Sam Morley

What is LOB with men on base? Is it different than LOB? Garza and Hughes both have some of the worst strand rates in the league among qualified starters. Masterson's LOB numbers are also poor; sometimes a little better than Hughes, sometimes worse. Garza's career LOB is actually better than Masterson's. Compared to the rest of the league, Masterson has a high WHIP and a low LOB, the combination of which is not good. I just thought it was interesting that in his good seasons, his WHIP was lower and the LOB% was higher. And, yeah, more ground balls means more double plays. I brought that up in attempt to find an explanation for his higher LOB% in 2011 and 2013. As in, if he had a higher GB% we could figure more double plays, which could go toward explaining a higher LOB%... but, his GB rates are pretty stable. A higher K% could explain it, and maybe in 2013 that was the case, but it doesn't explain 2011 (one of his better LOB rates but lowest K%). This doesn't really have anything to do with why I don't think he's not a good sign for the Twins; I just think it's interesting.

If he had any major structural damage, there wouldn't even be a conversation. Minor structural damage, or even weakness, should eliminate him from consideration. Maybe a guy with ideal mechanics, you go, okay. But watching Masterson's motion and delivery is cringe-inducing: upside down W, three quarter arm slot. Parker highlighted that photo right before release where his fingers are almost under the ball. Just holding my arm out 45 degrees from my body and turning my hand palm up, I can feel stress on the inside of my elbow. Even if he had never suffered any injury, his motion and delivery would concern me. You make a strong case with the FIP/xFIP, but I would say that one poor season not counting last season is inconsistent. In terms of FIP/xFIP, we're looking at two good years, one mediocre year, one bad year, and one disaster. For me, this is not consistency. And we're only talking about FIP/xFIP. His WHIP fluctuates from mediocre to bad. His walk rates are always high. His K rates are mediocre with one good season. And why only compare him to Hughes and Garza? I think, in general, a Hughes comp is inappropriate, given the national baseball media consensus at the time of his signing that he would profile much better in Target Field than Yankee Stadium. Even though he'd had a poor previous season, there was basically unanimous confidence that he would be more successful with the Twins. I don't see any similar factors at play with Masterson. Do you? The last stat you listed: LOB with men on base, I don't understand. LOB% is the % of runners left stranded, so isn't LOB with men on base redundant? I must be missing something. Masterson's career LOB% is about 70%. Maybe you can clarify on the stat you provided for me. One interesting thing about his LOB numbers is if you couple them with his WHIP numbers. The seasons where his WHIP is lower, his LOB% is higher. So in those seasons he let less men on, and stranded a higher than normal percent of them. It doesn't seem to be connected to K% or GB%, but it seems too large of a sample size to be fortune. I wish I could find a stat for double plays induced/inning ending double plays induced.

Yeah, I don't really have a problem with a short term deal, and I think your four points are strong, except that in the specific case of Masterson they hinge first on his health, and second on his performance. Granted, you say "chance" and that's fine, but in his case, I think, too much chance relative to the cost. I think there is a better chance that he will be hurt, be hurt and pitch and stink, or not be hurt and still stink, than the chance that he will be fine and good. Brett Anderson or Josh Johnson I like more. Their injury risk is obviously just as high, but their cost is less- I think- and they are both better pitchers. If the goal is to make an assured upgrade to the rotation for 2015, which it should be, none of these guys is it. Aside from the big dogs, Brandon McCarthy would be my choice (for more than one year if it took)- unless he's a QO guy, but I don't think he is.

Well, you've picked his best stats, and I agree that they look strong. But you ignore his WHIP, 1.4, and his BB/9, 3.7. Plus, I think that K/9 is inflated by a borderline extreme outlier in 2013, and by looking at career averages, you discount a major criticism people are making: his inconsistency. Also, why assume he will get healthy when there are possible indications that he could continue to struggle with injury? And it doesn't really sound to me like he is coming at a discount. Plus, this: And Masterson is looking for a short term deal, right?

Even if you don't count last season, his WHIP is still pretty high. Even in his strong seasons, his WHIP isn't great (1.28 in 2011 and 1.2 in 2013). It's interesting to see, in those strong seasons, the lower WHIP coupled with the higher strand rates (around 75% compared to 66% in other seasons); so he was allowing less runners on base and making sure a higher percentage of them didn't score. I guess if you're pitching better, you're pitching better. I couldn't find a stat for induced double plays. That would be interesting to see, as the high strand rates don't necessarily correspond to a higher K rate.

This is a serious problem. I know the team is trying to dig out of a hole right now, and most of the ideas and solutions that get discussed around here revolve around just getting the team back to or at least closer to competitive form, and that now is probably not the time to spend big in free agency. But spending big in free agency is pretty key for improving your team's competitive chances in the postseason. And if TR will never do that, then the Twins seriously handicap their competitive chances in the postseason. I think, where they are now, they make small (low-risk in terms of cost, high reward in terms of potential upside) acquisitions and/or roll with the young guys (if those kind of deals aren't out there). I don't like the middle of the road deals, as they seem to bring inconsistency and mediocrity (which wouldn't be so bad if it didn't also seem like the Twins tend to remain committed because of the significant financial investment). It seems like we get stuck with Nolasco, Pelfry because of the money. It would be fine signing guys like that if you were willing to cut ties when they stink.

True. In his poor seasons, his FIP and xFIP are much lower than his ERA, and even in 2013 when he was good, his FIP and xFIP were still lower than his ERA. So, in your mind, is this an amendable flaw, or is it livable? And do you disagree with the upside down W motion leads to injury theory? I've found it to be pretty convincing, and thus a glaring red flag in Masterson, especially in light of his recent injury plagued season. And have you found or considered any explanation for the jump in K% (three seasons in a row of 17.5% and then in 2013 24.3%)?

Kubecakes! KOOOOOOBS!

So I have been pretty grumpy about the prospect of Masterson coming to the Twins, but this is a pretty compelling case in his favor. The two things I found most compelling were the analysis of his sinker, and the association of his drop in velocity with a lack of back leg drive. Some of the comments have been additionally helpful in explaining that negative sinker metric, but honestly, it's still not clear for me. Maybe somebody has a link that explains it in detail? I guess what is clear about it is that it's an exceptional pitch, so I feel a little less grumpy about getting a guy with an exceptional pitch. The video comp highlighting the change in back leg drive is impressive. It's amazing that you can actually see him driving that much harder in the first clip. And that's a very straightforward and almost obvious explanation of velocity loss. And it seems reparable. As excellent as all of the analysis in this article is, I wish it were more balanced. It's clear that you're high on Masterson and want to convince readers of his value, and that's fine, but I wish you had done more to address some of his glaring flaws. I think you do a good job explaining why he was so exceptionally bad last year, and you do acknowledge his propensity to walk. But I think you downplay the walks without exploring whether or not it's likely or possible that he can/will reduce them. Additionally, it seems like maybe you overestimate his ability to get strikeouts. Discounting last season (because he was hurt, and terrible) when I look at Masterson's K/9 and BB/9 year to year, I notice a walk rate of at least 3.5, with one outlier in 2011 of 2.7. Interesting that his career best in BB/9 is paired with his career worst in K/9, 6.6, a year that also produced his best ERA 3.21. But aside from the K/9 outlier in 2013 of 9.1, he seems to hover around 7, which is fine, but hardly of note. It would be pretty nice to buddy up that 9.1 with the 2.7, but that's wishful thinking. Sure we could poo-poo the walks, but isn't there a TD t-shirt with the slogan "walks will haunt" on it? Also, reading the comments, it seems like one injury leads to another: knee, back, shoulder, oblique. Yikes. And doesn't that blatant upside down W motion make you even more nervous? I feel like that's been flagged as the number one predictor of future arm problems. And while this is true, aren't we expecting/hoping to see Santana and Sano on the left side this season, and possibly more of Vargas at first? Anyway, good article, and I suppose it's a good sign that Cleveland wanted him back for multiple years...

If this were to be the case, and the rotation is "just as bad", it would actually be worse. With a young and improving offense, there is nothing more discouraging than night after night of your starting pitching ensuring you will lose.

I think people are too high on Masterson. He was really terrible last season. I know that his knee was hurt, and that does matter. But he was really terrible, like worst SP in the league terrible. His era was almost 6 and he had a BB/9 of nearly 5. Maybe he was hurt, maybe his peripherals weren't as terrible, maybe he had a lousy d behind him. Okay, okay, okay. But the Cardinals didn't think he was hurt when they traded for him, or at least they thought he was on the mend; in fact, I believe they thought he had correctable mechanical problems vs injury problems. Perhaps they were wrong on both counts, because he pitched even worse for them than he did in Cleveland. And no doubt the Cardinals field a better d than the Indians. Plus, it's not like the Twins' D is great either; maybe described as "maturing" at best? In my opinion, if you are going to spend serious money (which apparently- and inexplicably- it will take to get Masterson) on a free agent, it needs to be as close to a guarantee as possible. Was Phil Hughes a guarantee? No, but I'd say he was about as close as the Twins have ever gotten. If they aren't going to go after somebody serious, then the best thing they can do for the rotation is to find a way to get rid of Nolasco, and Pelfry and Milone while they're at it.

Apparently, I have entered a world in which a capital letter 'b' followed directly by a right parenthesi, ) automatically morphs into a yellow circle wearing sunglasses.

What we are ultimately concerned with here is on base percentage, and whether or not we will see a regression in that and to what extent. The OBP is supported by batting average (which is tied to BABIP) plus BB%. So if Santana's BA drops along with his BABIP, can he add enough walks to make up for the lost hits and thus keep his OBP high enough to score lots of runs? I want to understand you clearly here; in your first example, you are presuming a drop in BABIP, and that in terms of OBP the extra walks will not be enough to offset that drop. That would depend on the extent to which the BABIP drops, yes? So how much are you guessing, for that example his BABIP will drop? As for your second example, Santana's OBP that season was 333, 20 points lower than his 2014 MLB OBP, so I am confused about your assessment that this would be less regression. There are two things that I keep coming back to on this topic: 1) The factors resulting in BABIP, which I think are A) a hitter's ability to make contact the type of contact the hitter makes (LD, GB, FB, Bunt) C) the hitter's speed to first base and D) luck. With Santana, his contact rate isn't especially great (I assume contact rates include foul balls though- so maybe he hits fewer foul balls, and his rate of balls put in play to pitches swung at is actually higher than his contact rate- I couldn't find that statistic though) but he hits a high % of line drives and ground balls and bunts, and his speed to first base helps him turn a high % of GBs and bunts into hits. But he also must've been really really lucky. The way I see it, the luck factor is the biggest in terms of BABIP fluctuation. We have to assume that he will not be as lucky in 2015, but do people also think Santana's ability to make contact, good contact, will get worse? This could result from pitchers' adjustments, I suppose. Maybe that is a bigger factor than I am acknowledging. A hitter being less lucky is not really regression. So the regression that I am afraid of lies in this factor of his capacity to make adjustments to the adjustments pitchers make to him. Lastly, unless he gets hurt, he's not getting slower. 2) Even slight improvement in plate discipline and increase in BB rate will help offset a drop in BA in terms of OBP. I think that even if he doesn't make an intentional adjustment in his approach toward better swing selection, it will happen naturally with experience. It would be interesting to see his O/Z swing and O/Z contact rates from his time in the minor leagues, but they aren't available on fangraphs. Looking at other major league hitters for comparison doesn't yield much of anything conclusive. Some hitters are consistent in these categories from year to year (Pablo Sandoval, Jose Reyes). Some stayed consistent in O-swing but steadily increased their Z-swing (Carlos Gomez, Dexter Fowler). Few decrease their O-swing while also increasing their Z-swing (Trevor Plouffe is an example). So, who knows, but why not, in this case, be optimistic?

That's fair. I don't think the OPS is necessarily conservative, particularly the 480 SLG, but 25-30 HR might be. And I think the projection is based less on stats and more on tool grades. It sounds like based on his reported short bat path and quick hands, his hit tool could be undervalued. It depends on his plate discipline, which he is certainly young enough to improve. I hadn't really looked at the Cuban league stat comps; they are compelling. I'm glad you pointed them out.

Also, it seems like when talking about signing projects like Masterson, Johnson, or Brett Anderson (or really any pitcher at all), it might be good if the Twins hurried up and hired a pitching coach to consult.

Here is fangraph's Kiley McDaniel's scouting report on Tomas: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/scouting-yasmany-tomas/ He projects an Upside of 275/350/480 25-30 HR, fringy d and baserunning in LF. At age 24, I'd take that over Kemp at a comparable price. If you scroll down to the comments on the scouting report, McDaniel responds to a question about Tomas' bat speed, which is worth reading. It seems like with these Cuban guys, there are all these mysterious unpredictable factors making them hard to evaluate (like guys getting into better shape and improving their run tool after defecting). And it seems like scouts are being conservative in their evaluations. It's hard to evaluate Tomas independent of the success of his countrymen. It seems to me like he could be even better than his projected upside.

And an emphatic NO on Aoki, or I will be throwing up in my mouth a little everytime I have to see that abominable running slap-swing of his. Blech. Blech. Swing the bat like a man.

The only thing resembling consistency from Masterson is his BB/9, career close to 4. Last season, he was terrible. Maybe he was pitching hurt? St. Louis thought so and apparently thought he was through it when they traded for him in July: http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/justin-masterson-could-be-quite-a-bit-better-with-cardinals/ Maybe he was still hurt? He was certainly still bad. I don't really like the whole 'it turned out with Hughes so maybe it'll turn out with Masterson too' line of thinking. I think 'roll of the dice' is more appropriate, and I don't think Hughes was really a roll of the dice. There was basically a national baseball media consensus that Hughes profiled badly at Yankee Stadium and would be a good fit in Minnesota. I don't really see any of those types of factors at play with Masterson. But if we are up for rolling dice, why not roll rather on Josh Johnson? Masterson at his best is still pretty meh. Johnson, when healthy, is always at his best and is an ace. And what's good for an elbow once has got to be even better the second time!

Moncada for sure is. Tomas is not because of his age?

Oh, here's this about Danny Santana: http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/danny-santana-man-myth-or-mirage/

Many times I have read explanations of the international market signing rules and the ways that teams break those rules, and I still don't really have a clear understanding of it all. But a simplified version of it is that there is basically a yearly cap and that some teams are willing to just blow by the cap and pay the fines and endure the sanctions. Even if the Twins were willing to spend the money, it seems possible that they are unwilling to break the rules on principle. But let's say they are willing to break the rules and drop big money on a Cuban prospect. Wouldn't Yoan Moncada be a much better prize than Yasmany Tomas?

You don't think this idea is given attention here? I think it's one of the main themes in the piece. Will Santana improve in enough in certain facets of his game to make up for the anticipated "regression" in others? In 100 games, 70 runs scored supported by a 350 OBP is nearing elite production. The OBP is supported by a 320 BA- definitely elite production- but when the BA is supported by an astronomic BABIP 405, you wonder whether he will improve his plate discipline, which he will need to do in order to maintain a high OBP and score an elite level run total. Can he reduce his K rate? resulting in more balls in play and more on base/run scoring opportunity? Can he improve his BB rate (4.4%) enough to maintain that 350 OBP, making up for the inevitable drop in BABIP? I think the O-swing and Z-swing numbers are telling- he needs to swing at less pitches outside the zone and more pitches in the zone. Linus, I agree with you that Santana will likely get better next season, and I think his plate discipline is the facet of his game most primed for improvement. I think that this discussion and the piece focus so much on the BABIP is because of this: Let's say that Santana actually does get better in all facets of his game, that even his hit tool- his ability to make consistent good contact- actually improves. This kind of improvement might statistically show up in something like line drive % (which at 26% is already quite good). BABIP is not something a player can 'improve'- it's basically a result of the combination of a hitter's ability to hit, the type of hitter the player is, and luck. So even if he strikes out less, putting the ball in play more, and even if a higher percentage of those extra balls he puts into play are line drives, his BABIP will still probably go down- because of luck. But again, Linus, I agree with you in that I think there is a reasonable likelyhood that Santana will make improvements. I'd hoped I was clearer about that in the piece. The sophomore slump is an interesting phenomenon I didn't really talk about, made even more interesting considering Kennys Vargas as well. A sophomore slump is certainly different from a 'fluke' season. Pitching staffs make adjustments and Santana's season two success is probably tied to how he adjusts to those adjustments. Sounds like a whole new article topic to me. I will say that the heat maps from 2014 on both sides of the plate didn't seem to show much weakness, but I haven't looked at pitch specific heat maps yet either.

What have you seen that raises your concern?

Danny Santana: Projecting Regression and Estimating Value There has been occasional to frequent mention of the “fluke” seasonal performance of certain players; namely, Danny Santana and Eduardo Escobar- Brian Dozier in the not so distant past. Usually, the notion is raised within the contexts of position placement and possible trade packages. One recent thread in particular discusses, in depth, the idea of trading Santana for starting pitching help of varying degrees of quality. http://twinsdaily.com/topic/15926-mets-need-a-ss-twins-are-a-viable-trade-partner/ When a young player, or a historically average player, performs better than expected it is certainly prudent to keep our expectations for future performance tempered. But, is it mutually wise to expect significant regression? To what extent is significant regression projectable? We have the tools of metrics and scouting reports available to help in such endeavors, but is their sum enough on which serious team and organizational decisions can be based? First, within the contexts of starting lineup/player position and possible trade packaging, I think you have to acknowledge the value of the player based on his most recent season’s performance. What is the value of a SS who plays solid defense, and hits .275 with 35 doubles in 133 games? What is the value of a CF who plays solid, improving defense, runs plus, and hits .320 with 70 runs and 41extra base hits in 101 games? Obviously, the value is excellent. In combination with Brian Dozier at 2B, it might be the best up the middle value in the league (even without considering payroll). In the case of Santana, I would say that that offensive line in combination with his ability to play the two most premium defensive positions on the field, make him the most valuable player on the team. I would not trade him for any pitching prospect. In the case of Eduardo Escobar, his ability at SS, in combination with his offensive stat line, I think is good enough to stick at SS to open the season and keep Santana out of his natural position and in CF- although, this not happening would be far more palatable to me than trading Santana for a SP. Without getting into too many other factors and variables, I understand that Santana is probably the team’s SS of the future, and it would be perfectly reasonable for Molitor to want to start him at SS. After all, he can’t be a SS stop unless he plays SS. But I have veered slightly off course, become slightly carried away at the notion Escobar and Santana will continue to rake so prodigiously. I have wandered from my own warning: prudence begs temperance. .405 The BABIP of the MLB categorical leader, who is Danny Santana. Damn, that’s high. BABIP is probably the number one metric for projecting BA regression. BA rises and falls with BABIP and a BABIP this high is not realistically sustainable. Over the past three seasons, only four players have recorded a BABIP of .390 or higher, eleven at .380 and up, eighteen at .370 and up. Discounting his 24 games at AAA in 2014, Santana’s highest MiLB BABIP was .353- a high number, but not quite four hundo (there is a steady rise in both BABIP and BA from level to level for Santana). According to this logic, we can expect to see a drop in BA for Santana in 2015. But while .405 might be exceptionally high, does it mean that Santana will not be able to maintain a more reasonably high BABIP, in the vicinity of, say, .350 plus? Over the past three seasons, on the list of the top 25 players in BABIP (.340-.400) are some regular names; some are exceptional: Mike Trout, Yasiel Puig, Joe Mauer, Andrew McCutchen, Paul Goldschmidt; some are not: Dexter Fowler, Chris Johnson, Starling Marte (with the exception of Chris Johnson, all of these players have a MiLB track record of hitting for high BABIP). So, hitting for a high BABIP can be done with some measure of expected consistency. Additionally, very few of the players on the lists were outliers- without previous seasons of high BABIP (Jhonny Peralta in a shortened 2013 and Jer Saltalamachiado also in 2013 are two examples). Of course, the success of the aforementioned players bears little influence on that of Danny Santana. But there are additional batted ball statistics in support of Santana’s ability to maintain a high BABIP. The type of batted ball that results in the most hits is the line drive (this is actually an assumption, I haven’t looked it up). Santana’s LD% of 26 is excellent, 14th in baseball. His GB% of 45.9 puts him in the high middle, and his FB% of 28.1 puts him in the low middle. Fly balls that don’t result in home runs usually result in outs. Santana’s percentage of home runs to fly balls was on the low side, 8.5%, so the proportion of ground balls he hits to fly balls I think is appropriate for the type of hitter he is. I didn’t find average fly ball distances for Santana, but I think that would be helpful in projecting his future home run production- whether or not we might see more balls travel over the fence or more balls fall short for outs in 2015 (he’s listed at 5’11 160. 160 is pretty light for 5’11. It seems like he could easily put on 15 to 20 lbs without losing speed, and actually add some distance to those fly balls). The other significant stats here are his infield hit total/percentage and his bunt hit/percentage, and both are pretty good. He had 17 IFH with a percentage of 12.7 (the percent is relative to ground balls) and 9 bunt hits in 18 attempts. These, to me, seem like projectable statistics because of their relativity to a player’s speed (which is of course relative to his health). Now, if I was a little savvier, or a little more motivated, I would figure out how to put Santana’s spray charts and heat maps from both sides of the plate into this piece right here: http://www.fangraphs.com/zonegrid.aspx?playerid=10322&position=SS/OF http://www.fangraphs.com/spraycharts.aspx?playerid=10322&position=SS/OF&type=battedball The links will have to do. The spray charts illustrate his ability to hit line drives to all fields from both sides of the plate. The power is all pull, but relative to his ability to hit for high average it’s the line drives that count. The heat maps illustrate some susceptibility high in the zone, mostly as a right handed hitter, but overall, little weakness. And here, check out his highlight video: I don’t see anything mechanically to pick on. The swing is balanced and strong. There doesn’t seem to be any exploitable timing mechanism. His hands are still, save a slight movement back in the load, and they stay in to the point of contact, finishing high- evidence of that slight Ted Williams uppercut. I love to watch his feet the most. They also are quite still, starting wide in the stance and foregoing a stride but still generating power with a back leg load and forward weight transfer so smooth it’s almost unnoticeable. If you can freeze frame on the point of contact on one of his homers, it’s picture perfect. The homers are definitely not moon shots, but they’re not all wall scrapers either. My favorite of all of these are his steps out of the box. His swing finishes so balanced that he is very efficient coming out of the box. It’s almost identical whether he is hitting a GB single or a dinger- he plants his back foot and his first step is down the line toward first. I think this speaks to his infield hit totals as well as stretching singles into doubles. But he is not sacrificing any authority in the way that Nori Aoki does with that hideous running slap swing. Honestly, I got the notion to watch some film on Santana after I started writing this piece, and now that I have I’m even higher on him than I already was. Dude’s sharp; definitely more polished at the plate than I realized. Granted, I just watched the good stuff. (Well, I did find one clip of a MiLB strikeout, but it didn’t unfound any of the goodness). But it looks like homey will hit, and he has too. Because if he doesn’t, he won’t be getting on base much, as his plate discipline is not so great. To begin with, his O-swing% (% of pitches swung at outside the strike zone) is 40.3, .1% behind our other friend, Eduardo Escobar, ranking them 11 and 12 in the bigs. Unfortunately, as is the case with other hitters who have a high O-swing%, neither Santana nor Escobar have a particularly high Z-swing% (% of pitches swung at in the strike zone) 63.1 for Santana and 67.4 for Escobar. I don’t know about you guys, but I just don’t have the historical standards of these advanced metrics locked into my brain yet (like BA, OPS, SLG, etc) so I have to look at lists and charts to compare. Anyway, having a high O-swing isn’t necessarily bad if you have a high O-contact to go along with it (i.e. Pablo Sandoval, Victor Martinez) but this is not really the case for Santana- his O-contact% was 65.9 which isn’t terrible either. Both his Z-contact and overall contact% end up fairly average (the pitch f/x numbers are slightly more favorable). Optimistically, and somewhat reasonably, one would hope that as Santana gains experience, his plate discipline skills/numbers will improve and will translate to a BB% closer to league average and an even higher OBP%, which due to his BA is much higher than league average currently. I was about to suggest that with the success of some of the Twins hitters in the plate discipline department (Mauer, Dozier, and Plouffe) that some of that success might rub off on Santana. But then I considered the likes of Oswaldo Arcia and Kennys Vargas and had to laugh at the pretty dramatic (I’ll say coincidental) contrast between the approaches of our American hitters and our Latino hitters. I’m glad we have both. I wonder if/hope Brunansky is able to help individual hitters craft their own personal approach and style to be the best it can be, or if he has the tendency to force players into a single desired approach. It seems like in the past, the staff has been problematically forceful (not necessarily in temperament) with a philosophical bias toward things like patience, seeing pitches, and taking the ball the other way. I certainly think those are good things, but I also noticed that the two world series teams this season had lineups full of free swingers (although I think the team with the more balanced lineup-in these terms- won). Aside- did anybody else hear Delmon Young’s quote after hitting that bases clearing double against Detroit? They were asking him about it after the game and he said he was trying to hit a grand slam. They were surprised and said something like, “You weren’t trying to stay within yourself and just get a base hit?” and he laughed and said, “No, man, every time I come in I just try to step up and hit the foul pole.” I think that was my favorite quote from the season. I love Delmon. http://m.mlb.com/video/v36734763/delmon-young-joins-scott-braun-on-mlb-tonight Haha, okay, so finally, I would like to come back around to Danny Santana’s projected value, both on the field for the Twins and as a possible trade piece. I don’t really understand the Steamer projections (maybe somebody has a great link to a site that explains it) particularly their estimations of games played, which are always really low. For 2015, it seems like they are not very kind to Daniel. They give him about 35 more games (138) without any uptick in counting stats and that BA comes down about 50 points. Ouch. Bastards. For no legitimate reason whatsoever, let’s just split the dif between last season and the steamer projection. Let’s say he plays 150 games, mostly at SS, with steadily improving D. Let’s say he slashes 290/330/420, scores 90, drives in 60, and steals 35. What is the value of that? Let’s say he’s better the next year. What about then? In conclusion, I would like to see more research and writing done by some peeps more knowledgeable than me on this notion of the “fluke” season. What are some recent historical examples of players having “fluke” good seasons (Chris Davis?)? I probably have overlooked and/or am totally ignorant of other tools used in projecting regression, and it would be good to be educated. Although I am no authority, I do venture to assert that it is not wise to base serious team and/or organizational decisions on the estimation that a player’s recent success of significant sample size may have been a “fluke”. Further, I think that in the particular case of Danny Santana, while it makes sense to anticipate regression, it would be a terrible mistake to overestimate the amount and trade him on its account. I think that both his short and long term value is greater than 90% of starting pitchers. -All the stats I pulled are from fangraphs.com.

Right now, it's looking like Danny Santana is going to have to play CF and SS at the same time. I think we need him.