tmerrickkeller

I think you are trying to reduce what is being said to a semantics argument, and it isn't. Whether data gathered from someone checking zones and seeing if plays are made is "inconclusive" as to a player's defensive ability regardless of sample size, or, whether you consider such data to be "inaccurate" in the first place is the issue. Some people will consider the underlying data based on zones and plays to be inaccurate - and I mean flat inaccurate. Therefore, accumulating masses of data that don't accurately measure a player's defensive ability IS inaccurate data. It is not simply "inconclusive." Inconclusive suggests that it is headed in the right direction, and just lacks volume and mass (a large sample size). Inaccurate underlying data repeated over and over does not produce accurate conclusions. I don't pretend to know all the thinking that goes into each rating of a play within UZR, but I know if the shift is on for Thome and he hits a ball right where the 3rd baseman is "supposed to be" and the 3rd baseman, playing a deep shortstop, runs like a madman and tries to make a play on that ball and fumbles it, I don't trust a system that tells me that a 3rd baseman gets a demerit because he didn't make a play that was within his normal zone. I know that a right fielder playing too deep with the go-ahead runner on 3rd and 1 out in the 9th who allows a ball to fall in front of him, or plays too shallow in the same situation, catches a ball going backward, and the throw fails to beat the runner home is not as good a fielder as the player who doesn't do that. And I don't think UZR measures that stuff. The human eye does.

That last post should have said "sufficiently large sample size" not "same size."

Sorry if my point didn't come across correctly. I think what I was saying is that I don't care if someone scores every play as routine or exceptional and then puts it all into a matrix and comes up with something (UZR) that claims to be an accurate reflection of a player's defensive prowess. I don't think that is nearly as accurate a reflection of a player's defensive skill as "watching the games." And I think that the UZR ratings of players all throughout baseball (whether small or large sample size) bears out that UZR is not an accurate reflection of defense, and that actually watching the games gives someone a better idea of whether a player is good or not good defensively. I think the mistaken point is to say that if there is a sufficiently large same size, that if player A's UZR exceeds player B's UZR, that player A is a better defensive player. That's a fault in the statistic itself (which was also, I hope, my point).

I haven't read enough of this thread to know whose side I'm taking, but I do understand that people who follow baseball and watch baseball and coach and manage and scout baseball are way better at telling you whether someone is a "good" or "not good" fielder than UZR. The human eye can tell the difference between routine plays and great plays, botched easy plays and botched tough plays, and also tell you whether a player is more or less likely to boot a baseball or be out of position, or not paying attention, when the pressure is on than during the late innings of a blowout. I certainly understand statistics (WAR, OPS+, etc.) that attempt to take individual statistics and turn them into something that measures a player's impact on his team and the game. I think those statistics are maturing and are valuable. I think there will also be a measure of fielding at some point, but getting into a discussion about the "value" of UZR as it relates to an ability to tell whether someone is a good or bad fielder (regardless of the sample size, though I do agree that larger sample sizes over several seasons are more valuable than whether someone went a month without an error), ignores the realities of baseball. JJ was a sure-handed shortstop with limited range (and that's exactly why the Twins got rid of him - they thought they needed more speed on the bases and in the field in order to take that next step, which hindsight tells us was an improvident move); Valencia occasionally made good plays, but too often did not make routine plays, and this failing seemed to increase with the pressure of a situation. He also consistently struck me as a person whose head was not 100% into the game. I don't know what UZR says about either of those guys - I just know by watching a bunch of baseball that I trusted Hardy and didn't trust Valencia. If someone tells me, then, that UZR says that Valencia is a better fielder than Hardy, or even that he was for a short period of time, I tell them that UZR is an inaccurate measure of fielding.

Many good points here. A 90-win team in a "weaker" division can still make the WS, but one would have to believe that a team playing in a more competitive division would be a stronger team, having defeated better competition all year to get to 90 wins. It has struck me that two factors seem to elevate playoff teams: 1) teams with pitchers 1-3 with the lowest xFIP during the regular season (as your 4th and 5th starters don't seem to play into playoff wins and losses as much), and 2) teams that hit more home runs per game in the playoffs than they did during the regular season. They often talk about teams winning that weren't huge power teams, but it also seems that those teams elevate their power numbers during the playoffs.

I think there's truth in all that everyone here is saying: What he should do is get a couple of mid-priced free agent starters (Marcum, Blanton) and leave a little money for additional acquisitions. What he will do is wait for the free agent market to set rates for the top-line starters and then wait to see who is left out, and then pick up one or two of those guys for 1-year, or 1-year-plus-option deals, making sound dollar decisions. He will do this between mid-December and late January, because he doesn't want to wait until spring and have some teams lose a valuable piece (thereby raising the price of the remaining FA starters again). He wants those guys to think they'll be left in the cold and then start the negotiations. He should look to trade one of the assets (Morneau, Span, minor league outfielder) for additional help, if the market doesn't bring us a couple of starters and the shot at a middle infielder. What he will do is save those tradeable assets and a little room in the budget and treat fans as the team always has - if you show up and if we're playing well, we'll spend a little more money or make a trade to improve the team. If the fans don't show up and we're not playing well, we'll sell off what we can for less than they are worth and try the same formula again next year.

Which is, exactly, what the Nats should have done with Strasburg this year - run him in the bullpen the first couple of months, limiting his innings and seeing what kind of ballclub they had, so he could have been a starter the remainder of the season and still held within 170 innings.

Rosterman hit the nail on the head - spend Baker/Pavano money on one pitcher, spend Casilla/Capps/Marquis money on another. Now, it isn't fair to think about the option year dollars that we'd have to spend if we retained them ('cuz we aren't, under this scenario) and it IS fair to consider those players who are due raises. Where does that put us? How much do we have to spend, assuming $90 million as payroll? And then (I'd argue) assume it is worth it to spend $5-$10 million more to improve the team and send a positive PR message and try to fill the seats again (and that RP move HAS to be 2 decent starting pitchers). If we take those dollars and compare them to the bumper crop of FA SPs this year, who could we get? (and please don't tell me we'd get Baker and Pavano back, maybe sign FA Francisco Liriano and "load up" with the same old same old). Who could we really get? I've got to think about something positive, winter is coming.

Where did I read this? Probably here....We all know Miggy could be the first guy since Yaz in '67 to win the Triple Crown. But when was the last time a player hit .325, stole 50 bases, and hit 30 home runs (which Trout might well do, as right now he's at .323, 48, and 28). The answer is "never." No one has ever done it, much less play Gold Glove centerfield, and score 125 runs. So after that statement, I still pick Cabrera because he's above Trout in average, homers, and RBI and I value those statistics more than others (blame my baseball card days of the 60s and 70s).

I also don't want to wait, given this crop of free agents, to see what settles to the bottom. That has too often been our strategy, on the small-market assumption that teams will overpay early in the process and then there will be this glut of cheap and available pitchers just looking for work. I don't want to choose from that well, as we have done over and over again. How about we pick out a couple of those guys (I'd love Marcum and Blanton, but there are a lot of names out there) and sign them for reasonable contracts? It sends a positive message that we're not going to sit on our heels, we're going to spend the freed-up money from expiring contracts to improve this team with solid pitchers with a track record of longevity or success or upside. It will shock me if the team actually does this, but they should, then have a starting rotation of Marcum, Blanton, Diamond, Deduno, Hendriks, with Gibson, DeVries, Walter waiting in the wings or for emergency starts. After all, we started the year thinking it was Baker, Blackburn, Liriano, Pavano and Marquis and that went haywire.

As I read through the comments, I'm just waiting for the "cut him loose" answer. I certainly understand that mentality, but one thing I know for sure is that I don't know for sure. The guys who have performed beyond expectations for this club over the past few seasons (and are now its most contract-friendly stars, for the most part) are a who's-who of folks that we've wanted to toss off this roster as useless underperformers who will never be big-league ready - Denard Span, Glen Perkins, Trevor Plouffe, Scott Diamond, Ben Revere. I'm just hoping Blackburn joins that list (and someday soon, brother!).

I like JM, too, but we're debating whether he would be worth his 2013 salary to some team "if he continues to produce." Suggesting that he would bring a strong pitching prospect in addition to someone willing to pay his $13M 2013 salary is setting the bar too high. It's the reason we're all disappointed in the actual trades that occur - because not too many GMs are willing to give up a good prospect AND overpay (versus his FA value).

This speaks to a larger issue, one that has been tangentially debated here and elsewhere....how do you decide what pieces to keep and what pieces to trade? Liriano might be our best chance for an ace, and cheaper than any other ace out there, but he's also our best trade bait. Willingham is signed to a friendly deal, but it's friendly to US as well as others, and having a masher for $7M/yr is good for any team, rebuilding or otherwise. The same arguments can be made for Span - he's on a team-friendly deal, so while he is good trade bait, he's also cheap and valuable to US. The long-term strategy is to keep all the valuable and inexpensive pieces, sign good contracts with young players to keep them valuable and inexpensive, and let the dead weight go and fill their shoes with new (not dead) weight. So if we could get anything for Pavano or Capps or Burton, you let them go because 2012 is done. Either you sign Liriano to a 2- or 3-year deal before the deadline, or you get what you can for him, because we aren't going to compete against everyone else in the free agent market at the end of the season, and (see above) 2012 is done. I'd also say that Morneau is in the same boat, but unless you can get something for him and not have to pay someone else to take him, then you keep him and let him go after next season (or trade him mid-season in 2013 if we're still this bad). So we end up keeping Mauer, Morneau, Plouffe, Carroll, Dozier, Willingham, Span, Doumit and Revere, try to lock up Frankie or trade him by the weekend, and hope for development of our young pitchers, or go spend a little on one or two free agents because Frankie, Capps, and Carl are gone, and our rotation is probably Blackburn, Diamond, Deduno, Walters and DeVries (which would give us money to spend on at least one higher-end FA pitcher). And I like that team's mix of speed, average, and power, especially if Morneau keeps improving, a decent bullpen. We'd need one or two starters, but if we can sign Frankie for 3/$27, I'd do it, and if we can sign Baker for $5, I'd do that, too.

As we armchair GM this thing, you gotta start with "here's where we are now" not "here's what we should have done in the offseason to avoid being here." The decisions, when they were made, weren't all bad - if Willingham would have played RF and let Revere play LF, if Parmelee would have hit, if Clete Thomas or Komatsu or Mastroianni or Plouffe or Doumit would have found a home, this wouldn't be a topic of conversation. None of that happened, and here's where we are now. My first choice would be to move Span to RF and put Revere in CF everyday right now. I appreciate the comments about putting Span in the best position to showcase his skills, but there isn't a GM in baseball who doesn't know that Span can play center. They might even think that the Twins are under-utilizing his skillset in right, and that makes him more valuable to another team who thinks that he'll do even better if placed back in his "natural" position. Plan B - Willingham goes to RF, Revere to LF. I know Ben's not getting on base all that much, but he adds a spark to this team that no one else on the roster touches, and anyone who undervalues outfield defense is missing both the momentum swings that happen with great defensive plays, and, in most cases, were also bemoaning watching Delmon play there the past few years (and, frankly, forgive me for saying, but Willingham hasn't looked much better than Delmon ever did). Point being, we gotta do something different. We can maximize defense and keep the same guys in the lineup and start letting them settle in - I like the lineup of Span RF, Dozier SS, Mauer C, Willingham LF, Morneau 1B, Doumit DH, Plouffe 3B, Carroll/Casilla 2b and Revere CF, with all the options available if we only have 1 backup outfielder (Komatsu?), plus Butera, Carroll/Casilla, and 1 more bench player (hoping its Valencia once he turns things around in AAA platooning with Plouffe).

This isn't about "hey, notice my grief." Or the Facebook era. I think the legitimate criticism is the slippery slope - players aren't allowed to alter the uniform to place personal messages on it, and I'm pretty sure MLB will impose a rule that the players aren't allowed to mark or alter their bats or gloves or the field itself (if they don't have that rule already). Until it is banned, I have no problem with it, but I do think that it might/will lead to copycats who want to exhort their political position ("Vote Obama") or a website or any number of other messages, and at some point, relatively quickly, someone will place the wrong message on the mound and it'll all be over.

The best plan for Revere is the one that didn't happen - Willingham's relocation to RF. When he got moved to LF (and not to say the other factors didn't play into it), Revere was done. When Doumit played RF, Gardy wasn't going to take Span or Willingham's bat out of the lineup in the late innings in anything other than blowout games, or risk not having a backup catcher. When Parmelee or Plouffe plays RF, then maybe Ben gets a chance to come in late in games for defense. The path for BR is based on the Twins valuing defense more than offense (which they don't right now), and either moving Willingham to RF (and my thinking being that if LF is where he's "comfortable" then let's make him uncomfortable, because his effort, throws, and paths to the ball in left is subpar) or full-time DH. I certainly think that a lineup of Span CF, Carroll SS, Mauer C, Willingham RF/DH, Morneau 1B, Valencia 3B, Parmelee/Doumit RF/DH, Dozier 2B, Revere LF is reasonable, and that leaves a bench of some combination of Clete Thomas, Doumit or Parmelee, and Casilla, and then Plouffe, or Burroughs or Hughes.

Well, twinscowboysbulls, you have 26 guys, but everyone is hitting on the issues of 3rd/4th bench players (depending on Hughes' availability, I think he's a lock if healthy) and the last three bullpen slots (with Capps, Perkins, Swarzak and Duensing). 1. Carry that 3rd catcher (Butera)? Nishi? I think it's Plouffe and Hughes, Nishi and Burroughs, no 3rd catcher right away. If Doumit handles the backup catcher role 40x/year (can "framing a pitch" be taught at this point?) with Joe healthy, we don't need Butera, and he can't pinch hit, so he's useless. So in situations last year where we would have used Butera (Mauer day off, Mauer on 1st, Mauer DH), we can put Joe on 1st and have Justin DH, or give Joe a day off, Plouffe can DH, Joe is the available pinch-hitter late. The situation that we then avoid is having Joe be a DH on his days off - he either needs to play 1B or take the day off, so that blue moon scenario of losing the DH if Doumit gets hurt while Joe is DH doesn't happen. If Justin can't play 1B every day, I still think between Burroughs, Hughes and Doumit we can cover 1B and Justin can DH a lot. If he can't even DH, then we need Parmelee, but he just takes Justin's roster spot. Plouffe is backup in right/left, with Revere the backup in Center with Plouffe moving to left - I don't see Gardy moving Willingham around. Then with Hughes, Nishi and Burroughs, you ensure that Plouffe never plays infield again, gives you a little replacement speed with Nishi, gap power with Hughes and Burroughs, and at least a chance for a late-inning pinch-hit homer from Plouffe. 2. Last 3 bullpen spots - I think Manship is more long relief and I don't see us carrying two of those guys. So it's Burnett, Doyle and Oliveros with plenty of guys knocking on the door. I do think Gutierrez will see time relatively early in the season as we'll need someone to handle late-inning RH situations, and I don't trust Burnett, Doyle or Oliveros to do that, though Perk's splits against RHers is pretty good, and Duensing could be a LOOGY in late innings plus start a LH-heavy inning even if that's the 7th or 8th.

In a public policy class in college, Professor Vaupel's insight was that if everyone was picking a certain outcome, a bettor's best chance of winning would be to choose a less likely outcome.....so if this was an NCAA pool, I might pick Baylor so I'm only competing against the 1% who choose them rather than the 50% who choose Kentucky, figuring Baylor has a far greater than 1% chance of winning it all, and Kentucky has less than a 50% chance of winning it all. Utilizing that model, I'd say the Tigers have a 55% chance to win the division this year, the Twins have about a 10% chance (bouncing back, good health, and a team that knows how to keep winning and play one game at a time, but a thin veneer without much depth), the Indians about 15%(a season of competing under their belt, and a reasonable mix of young talent and veterans), the Royals about 10% (lots of young talent, new pieces, questionable starting pitching depth and no tradition of winning under pressure) and the WSox about 10% (even after trading away assets, they have a solid core of sluggers and a couple of players who could recover from last year and make this team productive; I think those who cast them off because they are rebuilding are overlooking a roster that still looks pretty good 1-9) So if I were gambling trying to win something, I'd take a flier on the White Sox this year, especially if I was gambling in a pool of Twins fans, since I think no one will pick them. But like a lot of folks who've already weighed in, I think the Tigers are the favorites to win the division.