Trov

I would like to point out, that 28 games was half the season. I am not saying Donaldson would have played a full half, he may have played more, may have played less. But to just say he played 28 games, in a 60 game super short season, is a little misleading. I could use same data and say he only missed 32 games last year. Which is also true, but leaves out the fact it was half the season.

It is hard to say because his last 18 games were not like his first 36 does not mean he dropped off. He was best bat in playoffs. Every hitter has bad stretches. He was not going to crush like he did. If the season was full season there is no reason to think he was not going to bounce back after the 18 bad games. The rest of the team stopped hitting too, which makes me think he was getting less to swing at, and he was pressing to make things happen more because the guys behind him were not getting it done on offense either.

Personally, I do not feel any are on their list of wish they had back. Maybe Hicks, because of giving him up for nothing basically and he has some value. However, some you got decent players in return of trades, and others failed with Twins, no reason to know they would do well with them had they stayed.

Adding personal chef to staff will go down as one of those odd contract requirements. We see things all the time, but that being the deciding factor will be odd one. I get it, for someone at his age to have the right food to stay in playing shape is needed. Not every person is the same, and the sports have learned that over the years.

Mutual option deals are always interesting. I mean the only way both agree are if both sides believe the value is what they would get on open market, and both like the situation. My guess it will not be picked up, because either Twins will not want to pay it, or Colome feels he can get more.

I am guessing there will be more signings but nothing major. With spring training just around the corner both sides are feeling the pressure to get ready. There will be one or two more vet arms signed with invite to camp but no MLB spot yet.

The definition makes sense, but my follow then, how is it compared to late and close then? I mean, there must be overlap right? So he performed better on late and close, but worse on high leverage? So the conclusion to me that is drawn is when he was facing high leverage earlier in games say, 6th or 7th inning he would fail, which was very common based on eye test. But, when he got chances late in games he did better. Personally, I do not think WPA should be used for hitters as a measuring stick. I think it is good for relief pitchers, but when an average hitter fails 75% of the time give or take a few percent, if they get a hit in those high leverage spots 1 out of 4 they should be average, in my mind. I find it difficult to measure how much a hitter adds compared to others. Also, I find WPA for early parts of games very misleading because it uses a metric of games played out under normal circumstances. However, you new know how a game will play out should the outcome of the previous situation change. For example, 1st inning 2 out bases load. Guy hits a grand slam that most likely increases WPA a decent amount. Where if they get a single and score 1 run it only less, both did a good job of getting a hit, but one gets better reward. What if the guy that got the single fouled off 5 3-2 pitches that were nasty, where the grand slam guy got a meatball down the middle, and the single never had a good pitch to really hit? Which one performed better really? Also, it is just the first inning, we have no clue how the game will be played differently the rest of the way based on the outcome. Teams will hit differently, be managed differently, so on and so forth. Later games when outs are limited I think it is easier to measure, but to reward 1 guy for hitting a meatball well more than a guy who had a great at bat but limited what he could do because the pitcher did better job is kind of counter productive to me. Just like any other stat WPA only is a small story to everything. That all being said, I agree with the point that Eddie was overrated by Twins fans generally.

At the 6 o'clock news I hear they upped their offer, but also offered Ozuna. At 10 o'clock news he is signed. I have a feeling once the offer to Ozuna got known Cruz knew it was a race to who signed first. With expanded DH looking like a no go this year now, Cruz had limited options, thinking only Twins. Did not take long to sign then. I am happy he is back. The rumored contracts for Ozuna were too high for my liking based on what he have in minors. If Cruz falls off cliff based on age, we move on to Rooker most likely. If Ozuna struggled we would needed to keep putting him out there because he would be making too much to cut loose.

The problem I have with the numbers you use to rank these teams are they are based on comparison to the rest of the league that year. You say it is best defensive teams all time, but you use numbers that compare them to other players in that year. If you truly wanted to compare all time you would need to use numbers that do not use other players as their measure. Under the numbers you used, a player that is average defender at SS over his career will some years have high numbers because his competition was weaker. However, if they were plugged into year with say Ozzie Smith or other all time great SS they would look worse under these numbers. There may not be a good number to use to make this determination, but it should be pointed out that the numbers sited compares them only to players of that year. Heck, they could have had worse year defensively, but if everyone else was even worse they look better. It is a good number to compare the team to others in the league, but the title suggests this is ranking how good the team was overall, not compared to other teams.

Too often offense of the player got gold gloves, which made no sense. Unless the player was on highlights over and over, they needed to be a higher level offensive player for coaches to think about them when they were voting. Then, once a guy was known for defense, regardless of how well they did there they would win it. 99 Palmero won the gold glove when he DH 128 games and started 28 at first. Shows how much managers pay attention and only think of names they know of. That is where the offense comes in. You think of good offensive players a lot, but unless they put up a ton of highlights, you never think of defense guys.

I agree that they most likely have an understand that DH in NL would affect his value, and they both understand the realities of the situation. I doubt there is a handshake deal based on how that happens though. My guess there is offer there, and both sides are fine with waiting to see how NL shakes out to look at how that affects other teams bidding on him. I am sure there is a number Cruz agrees to regardless of other teams.

What is definition of "high leverage"? I agree with you that he is not clutch. I was mostly pointing out that he appeared to like the pressure on him, which I would argue the late and close is the pressure I was meaning. Hitting middle of order much of last few seasons he had many chances with 2 outs and RISP, but that in first inning is not a pressure situation I would argue. I mean you have 8 more innings to score. I full agree he his optics were he was better than his numbers suggest. However, I still feel the numbers you site back up my pressure point. He would fail many times early in games in similar situations, but as your numbers point out, he was a little better in late game close situations. I have never been an advocate to keep him around.

I think it will come down to what MLB does with DH in NL. If NL has DH I think he walks for more money. If not, my guess he will have to decide retire or go with what Twins offer. I would like to see him back, but only if you can eat his contract should he fall off the cliff and be a liability.

I am on Dobnak with the addition of Simmons. I am not high on Rodgers. I know his numbers appear that it was in part luck base, but at some point those hits he gave up you need to put on him as well. At some point he needs to get the outs. I mean all his BABIP was not just weak grounders that found holes. For Josh, if he can stay on the field I am high on him, but that is a big if.

His answer about shifting is great. I hope he does push back on some of the shifts and challenge the assumptions. I am a fan of shifting generally, but feel the Twins at times shifted when it was not the best decision and got burned on it. Look at Astros in playoffs. You know the Astros knew the Twins would shift a ton, and work on hitting against.

Personally, all the SS available he was the one I wanted most. I do not expect much with the bat, but what he does with the glove will make a difference. Many may not see it in the box score, but it will help. Pitchers that get ground balls will feel even more confident to let the ground balls be hit. Polonco should be better at 2b than SS because much of his issues was arm not actual fielding.

I am guessing Eddie will be extra dialed in against the Twins. He has always been one that would seem to like the pressure on him. It will be fun to see him plenty against us. Hope he does not haunt us.

I do not think too many teams value Arraez that high. I think he has great value for his bat, but his defense is overall poor and he has no power. I think we as fans like him because he puts the ball in play and gets a good amount of hits. I think he has value, but it is not right in your face, at least based on current MLB evaluation of players. 2nd basemen never have that much value to other teams, unless they produce offense at a huge clip and provides above average defense, else they are pretty easy to replace. They are on par with LF, easy to replace unless their numbers and defense are off the charts.

I think it depends on if Falvene duo plan to manipulate the playing time to get an extra year of team control or not. I think he breaks with the team barring a terrible spring or injury, because I think the service time thing will become moot with new CBA. I have no info that will be true, but know service time is huge issue with players right now, and teams manipulating it by holding a player back for a few weeks to say they need more training at AAA.

Everything I keep hearing and reading about Balazovic is he will be a huge steal of a draft and one of those Cleveland type of pitchers that no one was huge on but becomes a top pitcher in the league. I have high hopes for him.

Looking forward to the upgraded defense. Hopefully his bat will rebound to what it was a few years ago. I wonder if Arrize or Polonco will be shopped around now.

For HOF voting, it is up to the hall on if off field things are something that would bar you. If you gaged players that are in by todays standards they would not be. Cobb for example. Personally, I do not feel Shilling had the numbers to get in, even if you take away his after career issues. He was very good pitcher but it is more so his post season and longevity that he is known for. I would not be upset either way for him, but feel it is not just his political views that are keeping him out. In terms of Bonds and Clemons. I would support them being in. They did take steroids, and by all accounts late in career, so did just about all of baseball it would seem. The were putting of HOF numbers before their expected use. Did it make their numbers go up even higher, most likely, but even if you take the last few years from them, you still would say they were both the best of their era, when everyone was juicing. That is just my take. In terms the FA signings. It seems the dominos are starting to fall, which that happens every off-season. One player/team sets the markets for positions and then players fly off the board.

With signing of Simmons I think it unlikely they seek Wong as well. That would drop our offense a ton, for much better defense on the infield, but will the increased defense make up for the much lessor offense?

I would pass on Bryant, unless there are plenty of other moves that come with it.

It really depends on what you value more, offense or defense? Offense Kirilloff is higher, but defense Lewis is. Lewis is not only defense but his is more of a wild card on what kind of offense he will put forward. Even if he cannot stay at short he should still play high level of defense and if he can be above average on offense he should be better overall. I really like Kirilloff and expect big things from him. However, he will be playing average defense at best from what I hear and so his bat will have to be extra special.