John Bonnes

I almost started a topic last night titled "Does Mike Redmond have the worst job in MLB, or the best." I would think the best, but in that organization there is no guarantee that management's expectations are reasonable.

Two takes.... 1. Lord, is it ever going to end with Ilitch? They were at $133M last year, which was a top 5 payroll. I don't think they're losing any really big deals, and now they replace Delmon with Hunter? 2. Does the insane interest in Hunter so far this offseason mean that there is a tremendous market for trading Willingham? Other than Hunter, the only pretty big free agent bats out there are Hamilton (crazy expensive) and Swisher (probably gets a four year deal.) If I'm a GM looking to add some power to my OF, doesn't Willlingham's 2-year, $14M deal look crazy good right now?

Forgive me, but can someone pot som background on Collabelo? Age, level, etc?

Nick Nelson and I and The Voice of Reason and a bunch of friends and WAY too much Red Bull & vodka were at #1 on that list. We had never drank Red Bull & vodka before, and when Baker, who before that game had been pretty suspect, thrived, we decided we just had to keep drinking them to keep the no-no going. If I remember correctly (and I doubt I do) I think we ran out just before he gave up the hit. That will be my favorite Scott Baker moment.

I'll throw out a different question out there that I'm turning over in my head: under what circumstances should a MLB team play for next year versus playing for some year down the road? We could use the Twins as a case in point, if you like.... The advantage to reloading and trying again next year is that it is one more shot at winning a winnable division. Plus, there is still quite a bit of talent that is not a sure thing to be around in future years. Finally, it's not like any money saved this year can be put towards future years when talend and payroll climb. It's just pocketed. The advantage to wiping off next year - maybe you invest in players that use that time to develop. Maybe the prospects that are receive in a trade become pieces in the future (or mabye they don't.) I'm having trouble thinking of others. I'm not sure the Twins are clearly on one side or the other. But I think unless I know there is a pretty clear path toward winning in the future, I'd prefer to play for any given year.

So the Blue Jays, who were at $75M on Opening Day last year, just added.... $50M in salaries for next year? That doesn't make sense. Either they are flipping some of these guys or there are some 3rd teams involved, right?

I don't know if it was Tommy John, but you're right - Baker will likely be healthier. Either way, I don't see the point of a deal like this if there isn't an option year. I can't believe a team is going to get more than half a good year out of him in his first year back from TJ.

I haven't seen anything that has said an option year. Plus, I don't see what that is so hard to accept as what is a normal deal in the MLB. Revenues have gone up and the cost of acquiring FA talent has gone up. Roy Oswalt -- who was DOA in 2011 -- received a $5M contract with $1M in incentives to pitch from May onward of last year. Baker has a much higher upside if healthy and will likely be full strength by May or June. Not a bad deal for either side. I mistyped. I meant "no option year." The market for Baker was set by the deal Colby Lewis took a few months ago. Lewis has had better years than Baker, is coming off a smaller injury and is more likely to be 100% when teh season starts. And he took a $2M + $4M in incentive. Baker got nearly that much guaranteed.

If people think they have inside information about a pending move, I have no problem with them posting it in the bulletin board, PROVIDED THEY PUT THEIR NAME ON IT. That's part of what a bulletin board is. Now we know that Thrylos' sources cannot always be trusted (or that Thrylos is apt to jump the gun.) That's valuable information. I don't see a reason to pile on about this much beyond that. The last thing I think any of us want is for people to not share information which they have some confidence in because of some holy retribution.

$5.5M for one-year, plus incentives for a guy who had TJ in April? And no option year? You're welcome to him Theo. Congrats to Scotty's agent. (My guess is you'll be hearing from Colby Lewis shortly.)

If I remember correctly, Gardy and Rick Anderson go WAY back, like back to being roommates in AAA in the 80s. At the very least, they were both on the same team back then when they were trying to get to the majors. I think that is the bond that keeps Andy around, not one with Baker (unless Baker is his long lost son. ) It's also worth noting, he did have some successes early in his tenure, even if we haven't seen much evidence lately.

First, I should say that this was an investigation of a topic that came out of that debate. It was not meant to settle the debate. During the debate, we argued about whether "better" teams have an advantage in the playoffs. It is a topic we have touched on often, and I think we have waffled on it, most recently during the postseason. I realized afterwards that I don't have any idea what is true regarding that question, or to what extent it is true. Let me be specific about what I showed above: this shows that the number of wins a team has in the regular season is a poor predictor of their chances of winning a championship. I'll be honest - I was dumbstruck by how low this factor is. It might be that there are other predictors, and one of those predictors might have something to do with strength of schedule or divisional strength or starting pitching or whatever. But to conclude that any of them are important, one must define them. Maybe we should judge teams by something like wins times a factor for strength of schedule. Great. Then do so, and show it predicts success in the postseason. But otherwise, I don't see any difference in saying that a team is better because they had more regular season wins than saying a team was better because they had a higher batting average. Both are nice, but both are ultimately unimportant. I'll go a step further - and I think this might be important. This suggests that the best strategy for an organization to win a championship is NOT to push all their chips to the middle of the table and become really, really good (as judged by wins) for a few years. It is to extend their window of opportunity as long as they possibly can and make the postseason as many times as they can. For the record - I think the Rays are following this strategy. I think the Twins do too, though I think it's a side effect of a core belief in giving opportunities to minor leaguers.

Did you mean to say "not only does one go up when the other goes UP..."? I did. Thanks for the catch. Fixed.

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?1168-The-Twins-Binary-Hope

In the latest Gleeman and the Geek podcast, Aaron Gleeman and I argued, as we are apt to do. Among the questions raised was one that stuck with me: what is the goal of baseball’s regular season? Certainly, it is to make the playoffs, but beyond that, is there an advantage to posting a high win total? The answer to that question influences the path one thinks the Twins should travel this offseason. The AL Central champion had only 88 wins last year, the lowest amount for any division. It is not unlikely that could happen again next year. It is not unreasonable to suggest that even coming off of a 66 win season, by piecing together even a mediocre rotation, the Twins could improve to a mid-80s win team. But is that good enough? Or does a team need to win 90+ games to be taken seriously as a champion? To be honest, I have no idea. Aaron and I have gone back and forth on it throughout the year and again on Sunday night. On the one hand, it makes sense that a better team (one with more wins) would be favored versus a worse team. (Vegas certainly thinks so.) Furthermore, over several games, that advantage would could be more pronounced. On the other hand, it’s often said that playoffs are random. There are certainly enough counterexamples of underdogs who have held parades at the end of October, including this year. It occurred to me today that this is something we can test, and it may provide a pretty definitive answer. Best of all, it isn’t that difficult to do. Here’s how…. (Warning: high level stats discussion coming.) One sabrmetric tool used a LOT is called a correlation test. A correlation test compares two sequenced sets of data and sees what kind of relationships the two sets of data have. It is by using correlation tests that sabremetrics can definitively say that OBP or SLG is more important than BA, because it more closely correlates with the runs a team score. It is also by a correlation test the we know that xFIP is a slightly better predictor of future ERA than ERA is. We’re going to use it to compare wins in the regular season to series wins in the playoffs. I’ll link to the data once our web master posts it on our server. It’ll consist of all the playoff teams from 1996 through 2012, along with their playoff series wins and also their regular season wins.* We’ll run a correlation test on those two sets of numbers, and the test will return a value somewhere between -1 and 1: The closer to 1, the more regular season wins translates to playoffs success. For instance, comparing temperatures in Celsius to temperatures in Fahrenheit would have a correlation of 1. Not only does one go up when one goes down, but it goes up or down proportionally the same. The closer to -1, then regular season wins would have a negative correlation to playoff series wins. For instance, comparing how much I cumulatively spend to my checking balance would have a correlation of -1. The higher the amount I spend, the more my checking balance goes down. The closer to 0, the more regular season wins and playoff series wins just aren’t related. If I were to compare the total wins of a team to the numbers of migratory monarch butterflies for each city, I would expect the number to be close to 0. The two sets of data mean nothing to each other. So what do you think it will be? Take your guess, before I do the work. I’m guessing a fairly small correlation, somewhere around .25, which would be similar to the correlation that SABR folks use to conclude that pitchers can’t control if balls in play are hits. (Off to enter data and do the math….) Wow. The answer is actually quite a bit lower than that. The answer is just .07. Winning more games - being a 95 game winner versus an 85 game winner – affords a team almost no advantage in terms of advancing in the playoffs. If I wanted to drive home just how random this is (and I had a little more patience) I could compare the series wins to other ridiculous pieces of data for each team and find one that had a higher correlation. I’d venture to bet that one of these four items would have a higher correlation: team batting average, team errors, average height, or total letters in the names of all the players on 25-man roster. That’s how ridiculously low this correlation is. To me, that means that success in MLB isn’t qualitative - it’s binary. Either a team makes the playoffs, and thus has a pretty even chance to win a championship, or it doesn’t. To give extra credit for wins is akin to giving extra credit for something like team batting average or how many ex-Twins they have – you might find it interesting, but that doesn’t mean it is important. It also suggests that if you think the Twins can win the AL Central next year, then a complete overhaul might not be in order. A team does not need to be razed and rebuilt and win 95 games to position themselves to be a champion. Indeed, it earns them almost nothing at all. They just need to be good enough to get into the postseason, even if it’s in a poor division. ~~~ *(Three geek notes about the data I used. First, I did all the teams since the wild card began. Second, I skipped 1995 because they didn’t play 162 games, and since I was using win total instead of win percentage, that would have produced skewed data. And finally, for 2012, I only used the two wild card teams who won their playoff wild card game.)

In the latest Gleeman and the Geek podcast, Aaron Gleeman and I argued, as we are apt to do. Among the questions raised was one that stuck with me: what is the goal of baseball’s regular season? Certainly, it is to make the playoffs, but beyond that, is there an advantage to posting a high win total? The answer to that question influences the path one thinks the Twins should travel this offseason. The AL Central champion had only 88 wins last year, the lowest amount for any division. It is not unlikely that could happen again next year. It is not unreasonable to suggest that even coming off of a 66 win season, by piecing together even a mediocre rotation, the Twins could improve to a mid-80s win team. But is that good enough? Or does a team need to win 90+ games to be taken seriously as a champion? To be honest, I have no idea. Aaron and I have gone back and forth on it throughout the year and again on Sunday night. On the one hand, it makes sense that a better team (one with more wins) would be favored versus a worse team. (Vegas certainly thinks so.) Furthermore, over several games, that advantage would could be more pronounced. On the other hand, it’s often said that playoffs are random. There are certainly enough counterexamples of underdogs who have held parades at the end of October, including this year. It occurred to me today that this is something we can test, and it may provide a pretty definitive answer. Best of all, it isn’t that difficult to do. Here’s how…. (Warning: high level stats discussion coming.) One sabrmetric tool used a LOT is called a correlation test. A correlation test compares two sequenced sets of data and sees what kind of relationships the two sets of data have. It is by using correlation tests that sabremetrics can definitively say that OBP or SLG is more important than BA, because it more closely correlates with the runs a team score. It is also by a correlation test the we know that xFIP is a slightly better predictor of future ERA than ERA is. We’re going to use it to compare wins in the regular season to series wins in the playoffs. I’ll link to the data once our web master posts it on our server. It’ll consist of all the playoff teams from 1996 through 2012, along with their playoff series wins and also their regular season wins.* We’ll run a correlation test on those two sets of numbers, and the test will return a value somewhere between -1 and 1: The closer to 1, the more regular season wins translates to playoffs success. For instance, comparing temperatures in Celsius to temperatures in Fahrenheit would have a correlation of 1. Not only does one go up when one goes down, but it goes up or down proportionally the same. The closer to -1, then regular season wins would have a negative correlation to playoff series wins. For instance, comparing how much I cumulatively spend to my checking balance would have a correlation of -1. The higher the amount I spend, the more my checking balance goes down. The closer to 0, the more regular season wins and playoff series wins just aren’t related. If I were to compare the total wins of a team to the numbers of migratory monarch butterflies for each city, I would expect the number to be close to 0. The two sets of data mean nothing to each other. So what do you think it will be? Take your guess, before I do the work. I’m guessing a fairly small correlation, somewhere around .25, which would be similar to the correlation that SABR folks use to conclude that pitchers can’t control if balls in play are hits. (Off to enter data and do the math….) Wow. The answer is actually quite a bit lower than that. The answer is just .07. Winning more games - being a 95 game winner versus an 85 game winner – affords a team almost no advantage in terms of advancing in the playoffs. If I wanted to drive home just how random this is (and I had a little more patience) I could compare the series wins to other ridiculous pieces of data for each team and find one that had a higher correlation. I’d venture to bet that one of these four items would have a higher correlation: team batting average, team errors, average height, or total letters in the names of all the players on 25-man roster. That’s how ridiculously low this correlation is. To me, that means that success in MLB isn’t qualitative - it’s binary. Either a team makes the playoffs, and thus has a pretty even chance to win a championship, or it doesn’t. To give extra credit for wins is akin to giving extra credit for something like team batting average or how many ex-Twins they have – you might find it interesting, but that doesn’t mean it is important. It also suggests that if you think the Twins can win the AL Central next year, then a complete overhaul might not be in order. A team does not need to be razed and rebuilt and win 95 games to position themselves to be a champion. Indeed, it earns them almost nothing at all. They just need to be good enough to get into the postseason, even if it’s in a poor division. ~~~ *(Three geek notes about the data I used. First, I did all the teams since the wild card began. Second, I skipped 1995 because they didn’t play 162 games, and since I was using win total instead of win percentage, that would have produced skewed data. And finally, for 2012, I only used the two wild card teams who won their playoff wild card game.)

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?1167-Gleeman-and-the-Geek-Ep-67-Trade-Rumors-and-Claire-Forlani

Aaron and John talk about trade rumors, last week's aftermath and "the older gentleman" not paying his bar tab, terrible facial hair, local media moves, which starting pitchers Twins fans should dream about, having a Joe Maddon fetish, Claire Forlani and effective advertising, Denard Span versus James Shields, targeting Braves and Rays, and where to hide the dead prostitutes before next week's episode. Here are: the podcasts the rss feed if you want to subscribe and the podcast on iTunes.

Aaron and John talk about trade rumors, last week's aftermath and "the older gentleman" not paying his bar tab, terrible facial hair, local media moves, which starting pitchers Twins fans should dream about, having a Joe Maddon fetish, Claire Forlani and effective advertising, Denard Span versus James Shields, targeting Braves and Rays, and where to hide the dead prostitutes before next week's episode. Here are: the podcasts the rss feed if you want to subscribe and the podcast on iTunes.

Fryer's been old for every level where he has had success. The time he had success in AA was only about 130+ PAs, so even that should be taken with a grain of salt. The Butera comp isn't a bad one when you consider he's hit .204 in AAA. (Was he hurt or something? 319 PA in 1.5 years in AAA?) The one thing I noticed different about his stat line is that he doesn't strikeout too much, or at lease has a decent K/BB ratio. That seems odd for a .204 hitter. If the Twins signed him, it means they had someone on their scouting vouch for him. Maybe they see something the stats don't.

RE: Wood...what I've seen written up is that he has a big fastball (and seemingly decent control) but not a reliable breaking pitch. So maybe they're bringing him in with the theory that they can develop one. (Maybe Cuellar can team him the Santana changeup. )

I can understand the frustration - it seems like the big moves should happen first and the little moves later. If Ryan could choose, I'm sure that's what he would prefer. But that's not the way the timing of the offseason is. The big free agents get a sense of what their market is now. They don't sign unless they get an offer they can't refuse, or blows away their expectations. Meanwhile, there are a lot of minor league free agents who are antsy - they want a shot next year and preferably in an organization where they have a decent path to the majors. I'm guessing both Fryer and Wood fall into that category. Wood (or his agent) know that they Twins called up a bunch of relievers last year for a shot. Fryer looks at the depth chart and sees Drew Butera as his competition. Thus, quick signings.

TVOR and I had a few beers with Robby in Cincinnati and had a nice time talking to him. The one thing that becomes obvious is that he doesn't take his job (or people's reaction to him) too seriously. That can be good or bad. I will say this - I know the players and coaching staff liked him, and that's important in his job and not terrible easy and also probably leads to access and insights from which FSN benefited. Good luck to him in Pittsburgh.