured twice as far as I can tell. He missed a month due to an ankle injury which the team initially forced him to try to play through (and while he did play, he was still tossing at a high level). Eventually they shut him down, and when he came back he pitched one game (and again performed at a high level) but they then shut him down due to shoulder soreness. It makes sense that the shoulder fatigue was a conditioning issue from being shut down with the ankle sprain. Neither of these injuries look like a concern. I don't know of any writer who thinks that De Leon is not one of the top pitching prospects in all of baseball. His numbers back that up. It's only the Twins fans who seem to suspect he is the next Vance Worley. He is certainly better than any Twins pitching prospect since Liriano.

Well, I take responsibility for the conversation going that way. That certainly isn't what I said, but that's how people chose to respond. Sometimes the responses get louder than the original point. The safe bet is that Dozier's WAR is higher in 2017. After that there are no safe bets. I can see Dozier being a consistent player for a few more years, but 40 HRs may have been a one time deal. I can see De Leon being an ace in 3 years, which would be after Dozier is gone from the Twins anyway. The Twins have a great replacement for Dozier, but they have no such Plan B for De Leon. If the Twins let Dozier go later, there is likely no future ace as the return. Which path should the Twins take? Do the Twins spend the next two years with Dozier's production (and it not mattering much) or do the Twins turn to the future and use those two years to develop their pitching?

I like your optimism. With me, I was sick of most of these names before the last offseason and I'm still sick of them. I still think the Twins should fire-sale half of the pitching staff now with the half that remains being on a 1 year probation. They need a full turnover.

I'm surprised you feel the need to argue that point since everyone knows it to be true. But to put your mind at ease with some analogies, yes $50,000 made in one year is not the same as $50,000 made in 5 years. 200 strikeouts in one year is not the same as 200 strikeouts in 3 years. 5 gallons of gas used over 300 miles is not the same as 5 gallons of gas used over half a mile. 7 touchdowns in one game is not the same as 7 touchdowns in 12 games. etc. etc. etc.

I recently came across this article and found it interesting: http://twinstrivia.com/2016/12/21/the-twins-trials-and-tribulations-with-finding-starting-pitching/ Basically the article states that the Twins as an organization have never been able to consistently draft, develop or trade for pitching talent. This got me thinking, and I would wager you could write the exact same article about Twins hitting. "Small Market" syndrome is rather severe with this club when you look at the big, historical picture.

But not by double digits.

That lead exists because of 1 year -- last year --- when he hit 20 more home runs than usual.

"But I don't understand why so many people think acquiring a couple pitching prospect is the answer. The Twins have plenty of pitching prospects." Not all pitching prospects are created equal.

Yeah, because Pedro Florimon was exciting.

Garver coming in on fire could be exciting. Same with Hughes, Perkins and Park. Heck, even a hot Buxton would be cause for tempered optimism. Not to mention if the Twins get De Leon. We also get to see Castro for the first time, though in all likelihood that's going to be a train wreck. But train wrecks can be exciting too.

Why? Klingenbeck's minor league numbers are nowhere near the assets that have been discussed.

The Orioles did a nice job of dumping a dud onto Terry Ryan. Luckily that has not happened at any other time and Ryan's HOF display is a shoo-in.