Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Doomtints

Verified Member
  • Posts

    3,679
  • Joined

  • Last visited

 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 Doomtints

  1. Duffey's positive stats have always been misleading. Regression was only a matter of time. We will have many conversations over the next six months about how he should go back to starting, but in the end I think we will all find he just isn't very good.
  2. If you want to be really confused, throw in the Baseball Prospectus version (3rd): Dozier: 3.7 vs 3.4 vs 3.8 Buxton: 3.2 vs 5.3 vs 4.5 Berrios: 2.6 vs 1.7 vs 3.2 Santana: 2.5 vs 4.1 vs 4.2 Sano: 2.4 vs 2.6 vs 1.9 Rosario: 2.1 vs 1.6 vs 1.5 Mauer: 2.0 vs 3.3 vs 1.1 Escobar: 1.3 vs 0.9 vs 0.7 Polanco: 1.3 vs 1.5 vs 0.8 Often BPs version of WAR looks like it came from Mars.
  3. If the Twins make the playoffs, it will be as a WC against the Yankees, burning up their "ace" before they face Cleveland. It is poetic that the team most likely to beat the Indians in the playoffs is the team that has Jaime Garcia, as marginal as he is, and how the Twins had him for a brief moment.
  4. He will land on his feet and manage in the minors again. This isn't a big deal.
  5. I don't know that it was "revisionist history." He had his believers in spite of the slow recovery to his injury in 1989. Yes, people said he was done, but it was by no means everybody saying it. He was a very popular player and I don't think anyone believed he would not have some good games in a Twins uniform. Morris wanted to prove he still "had it" and the Twins were apparently right to buy into that.
  6. Guys... He has only been good for three weeks. We gotta stop it with these small sample sizes. He allowed 3 runs or more in 16 of his 26 starts. He pitched less than 6 innings in 15. It took him 25 starts to get his ERA under 5.00. Don't get me wrong, I like Gibson and I would not be offended in any way if Gibson is around next year, but it is far from concluded that he will be back.
  7. He was more dominant than the Cardinals staff which was stacked with a bunch of 11 game winners. And yeah, 15+ wins would put a pitcher in the upper tier for wins in a season in the current era.
  8. You *can* buy the book with the breakdown, if you like. 1988 Baseball Abstract, pages 45-47. I bet you could find a used copy for a couple bucks. Some highlights: W% top 2 pitchers: .593 W% rest of team: .491 Difference: .102 Percentage of team wins from top 2: 38% Historical difference between top 2 and rest of the staff: .106 (87 Twins were better than average!) Historical percentage of wins from top 2: 41% (Twins had more wins from the non 1-2 than average!) The 1908 Cubs are often considered the best team in MLB history. The difference between their top 2 and rest of the staff: .227. The difference between .102 and .227 is substantial! James doesn't stop there, he notes that every team has a weakness and he identifies the Twins weakness as missing a #3 pitcher. He does this by throwing away all wins by 1-2 pitchers for championship teams and finding the Twins were under .500 with the rest of the starters. Although not unheard of (and the Twins were far from the worst), the difference maker then became the lack of a #3. James concludes that the 1-2 v. the rest of the staff was "absolutely normal" for a championship team. He goes on to state that the losing team, the 87 Cards, had 5 great starters but comparatively bad 1-2 starters! The key to a championship is 2 dominant starters.
  9. If Rosario isn't the Twins best hitter this year he is in the top 2 or 3. This is just more proof that going with the herd mentality is tomfoolery. Always ignore all noise from anyone wanting to ditch young, promising players, regardless of how loud it gets. Now if he can just get his defense back on track....
  10. To address the OP, the Twins can make it to 84 wins if they keep doing what they are doing. This will probably be enough to make the playoffs this year. With a bit of luck or a hot streak, they can make 85 or more. Detroit and NY will play the Twins hard. Cleveland might too. Even still, the Twins should be able to play ~.500 against these teams, I don't see a collapse coming. I'm not worried at all about the teams behind the Twins. The AL is not going to produce many +.500 teams this year. The two-win cushion they have now should hold.
  11. The 87 Twins were good. They had power and enough pitching to win in the playoffs. I have to say, which will be unpopular, that it's impossible to watch the 87 world series today and think they weren't juicing. They were giants compared to the Cardinals. Anyway, Bill James was particularly interested in the 87 Twins, and he found that the Twins pitching was relatively normal for a world series winning team. The 87 Twins lacked a #3 pitcher, but the #1, #2, #4, #5 pitchers were all in line with regular season stats for other championship teams. Jeff Reardon clearly learned how to do Blyleven's nasty curve near the end of the season and opposing teams really could not figure him out again until 1989.
  12. "LOOGY" is an exaggeration anyway, a term coming from the fact that we often witness pitchers coming into a close game for 1 batter only. There has never been a true "LOOGY" pitcher who only pitches to one batter in every appearance. We witness managers making tactical decisions and sort of made the wrong conclusion about what we were looking at.
  13. My name is Gabriel Moya. You are in the batter's box. Prepare to be struck out.
  14. If you are implying they never had a conversation, that's silly. The connotation is they "had a conversation" but the conversation was about how he has to do a better job. I doubt that happened because his job status was out of their hands. In that situation, you play nice.
  15. The owner of the team declared any Molitor discussions out of bounds.
  16. You say you "truly don't understand how this can be confusing" yet you seem to be talking about something else all of a sudden. Yes, I have NO CLUE what you are on about. Smith and Ryan were responsible for scouting whether they did it personally or not. Just like the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is responsible for testing whether he ever sets foot in a lab or not.
  17. Molitor gave up on this game before it even started, declaring before the game that everyone good in his bullpen was "spent" and that he had no idea how they were going to pitch a complete game, all but conceding the loss before the first pitch.
  18. There is a process for everything. The responsibility still falls on the people at the top, who define the processes.
  19. He surprised me this year but there is some major streakiness going on. His value is his ability to field any position, albeit not spectacularly, and his bat can surprise from time to time. He is a net plus to the team.
  20. Yes, in fact this comes up often in "Is this player HOF-worthy?" conversations. Even below average players can have a positive WAR. If a guy sticks around at the end of his career for 7 years with 1-2 WAR each year, he has padded his WAR 7-14 points along with all of his other stats. Take a look at Pete Rose's WAR v. WAA. Rose lost 14 WAA over his last 6 years, but only about 1 point of WAR. Nevertheless he padded his other stats a lot over those last 6 years, in spite of being useless. Or look at it this way. If a serviceable infielder puts up 2 WAR a year but is very popular and plays for 20 years, he has 40 WAR. Kirby Puckett had 50 WAR. Switch to WAA. Puckett drops to 25 WAA but the "serviceable infielder" drops to the single digits. But if you don't want an uberstat and only want to go by peak WAR years, JAWS exists for you. JAWS looks at the best 7 years of WAR and then compares it to players at the same position. However, we can ignore the "same position player" part and just look at 7-year peak WAR. WAR in peak 7 years: Carew: 49.7 Oliva: 38.6 Mauer: 38.5 Killebrew: 38.1 Puckett: 37.5 If we want to go full-on JAWS, here are the numbers: Carew: 65.4 Killebrew: 49.2 Mauer: 45.8 Puckett: 44.2 Oliva: 40.8 Killebrew was great, the first Twins player in the HOF and it was well deserved, but it's really hard to find a way to slice the data that says that he was better than Carew.
  21. I did not include Carew's WAA outside of the Twins organization because it is even higher and I figured it would not be fair to the other players. Carew's Career WAA is 46. Carew's "decline" -- where he kept playing in spite of being a below average player -- was to the tune of -1.8 WAA and lasted a mere season and a half.
  22. WAA will more accurately reflect a player's entire career, both peak and decline years. Let's take a look: Carew (in a Twins uniform): 39.9 Killebrew (in a Senators/Twins uniform): 28.1 Mauer: 27.6 Puckett: 25.5 Oliva: 20.1 You are right about one player being head and shoulders above the others, but you are wrong about which one. It's OK, this is a common mistake. People have figured out that players who have incredibly long careers have inflated WARs along with other stats. Use WAA to determine the truly elite players. If Mauer's WAA had not been flat for the past 3 years, he would be well into the 30s by now and be a HOF lock. Even now, HOF is not out of the question.
  23. Mauer has had strong 1-2 month stretches since his injury. It would be great if he's back in top form forever, sure.
×
×
  • Create New...