chpettit19

JBJ has had a positive OPS+ in 3 of 7 seasons for his entire career. 2 of those seasons he played fewer than 100 games (74 in 2015 and 55 last year). 2016 is his other above 100 OPS+ year. His current OPS+ is 38. Jake Cave has an OPS+ over 100 in 2 of his 3 years. His current OPS+ is 44. Your assessment that JBJ would have been a "big potential upgrade" isn't based in reality. JBJ has a better glove, but he is no better hitter than Cave and signing him, or Brantley, to block Kirilloff and/or Larnach made no sense before the season. Especially for the money they'd have had to pay those 2. Paying Eddie 10+ mil to block Kirilloff and/or Larnach would have been a similarly poor asset management decision. As for the missing on big name pitchers, if your expectation is they sign a Cole or Scherzer type you're going to be eternally disappointed. It's never happening. But if you're concerned about the likes of MadBum and those type guys, go look at what their teams are getting for their money. You'd just be on here complaining that they picked the wrong big money guy. They didn't "let go of Eduardo Escobar," they traded a guy who wouldn't be here when they became contenders and got Jhoan Duran back as part of the package. Would you rather have Josh Donaldson and Jhoan Duran or Escobar? Schoop and Cron? That's who you want to hitch your wagon to? Cron was awful in Detroit last year and has an OPS+ of 110 in Colorado this year. Schoop was replaced by Arraez while he was still with the Twins, but you want him here to back up Arraez and Polanco at 2B? You suggest others are using 20-20 hindsight, but the team you're suggesting they should have built is ignoring, or revising, history. There's no place on this team for Escobar, Schoop, or Cron. That trio is not better (and wasn't when the decisions were made) than Donaldson, Polanco/Arraez, and Sano/Kirilloff. Cuz those are the guys they'd replace. And JBJ and Brantley are not better than Kirilloff and Larnach. Especially for the money difference.

So the argument here is that 222 games of data should be ignored in favor of 18? And not 18 recent games, but 18 games spread out over 20 years? Maybe you should get the early 2000s playoff losses out of your head.

A bunch of the arms should get some innings this year. If they continue to impress. The idea that the Twins should call them up just because they're prospects and "the future" isn't a sound strategy. Calling them up "to see what we have for the next couple years" isn't a sound strategy. Calling up a guy who isn't ready doesn't show you what you have for the future or give you any sort of idea of what you need to sign during the offseason. It shows you you called up a guy that wasn't ready and let them get their brains bashed in. Miranda looks like he'll be a 40 man add this offseason, but it's hard to find a place for him on this roster right now. Trading Simmons opens up a spot, but Donaldson, Polanco, Arraez, Kirilloff is still your starting IF with Gordon backing up the middle. Miranda can be the backup on the corners, but I'd be shocked if they trade Donaldson, and even trading Sano just leads to Kirilloff being everyday 1B. There are very few arms on the big league roster worthy of blocking prospects who are ready. Maeda and Berrios are probably the only 2. Dobnak and Thorpe get the first shots (whether you personally like them or not that's the truth). Dobnak is likely penciled into the 5th rotation spot next year (otherwise that extension, while not huge money, doesn't look great). Thorpe really will be out of options next year and he is someone they actually do need to see what they have. He'll get his chance to sink or swim as Happ, Shoemaker, Pineda(?) get traded or released. If Pineda isn't traded the rotation post-trade deadline is Berrios, Maeda, Pineda, Dobnak, Thorpe. Injuries will continue to happen and the bullpen is wide open so there will be innings to be had from the prospects. Duran looks to be on track to debut as the team moves on from veterans and if he dominates for the next month or 2 in St Paul he may push Thorpe out of the way for 10-12 starts (depending on inning numbers). Canterino and Winders feel like guys who will get tossed into the bullpen in August or September to snag a few innings and get their feet wet, with a shot to get some starts if injuries are a problem. Hoping Balazovic gets his feet under him and can make a steady climb that leads to a September call up and a few starts. I think beyond those 4 the rest of the prospect arms can hope for bullpen inning scraps. A pitching staff of nearly all rookies in August and September is exciting, but a pitching staff of a bunch of rookies who aren't ready is a nightmare. It doesn't help them and doesn't tell us about the future. If they're ready get them innings so they can see what adjustments they'll need to make and have a good idea of how to succeed in the bigs next year and the future. But putting guys out there who aren't ready is bad prospect development. Celestino isn't ready and having him be overwhelmed at the plate then be part of a game costing error isn't telling us anything about his future (he's a stud defender in center), but it is hurting his confidence now. No reason to think he doesn't bounce back and continue to develop once he gets sent back to an appropriate level, but him being in the bigs while he isn't ready isn't telling us that we don't have our future CFer, it's telling us he should still be in AA like he would be if not for a crazy string of injuries.

I think them looking pretty awful in ST and starting the year with a month+ of horrid baseball lends itself to question the preparation for the season. Now is that on Rocco and his staff or the players? Coming off the craziness of 2020 I tend to think it's mostly on the players with a side of the coaching staff not doing enough to get them ramped up. Every team hits low spots in their season (Dodgers just went through one), but I think it's different when the year starts this way as opposed to things like 2019 with Cleveland running them down. If this is an isolated slow start coming off a crazy year I think you shake your head about it and move on. But either way I'd hope Rocco and his staff took note of ST and early season performances and arrive in FL next year with some altered plans.

Nobody outside the clubhouse can say what the preparation for the season was like or how he handles things behind closed doors. But when your entire team is playing below their skill level and making basic mistakes I don't think it's outrageous to question whether or not Rocco's stated approach of nothing being mandatory has been effective. It's entirely possible it was just a crazy situation where everybody was pressing and making bad decisions and committing basic errors, but when it's a teamwide phenomenon you need to look at the big picture approach. That certainly doesn't mean Rocco is stupid, has no feel, doesn't emphasize fundamentals, doesn't hold players accountable, or has no fire, but it should draw scrutiny. Rocco and the FO have a certain approach they like (analytics, letting players prepare themselves because they're professionals, etc.) and when things aren't going well and there's reasonable connections that can be made between results and approach things need to be looked at critically. 1. The idea that Rocco is stupid is ridiculous. 2. I think there's a balance of analytics verse "feel" that Rocco and the Twins are still working on perfecting. 3. Team wide regression of fundamentals is very concerning, but hard to know how much to put on Rocco for that. 4. Only kind of accountability fans have real access to is lineup positioning and on field use. Fair to question how long guys like Kepler, Polanco, and Sano stayed in prominent positions, but also plenty of reasons why (whole lineup sucked). 5. I think there's a little to this one. Rocco is very much a laid back person. I don't think it'd be reasonable to assume his public persona is drastically different than his clubhouse persona. That'd be a lot of change in personality. Most likely answer is he is who he is. You can debate whether or not that effects the players or on field performance. I was at the game Duffey got tossed and Rocco got tossed. There is something different about the way he argues and how hard he had to work to get tossed from that game. It just doesn't seem to be part of his personality (he's no Bobby Cox). I think it's fair to question the connection that has to his team when they show a general lack of fire. That's all outside perception and no real conclusion can be drawn from things, but I think it's fair to question what outwardly looks like a team without a great deal of fire or sense of urgency. Even if that's mostly just fans wanting their teams to show they care as much as the fans do.

Dodechedron's argument seems to be that they believe Berrios is basically a 2 month rental this year as well. That's why they think he'd be worth the same this deadline as next deadline. And that's why their logic is flawed. He's not a 2 month rental (whether the team acquiring him plans to only keep him for this year or not) this year, but Dodechedron is arguing that he is because the acquiring team would just look to trade him again next year. Bottom line is that whether the acquiring team would plan to keep him until he hits free agency or trade him again next year he is worth more this year (as you're saying) than next year. The extra year of team control makes him more valuable because you can have him for 2 playoff pushes or 1 playoff push and recoup some of your trade expense by moving him again. But if the team acquiring him this year got a better package (at the time of the trade, not final products as there are too many variables there) for him next year it'd be a complete failure by the Twins FO in asset management.

I think the problem with your logic is that a team trading for Berrios this year would be looking to trade him next year. Would San Diego be looking to trade Clevinger this year if he were healthy? They traded for him at the deadline last year, and according to your logic they did that simply for last year's playoff push and would turn around and trade him this year. That isn't how it works. There's certainly a chance whoever traded for him this year would have a down year next year and turn around and trade him again, but the idea that a team would trade for him this year with no desire to have him for their playoff push next year makes no sense.

I think the question comes down to what the goals are in 2022. Are they trying to compete? If they're trying to compete why try to add via FA when you already have a pitcher who is better than anyone the team is likely to sign from FA? Dobnak and Thorpe are going to get plenty of run this year. The starting staff has been surprisingly healthy, but they're not going from 60 IP last year to 160 IP this year without some IL stints and time off. Bullpen spots are easily opened up on this team this year to get Balazovic, Duran, Canterino, or whoever else some time in the bigs. Some time in the big league pen to get their feet wet this year and increase their innings is entirely possible and probably likely. I'd be shocked to see any minor leaguers come up and take over real rotation spots this year, but they're going to have to stretch them out. That also ties into relying on a group of guys who will be coming off low inning counts (for a SP) to compete for true rotation places next year. So if the Twins are trying to compete next year they're going to want Berrios. Not to mention there's no reason at all to assume he wants to be paid more than he is actually worth. Maybe he wants to be paid exactly what he's worth and the Twins have tried to get him for less than that. Or maybe he thinks he can build his worth up by having a Trevor Bauer type contract year. A player not signing an extension before or during arbitration years doesn't at all mean they're asking for more than they're worth.

What teams do you think qualify as contenders in player's minds? Do all players only want to play for NY, Boston, and the Dodgers? Tampa? Houston? Who fits the contender criteria? If the Twins had won 2 playoff games over the last 2 years would that change Berrios' mind? What if they won 1 series then got swept? Is he, or any current player, supposed to care about the early 2000's Twins teams? Should any current player care about the Twins teams before Falvine and Rocco took over? Should any player looking at their 2022 employment care about anything other than what that 2022 and forward team looks like? Should Hosmer have stuck with the World Series winning Royals on a discount instead of taking the money from the Padres? The Royals previous playoff performances were quite a bit better than the Padres. I agree it isn't all about money to all players, but what is the discount he's willing to take to go to a "contender?" If he could get 5 years $110m from the Twins would he take 5 years $90m to go to the Dodgers instead? What about 5 years $100m to the Yankees? Is he going to be maybe the first player ever to take a discount to go to a large market team? It's all good and well to think it's not all about money, but I don't know that you can find too many players, if any, in Berrios' talent level that took discounts to go to contenders. Most contenders are contenders because they pay what the non-contenders won't or are smart enough not to pay someone like Berrios #1 money when he isn't a #1 on a contending team.

Tampa is the Cleveland of the south in terms of churning out high end pitching year after year. The Twins aren't there yet (hopefully soon ?). The White Sox were setting up for a multi-year rebuild. The Twins aren't there yet (hopefully not soon ?). The Twins coming out of the gates as a complete dumpster fire has put them in no man's land. If Berrios is asking for #1 type money and the Twins know they'll never meet his asking price they absolutely have to listen to offers. If there's nothing that really moves the needle then you hold onto him for this season as some of the young guys get called up and you can get a better idea of what you'll be next year. I have to imagine the current plan is to compete in 2022. If you don't have someone who can step in for Berrios (I think this is part of MikeLink's point) you don't ship him out just to ship him out. Having your offense ready to compete while shipping out your best pitcher isn't a great strategy. If Duran, Balazovic, et al come up and show they can help the team compete next year it's a different story. If you're retooling for 2023 ship him out for future help. If you're rebuilding for 2024 and beyond (I really hope that isn't the plan) you trade him for future help. If you're trying to compete in 2022 you keep him unless you get an overwhelming offer.

That's why W-L is a useful team stat, not individual stat. Jorge Alcala "earned" a win last night. How useful is that to telling you how he performed last night? At best it's useless, at worst it actually tells you a false story of success and you're giving him positive marks for having blown a hold situation and given the other team the lead. W-L Records from 2019 18-4 17-6 15-4 15-7 14-12 What do those stats tell you about any of those pitchers? That's the question. When you're talking about an individual stat being useful you have to look at that stat on it's own and see what it's telling you. Who pitched well in that group and who didn't? An individual stat is supposed to tell you about that individual. None of them tell you 100% about that individual, but W-L tells you basically 0%. It gives you no meaningful information. If you still find it interesting to see W-L records that's fine. But the stat tells you nothing of use about an individual player's performance.

The problem is neither you nor anyone else arguing for pitcher W-L has been able to tell me why it's important or useful. If your entire argument for anything in life is "we used to use it" then it's just noise. Sorry. I have no problem with you considering W-L stats useful. You can't tell me why they're useful so it doesn't make sense to me why you'd consider them useful, but that's your choice. But this conversation got started with you saying Seth's credibility "takes a hit" because he doesn't consider it a useful stat. I explained in multiple ways why it's not useful and your response is to mock the front office while continuing to not explain why anyone should find you credible in the least when it comes to stats. If you're going to publicly question someone's credibility it may be prudent to have a better reason than "it's how it used to be." But thank you for letting me "win." Very kind of you.

Where does it rank on the list of possible pitching stats and when should a GM start caring about it? Is that better? When Jacob deGrom hits free agency are you telling him he's worth Pineda money cuz he just doesn't win games? I'm still yet to see anyone on here tell me what the pitcher W-L stat tells them about that individual pitcher and makes it a useful stat. A few people are adamant I'm wrong and it's important, but none of them have told me why it's important beyond saying it's interesting when compared to other stats. There are parameters set that dictate what goes into a stat and how it is earned. That is what the stat tells you. Pitcher W-L tells you a starter made it 5 innings, his team scored more runs than he gave up, and his pen never blew that lead. Or it tells you a reliever finished an inning in which his team took the lead and never gave it back. That is not useful in determining anything about those pitchers. If you can tell me what is useful about knowing Yusmeiro Petit has 6 wins this year (on it's own, not by adding in other stats) I'll listen and I'm more than willing to change my mind. If not then just accept it's interesting in relation to the past and to see deGrom never get Ws, but in and of itself the stat tells you nothing useful.

This is the point. W-L record tells you nothing about an individual player. That's the point I've been trying to make. Are ERA, WHIP, WAR, or any other stat telling you 100% of the story on that player? No. But they at least tell you something about them specifically. Pitcher W-L tells you nothing outside of a starter going 5 innings or a reliever finishing 1.

What does percentage of games started by that player being won by their team tell you? I go out there and pitch to 6.58 ERA over 20 starts, but my bullpen has an ERA of 0 and my team averages 10 runs a game when I start and they win 18 of my 20 starts. What does that tell you about me? That's the point of this. Individual W-L record tells you nothing about the individual beyond whether or not a starter completed 5 innings or a reliever completed 1. Doesn't tell you if they gave up runs. Doesn't tell you if they pitched well. In fact you can give up a ton of runs and still earn a W which would put a positive in your scouting report, but would be wrong. Individual pitcher W-L records don't tell you anything at all. Does that mean people can't like seeing them or be interested in them? No. But in terms of gathering information about the skills of an individual player it tells you nothing.

Pitcher A- 9 GS, 2-2 W-L, 1.58 ERA, 0.74 WHIP Pitcher B- 9 GS, 5-2 W-L, 4.69 ERA, 1.38 WHIP Pitcher C- 9 GS, 3-5 W-L, 4.53 ERA, 1.40 WHIP Pitcher D- 9 GS, 4-2 W-L, 2.53 ERA, 1.03 WHIP Pitcher E- 6 GS, 3-2 W-L, 0.68 ERA, 0.60 WHIP Pitcher F- 10 GS, 5-2 W-L, 4.39 ERA, 1.19 WHIP Pitcher G- 9 GS, 5-3 W-L, 4.79 ERA, 1.43 WHIP Pitcher H- 9 GS, 4-4 W-L, 2.47 ERA, 0.86 WHIP Rate these pitchers in order of who you'd want and tell me how much weight you put into their W-L record. You're the GM of the Twins trying to win a WS and these are the guys you have available to sign. Tell me how useful their W-L records are when deciding who to sign.

What do those outliers tell you about that pitcher, though? The point of pitcher wins is to tell you something about that specific player. You suggest winning 20 games says something about them (I assume something positive). What does it say, though? If you're a GM are you sprinting to trade for or sign them because they won 20 games? Or if they won 5 what does that say about them? When analyzing data, the more USEFUL metrics you have the better. Some things are absolutely noise. The point of individual stats is to tell you useful information about that individual. When that metric measures far more about your team than it does about you it is noise and not helpful.

What percent of the story would you say pitcher Ws does tell? Do you think a pitcher's W-L record tells 5-10% of their story? I'm seriously asking as I'd like to understand where you're coming from better. What do the things I outlined tell you about any of the pitchers I mentioned? Or lets just use deGrom as he's the poster boy for pitcher W-L stats not telling you anything meaningful. What do you learn about deGrom himself (we're just talking about pitcher Ws meaning something for that pitcher, not his team) from seeing his W-L record in isolation? Cuz that's really what this comes down to. If you look at just that 1 stat what percent of the story can it tell you about that player, their talents, or their performance. I would like to understand your thoughts on what you can learn from seeing a pitcher's W-L record in isolation. As you've said, and I agree, there's no uberstat that tells you the whole story. But I'd argue that there are stats that tell you basically nothing (pitching Ws), or very little (hitter RBIs need much more context).

If this is in reference to me this is not a teaching moment. I'm not claiming there's a "single uberstat in baseball." I have given many examples and explained multiple times in this thread why pitcher wins don't tell any useful information. If you can provide an example of what a "pitcher with wins or losses outside of the norm " might mean you could then possibly have a teaching moment. Up to this point you've done nothing but say Ws may not tell much, but they're important. Haven't explained why they're important, just that you think they are. I have explained, with multiple examples, why they don't tell anything useful. The "truth" does not remain that they're telling any story about a pitcher beyond they happened to finish 5 innings where their team scored more runs than the opponent (and their team didn't subsequently give up the lead in later innings), or finished 1 inning where their team happened to take the lead. Petit having 6 wins tells you nothing about his ability to prevent runs. He could have given up a lead only to have his team take it back in the bottom of an inning and earned a W. Ws don't tell you a single thing about how a pitcher performed beyond a starter finishing 5 innings or a reliever finishing 1. That is the truth of the pitcher W stat. And "others in the press" having argued against pitcher Ws has nothing to do with my stance. Not sure what that has to do with anything at all, actually.

This is all it signifies. There's no if about it. A starter made it 5 innings with the lead or a reliever finished an inning with a lead. That doesn't tell you anything meaningful about that pitcher's performance that day. It is not important. Yusmeiro Petit is tied for 3rd in the league in wins right now with 6. He's a reliever. Eovaldi (4.39 ERA), John King (Reliever), Andrew Kittredge (Reliever), Steven Matz (4.69 ERA), Frankie Montas (4.79 ERA), Eduardo Rodriguez (5.06 ERA) are amongst those pitchers tied for 8th with 5 Ws. Connor Brogdon (Reliever with 5.00 ERA), Arrieta (4.46 ERA), MadBum (4.53 ERA) are next in line with 4 Ws. Brandon Woodruff (1.58 ERA), Taijuan Walker (2.05 ERA), deGrom (0.68 ERA), Kyle Gibson (2.24 ERA), Pablo Lopez (2.73 ERA) all come in below the guys listed above in terms of Ws. Tell me which guys you'd want in your rotation right now. Eovaldi, Matz, Montas, Rodriguez, Arrieta, and MadBum or Woodruff, Walker, deGrom, Gibson, and Lopez? Ws don't tell you anything useful.

It says a starting pitcher made it through 5 innings or a relief pitcher finished 1. That is all it tells. That makes it basically useless. Twins dropped a 9 spot in the 4th inning Friday (I think it was Friday at least). Dobnak could have given up a 6 spot in the 5th, but got through it and still gotten a W that day. He could have given up his own 9 spot in the 5th and still gotten a W (Twins had scored 1 in the 3rd so were at 10). Pitcher W tells you absolutely nothing about how they pitched that day beyond a starter getting through 5 or a reliever finishing 1 inning.

Jacob deGrom is the best pitcher on the planet right now. Has been for a handful of years. No debate about it. Since 2014 his ERAs are 2.69, 2.54, 3.04, 3.53, 1.70, 2.43, and 0.68 this year. ERA isn't a trendy cocktail stat so I assume you're good with it. His wins since 2014 are 9, 14, 7, 15, 10, 11, 4, and 3. He has started 6 games (40 innings) this year and given up 3 ERs total, and has 3 wins to show for it. He has 2 games this year where he has driven in more runs than he's allowed and didn't get a win in either game. So, yes, pitcher wins are a completely useless stat. Just because we used it in the past when we didn't have the knowledge we do now doesn't mean it should still carry weight.

Humor is all this team has provided so far this year ?

There's a bunch of real grumps around here. Can't take a day off from being negative and just enjoy a silly post and relax a bit? Season has been a disaster and Tom is trying to have a little fun with it. Relax folks, the Twins are sorry for ruining your lives.

A few people making comments about the Twins screwing up by not extending Buxton like it's just them saying "now you're with us for X number of years at Y amount of money." and he has no say in it. He's showing exactly why an extension wasn't reached when the two sides discussed it this spring. His team has to be pushing for astronomical numbers as he puts up insane numbers, but the team has to be pushing for big, but not outrageous, money as he sits on the IL again. If it were as simple as saying "we'll pay you X dollars for Y performance numbers" it'd be done, but he's possibly the most complex extension candidate in baseball history. In the conversation for the best player on the planet when healthy, but is never healthy for long periods of time. Can't blame either side for there not being an extension for him in place. That also makes him one of the most complicated trade candidates ever. Any team would love to have him, but at what price? There's no equal return for a healthy Buxton (in prospect terms), but he's not worth anything on the IL. He's an even more painful Ortiz if he's traded and stays healthy the rest of his career, and the front office is run out of town for trading Mike Trout 2.0. But the front office is run out of town if there's reports this summer that they turned down a trade for 10 top 20 prospects from some team and he continues to be hurt the rest of his career. Until Buxton can stay healthy there's no easy answer on him and I don't think it's fair to criticize anyone involved in trade or contract negotiations as he's the most polarizing player you could possibly think of in terms of value.