John Bonnes

Komatsu and Mastroianni were nearly completely redundant. Moving one of them was the right way to go. So was going to a 13-man pitching staff. When Perkins is being asked to throw garbage innings in the 6th, then the bullpen is too damn short.

Amen. I couldn't agree more.

Moving Liriano back to the rotation seems like a mistake. There is now way a couple of starts suddenly make other teams reevaluate who he is. Personally, I think performing as a solid reliever would garner as much interest in him as anything. That said, let's face it, they're out of arms that can be starters. At this point, there isn't a great move. Swarzak? Duensing? Now maybe Manship? They're all stretched, and the Twins have more reason to protect them to protect Liriano any more. In that way, this is a preview of things to come. I am really not looking forward to reading the box scores in 2013.

Wow. I have no problem with the 13 pitchers, but I'm surprised they would just throw Komatsu away. I haven't really been impressed with him, but it seems like there were better moves to make. Would Mastroianni have had to been put on waivers? Is he out of options?

Just so evetuone is clear, commenting on commentary, so long as its sourced is fine, but copying a complete list or story is, forbidden. Sorry.

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?572-The-Right-Field-Mess

It was a risk without an acceptable backup plan. The Twins knew that. And it failed. And they’re paying the price. And that price is a .192 batting average. That’s the combined batting average of whoever the Twins have played in right field so far. It’s last in the majors. Their combined OPS is .594. That’s the career OPS of Juan Castro. And there isn’t anything close to a solution in sight unless the Twins want to mess with their best hitter. Two weeks before the end of spring training, the Twins shuffled the roster, deciding that Josh Willingham would move back to left field and Chris Parmelee would come north with the club as first baseman, essentially replacing Ben Revere in the starting lineup. The plan would work because Ryan Doumit had the flexibility to play a somewhat passable right field. At the time, it looked like a solid way to boost the Twins lineup, if Parmelee hit. When Parmelee fell flat early in the season, the plan went to hell. To his credit, Gardenhire has done a decent job playing musical chairs but any give night, there is position left standing. That position is right field. Seven players have started there and none of them have more than 13 starts. The projected starter, Ryan Doumit, only has six starts because on any given day there is a spot open at designated hitter or catcher that he can fill. And there is no use having him stumble around right field when it only means a questionable bench player will end up as the DH. The guy with the most starts is Trevor Plouffe. He would be the best option right now except: He’s hitting .152. He hasn’t shown any ability to hit right-handed pitching. He’s usually already at another spot in the field, playing an infield position now that Danny Valencia is in AAA. Seventeen starts have been taken by Darin Mastroianni, Eric Komatsu and Clete Thomas. They could all be valuable role players. None of them should be starting consistently in 2012 for a major league team. That leaves Revere, who has all of seven starts. Defensively, right field is a terrible position for Revere, as it limits his biggest asset (his range) and emphasizes his biggest weakness (his arm). Also, the jury is still out regarding Revere’s offense. He returned to AAA and hit .330 this year, but still hasn’t shown any ability to get on base beyond posting a crazy high batting average. Getting on base needs to be his game. The best option goes back to the original plan: moving Revere to left field where his defense makes him a real asset and having Willingham play right field. But I’ll excuse Gardenhire for not wanting to jack his cleanup (and best) hitter around. Like a lot of things the team is dealing with this year, there isn’t an easy solution. Even with a lineup that has stayed remarkably healthy, the Twins find themselves one legitimate bat short of a major league lineup on a consistent basis.

It was a risk without an acceptable backup plan. The Twins knew that. And it failed. And they’re paying the price. And that price is a .192 batting average. That’s the combined batting average of whoever the Twins have played in right field so far. It’s last in the majors. Their combined OPS is .594. That’s the career OPS of Juan Castro. And there isn’t anything close to a solution in sight unless the Twins want to mess with their best hitter. Two weeks before the end of spring training, the Twins shuffled the roster, deciding that Josh Willingham would move back to left field and Chris Parmelee would come north with the club as first baseman, essentially replacing Ben Revere in the starting lineup. The plan would work because Ryan Doumit had the flexibility to play a somewhat passable right field. At the time, it looked like a solid way to boost the Twins lineup, if Parmelee hit. When Parmelee fell flat early in the season, the plan went to hell. To his credit, Gardenhire has done a decent job playing musical chairs but any give night, there is position left standing. That position is right field. Seven players have started there and none of them have more than 13 starts. The projected starter, Ryan Doumit, only has six starts because on any given day there is a spot open at designated hitter or catcher that he can fill. And there is no use having him stumble around right field when it only means a questionable bench player will end up as the DH. The guy with the most starts is Trevor Plouffe. He would be the best option right now except: He’s hitting .152. He hasn’t shown any ability to hit right-handed pitching. He’s usually already at another spot in the field, playing an infield position now that Danny Valencia is in AAA. Seventeen starts have been taken by Darin Mastroianni, Eric Komatsu and Clete Thomas. They could all be valuable role players. None of them should be starting consistently in 2012 for a major league team. That leaves Revere, who has all of seven starts. Defensively, right field is a terrible position for Revere, as it limits his biggest asset (his range) and emphasizes his biggest weakness (his arm). Also, the jury is still out regarding Revere’s offense. He returned to AAA and hit .330 this year, but still hasn’t shown any ability to get on base beyond posting a crazy high batting average. Getting on base needs to be his game. The best option goes back to the original plan: moving Revere to left field where his defense makes him a real asset and having Willingham play right field. But I’ll excuse Gardenhire for not wanting to jack his cleanup (and best) hitter around. Like a lot of things the team is dealing with this year, there isn’t an easy solution. Even with a lineup that has stayed remarkably healthy, the Twins find themselves one legitimate bat short of a major league lineup on a consistent basis.

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?561-Gleeman-the-Geek-Ep-42-Marquis-de-Buzzkill

Aaron and John talk about Jason Marquis' implosion and the state of an increasingly ugly rotation, Drew Butera and Ben Revere turning into Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron, how the Twins handled Chris Parmelee, the Van Halen concert-going experience, Nick Blackburn's return to the disabled list, their PickPointz MVP picks, and Lewwwwww! Here are: the podcasts the rss feed if you want to subscribe and the podcast on iTunes

Aaron and John talk about Jason Marquis' implosion and the state of an increasingly ugly rotation, Drew Butera and Ben Revere turning into Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron, how the Twins handled Chris Parmelee, the Van Halen concert-going experience, Nick Blackburn's return to the disabled list, their PickPointz MVP picks, and Lewwwwww! Here are: the podcasts the rss feed if you want to subscribe and the podcast on iTunes

Regarding umpires & how they react to certain pitchers, I've wondered about certain pitches. Say a guy has a curveball that starts in the one but darts out of it late. If that pitcher can't get that pitch called a strike, that might be a significant handicap. Or if it is, he could be nearly unhittable. Here's another question: should the zone be different for right-handed & left-handed batters? Must it be symmetrical?

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?551-Are-We-Ever-Biased-Towards-Umpire-Bias

There is no question that umpires have biases. The question is whether we want them or not. A couple of years ago I reported on a book that I was reading titled Scorecasting by Tobias J Moskowitz and L. Jon Weerthem. This writeup is going to copy a lot of that story. The book is similar to the book Freakonomics, except that it focuses exclusively on sports. If you have an iPad or iPhone, you can download the first chapter for free – and just that much changed forever how I watch baseball. The chapter is about a bias that umpires have because they are, with the possible exception of Joe West, human. And humans are far more willing to forgive an error of omission over an error of commission. That is, we are more willing to forgive an error caused by doing nothing over an error caused by doing something. And thus humans are for more willing to commit an error of omission over an error of commission, because it gets us into less trouble. I’ll give an example from the book: “In a well-known psychological experiment, the subjects were posed the following question: Imagine there have been several epidemics of a certain kind of flu that everyone contracts and that can be fatal to children under three years of age. About 10 out of every 10,000 children with this flu will die from it. A vaccine for the flu, which eliminates the change of getting it, causes death in 5 or every 10,000 children. Would you vaccinate your child?” Most parents opted to NOT to vaccinate their child, despite it halving the chances of their child dying. The thought of doing something to the child which would cause his or her death was worse than the though of doing nothing and doubling the chances of death. The same bias is statistically apparent in umpires when it comes to calling balls and strikes and now I can’t help but notice it. In 2007, mlb.com installed the pitch f/x equipment in all the ballparks, providing data on 2 million pitches, including 1.15 million called pitches. Suddenly we could see from data how accurate umpires were in calling balls and strikes, and whether there are any circumstances that made them less accurate. It turns out there are. A ball that is in the strike zone is called accurately by an umpire 80.2% of the time. But that number dives if there are two strikes on the batter (and it isn’t a full count). Then, a ball in the strike zone is called a strike just 61.3% of the time. He’s almost twice as likely to mistakenly count a strike as a ball. Again, don’t forget – we KNOW that these are really strikes from the f/x data. The same thing happens the other way on pitches outside the strike zone on three-ball counts, though it’s not quite so drastic. A pitch outside the strike zone is called a ball 87.8% of the time, but if there are three balls (and it’s not a full count) it’s only called a ball 84% of the time. The reason? Because calling strike three or ball four ends the at-bat. It’s active – it affects the game far more than giving the batter and pitcher another pitch to resolve the at-bat themselves. The incentive is toward the error of omission rather than that of commission. Incidentally, this is most apparent on borderline pitches. Over all counts, a borderline is called a strike 49.9% of the time – almost literally a coin flip. But with a 2-strike count (again not a full count) it’s called a strike just 38.2% of the time. And with a three ball count, it’s called a strike 60% of the time. The percentages become even more extreme on 3-0 and 0-2 counts. This may be a bias that we, as fans, want to reward. For the first time, I thought about whether or not I really want to take that kind of call out of an umpire’s hands. Don’t we want someone who prompts the batter and pitcher to resolve their conflicts themselves? Even if it might not be a perfectly accurate call.

There is no question that umpires have biases. The question is whether we want them or not. A couple of years ago I reported on a book that I was reading titled Scorecasting by Tobias J Moskowitz and L. Jon Weerthem. This writeup is going to copy a lot of that story. The book is similar to the book Freakonomics, except that it focuses exclusively on sports. If you have an iPad or iPhone, you can download the first chapter for free – and just that much changed forever how I watch baseball. The chapter is about a bias that umpires have because they are, with the possible exception of Joe West, human. And humans are far more willing to forgive an error of omission over an error of commission. That is, we are more willing to forgive an error caused by doing nothing over an error caused by doing something. And thus humans are for more willing to commit an error of omission over an error of commission, because it gets us into less trouble. I’ll give an example from the book: “In a well-known psychological experiment, the subjects were posed the following question: Imagine there have been several epidemics of a certain kind of flu that everyone contracts and that can be fatal to children under three years of age. About 10 out of every 10,000 children with this flu will die from it. A vaccine for the flu, which eliminates the change of getting it, causes death in 5 or every 10,000 children. Would you vaccinate your child?” Most parents opted to NOT to vaccinate their child, despite it halving the chances of their child dying. The thought of doing something to the child which would cause his or her death was worse than the though of doing nothing and doubling the chances of death. The same bias is statistically apparent in umpires when it comes to calling balls and strikes and now I can’t help but notice it. In 2007, mlb.com installed the pitch f/x equipment in all the ballparks, providing data on 2 million pitches, including 1.15 million called pitches. Suddenly we could see from data how accurate umpires were in calling balls and strikes, and whether there are any circumstances that made them less accurate. It turns out there are. A ball that is in the strike zone is called accurately by an umpire 80.2% of the time. But that number dives if there are two strikes on the batter (and it isn’t a full count). Then, a ball in the strike zone is called a strike just 61.3% of the time. He’s almost twice as likely to mistakenly count a strike as a ball. Again, don’t forget – we KNOW that these are really strikes from the f/x data. The same thing happens the other way on pitches outside the strike zone on three-ball counts, though it’s not quite so drastic. A pitch outside the strike zone is called a ball 87.8% of the time, but if there are three balls (and it’s not a full count) it’s only called a ball 84% of the time. The reason? Because calling strike three or ball four ends the at-bat. It’s active – it affects the game far more than giving the batter and pitcher another pitch to resolve the at-bat themselves. The incentive is toward the error of omission rather than that of commission. Incidentally, this is most apparent on borderline pitches. Over all counts, a borderline is called a strike 49.9% of the time – almost literally a coin flip. But with a 2-strike count (again not a full count) it’s called a strike just 38.2% of the time. And with a three ball count, it’s called a strike 60% of the time. The percentages become even more extreme on 3-0 and 0-2 counts. This may be a bias that we, as fans, want to reward. For the first time, I thought about whether or not I really want to take that kind of call out of an umpire’s hands. Don’t we want someone who prompts the batter and pitcher to resolve their conflicts themselves? Even if it might not be a perfectly accurate call.

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?545-Random-Thoughts-On-A-Random-Loss

I don’t know if these are questions, or thoughts, of forum topics, but after a 13-hour day, I’m pretty much free associating. Let’s see what happens. Because Fourth Place Is Just Five Games Away? Why is Carl Pavano pitching? The Twins long term strategy regarding Pavano needs to be to have him demonstrate enough success to get some value for him at the trade deadline, right? What is the purpose of trotting him out there at 80% to look below average? Get him healthy, let him string a strong month or so together and then shop him in July. Doesn’t this have to be the strategy? Why isn’t this the strategy? Or Maybe It Was Andy’s Whoopie Cushion. Liriano was Liriano. To me, the most encouraging sign wasn’t that he got the first five guys out, or that he bounced back to get out of the second inning after almost completely falling apart, or that he struck out three guys. It was that he smiled and laughed on the bench with Rick Anderson for the first time since last May. Including The Door On Your Wait Out. Capps hasn’t been bad this year, though last night was the second game he cost the Twins. I won’t site how many games he’s “saved” as evidence, but I think it’s worth noting that his WPA is still in positive territory even after losing 30 points last night. Mostly he’s still just Matt Capps – he has been for years, so he should know how by now. For all the talk about his new pitch, he’s got the same strikeout rate, a high home run rate and though he’s walking fewer guys. To me, he’s in the same boat as Pavano – the team needs to do whatever they can to boost his value, and if that means closing, then close away. Plus, We’ll Resemble The Pirates Ryan Doumit’s OPS is up to 763 after last night’s game, which is a lot closer to the bat I thought we were getting. That’s a season high mark – he was as low as 550 before he broke out in that Sunday game in Seattle, which was just a little over a week ago. But the better news is that he’s worked out far better than I ever thought he would so far. His defense at catcher is better than we had heard. He’s hitting left-handers better than I had anticipated (albeit without any power). And he’s been healthy. He’s also been the ideal guy to play on a team with Joe Mauer. I’m anxious to move a lot of guys at the trade deadline, but Doumit isn’t one of them. I don’t know what it would take to sign the 31-year-old, and I’d want to limit the years, but he looks like a hell of a good fit for this team for the next few years.

I don’t know if these are questions, or thoughts, of forum topics, but after a 13-hour day, I’m pretty much free associating. Let’s see what happens. Because Fourth Place Is Just Five Games Away? Why is Carl Pavano pitching? The Twins long term strategy regarding Pavano needs to be to have him demonstrate enough success to get some value for him at the trade deadline, right? What is the purpose of trotting him out there at 80% to look below average? Get him healthy, let him string a strong month or so together and then shop him in July. Doesn’t this have to be the strategy? Why isn’t this the strategy? Or Maybe It Was Andy’s Whoopie Cushion. Liriano was Liriano. To me, the most encouraging sign wasn’t that he got the first five guys out, or that he bounced back to get out of the second inning after almost completely falling apart, or that he struck out three guys. It was that he smiled and laughed on the bench with Rick Anderson for the first time since last May. Including The Door On Your Wait Out. Capps hasn’t been bad this year, though last night was the second game he cost the Twins. I won’t site how many games he’s “saved” as evidence, but I think it’s worth noting that his WPA is still in positive territory even after losing 30 points last night. Mostly he’s still just Matt Capps – he has been for years, so he should know how by now. For all the talk about his new pitch, he’s got the same strikeout rate, a high home run rate and though he’s walking fewer guys. To me, he’s in the same boat as Pavano – the team needs to do whatever they can to boost his value, and if that means closing, then close away. Plus, We’ll Resemble The Pirates Ryan Doumit’s OPS is up to 763 after last night’s game, which is a lot closer to the bat I thought we were getting. That’s a season high mark – he was as low as 550 before he broke out in that Sunday game in Seattle, which was just a little over a week ago. But the better news is that he’s worked out far better than I ever thought he would so far. His defense at catcher is better than we had heard. He’s hitting left-handers better than I had anticipated (albeit without any power). And he’s been healthy. He’s also been the ideal guy to play on a team with Joe Mauer. I’m anxious to move a lot of guys at the trade deadline, but Doumit isn’t one of them. I don’t know what it would take to sign the 31-year-old, and I’d want to limit the years, but he looks like a hell of a good fit for this team for the next few years.

I've given this some thought the last couple of days. I've dealt with this issue a lot: as a blogger, as a publisher, and we deal with it on TwinsDaily, too. These debates often turn into a debate on being positive or negative. I think that's the wrong focus. There is plenty of room for both, and I opposed labeling any place along that continuum "the truth." One can find infinite positive facts and stats about a team and infinite negative facts about a team, and infinite interpretations of those facts. My experience is that where one falls on that continuum has as much to do with nebulous internal and personal traits as it does with performance or facts. The right focus is being open to the areas that you want to explore and those that others want to explore. There are things we can learn (and actually enjoy) from those with different attitudes towards the same subject. The right focus is being HONEST about one's views and attitudes. So I rarely condemn announcers (or media) for what some would consider overly positive spins. I personally think there is a trickier and maybe more effective way to care, but it's harder too. I'm less tolerant of shallow coverage. There's just so much beauty in baseball if one is willing to go a little beneath the surface, and I don't know why you wouldn't want to do that if you cover it, other than just weariness or laziness. To FSN's credit, I think they've tried to do that, with mixed results. They're certainly expanded their coverage FAR beyond what it used to be. Their attempts at demonstrating "inside strategy" with announcers on the field before and after the game isn't a bad thought. They cover the manager's post game and pre game talks. They have the announcers break down aspects of the game afterwards, going back to a specific at bat. Those are all really good things. Personally, I think there are some things they could do that might raise it to another level. I'm sure they've thought of most of these, but they include: Minor league coverage - mabye some video of prospects, analyzing some performances and what it means to the future, or covering general subjects like how important age is. Or even a 10 prospect countdown. Stats or Big Picture Stuff - How about some comparisons of the upcoming free free agents and how things balance out. Or have each of their announcers fill out a GM cheat sheet of how they would construct the Twins for the next season? Or a quick graphic showing how the upcoming opposing team is doing relative to the Twins in basic categories, like Runs scored, or runs against, or defenasive metrics. My favorite idea is creating some 5-minute pieces that show the science behind something like Runs Created or Pythagorean Theorme in the style of Bill Nye The Science Guy. That could be run pretty regularly and reused. Back to Robby - I have no problem with him choosing to provide a positive spin. I especially like that he's honest about it - that he declares that's what he's going to be because that's how he's wired (and probably because it makes his job a lot more pleasant.) If he's honest about what he presents, that's great. If he's critical of others for their attitude, that's disappointing.

We talked about this on GATG today. I think it depends on whether they think Parmelee is getting back on track. If not, I think they'll send him to AAA. If he is getting back on track, it'll be a 13th pitcher or Mastroianni, I think. Of the 13, I"m guessing Gray. I do't think they'll cry any rivers if he's claimed. And given how few guys are getting claimed, I doubt he will.

Looking forward to these posts. If you want, you can add that logo to the header for your blog. Just go to Blog Settings (in the sub menu) and put the image in the Blog Description (and maybe center it.) John