Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

jimmer

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    10,027

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

 Content Type 

Profiles

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by jimmer

  1. jimmer
    I often wonder how much patience the Mariners would have had with his wildness had he been a right-hander.
  2. jimmer
    Guy has more or less averaged 3 WAR the last two years and did so even though his playing time was basically half a season. He SHOULD be playing somewhere full time to see what he can do. And I doubt he's overrated. He seems very under-rated to me.
  3. jimmer
    I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not freaking out about the Randy Johnson comparisons. I'm more laughing about them :-) And, you know, Santana is also being favorably compared to HOF Rod Carew on another thread. It's amazing how many of our players have ceilings/are comparable to HOFers. Quite the farm system we have :-)
  4. jimmer
    Well, he did have 7 more bunt hits than Mauer last year. Or, put another way, about 6% of his hits were bunts. It's nice to think Santana has a HOF ceiling though.
  5. jimmer
    Umpires calling a larger (and more accurate by the book) strike zone over the last 5 years mixed with crack down on steroids and it was bound to happen, I believe.
  6. jimmer
    Should Meyer start preparing his HOF speech now? Where are all the comparisons to the pitchers that were wild that crashed, burned and were never heard from again? :-)
  7. jimmer
    Yeah, even if he comes back down to Earth, doesn't mean he'll be horrible. The best player in baseball only had a BABIP of .349 last year. Saying Santana may crash to a .330 BABIP isn't actually saying he'll be bad at all. Only 35 qualifying hitters did that well or better last year, two of them former speedy Twins OFs.
  8. jimmer
    Yeah, his defensive contribution of WAR would get even better because then his defense would be compared to other RFs as opposed to CFs and CFs are normally better fielders than your corner guys. Kind of like how Revere's defensive contributions are better as a RF as opposed to CF.
  9. jimmer
    In any given season only a very small handful of players end up with a BABIP of .380 or higher, if any do. No qualifying hitter in the majors did it last year. But I like your confidence, both in your prediction and him. GO SANTANA!
  10. jimmer
    Can we quote you on that 'around 380' BABIP? Plus or minus how many points? Due to his speed, I believe he'll have a better than average BABIP, but .380? Mauer has been a top notch hitting machine, and his career BABIP is under .350. Mauer has also only had ONE season in the majors where BABIP was at .380 or higher. Next closest was his MVP season where it was .373.
  11. jimmer
    Great article on Dyson: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/free-jarrod-dyson/ 'Over the past two seasons, there have only been 29 outfielders in baseball more valuable than Dyson. Of those 29, only one of them had as few plate appearances as did Dyson. Most of them have double the plate appearances, and some have 2.5 times Dyson’s 529 PAs. Dyson is particularly adept afield. Over the past two seasons, only three outfielders have been worth more defensively per our Def statistic, and only 15 position players in general. And it’s not just UZR where Dyson ranks well. He also scores well via DRS as well as our Inside Edge fielding numbers. They all paint him as one of the very best defensive center fielders in the game.'
  12. jimmer
    It's not like I'm suggesting we drop 10M to sign and start an almost 40 year old who can't play defense and had a WAR barely above replacement level last year even though he played a whole season. THAT would be crazy. Dyson's 30 not 39, he's still in great shape and runs like the wind. He's also a FA in 2018. With his body type, those skills won't start going significantly downhill anywhere near as soon as you are saying and will be fine for the time we had him. And while he isn't going to hit for power, he can get on base some, and his wRC+ in the high 80s low 90s is fine if he's providing awesome defense and doing damage when he does get on base. He had a 3.1 WAR in half a season's worth of playing time last year and a 2.6 WAR in roughly the same amount in 2013. Last year we only had three position players with a better WAR than Dyson had in both 2014 and 2013 and all of them with significantly more than Dyson. It's important to note the playing time because WAR is a cumulative stat.
  13. jimmer
    Arcia would spend time between playing in the OF and DH, Vargas would DH a good portion and spell Mauer at 1B. Rosario and Dyson, when they played, would be in the OF. Again, there would be plenty of playing time for all of them and since Arcia, Vargas and Rosario haven't proven they are MLB starter material, this kind of shared time could help us decide who amongst them has it and who doesn't. Dyson is a cheaper option to put with them who we know can play awesome defense, create havoc on the bases, and can get on base at an acceptable level for a lower lineup guy. He's a valuable player.
  14. jimmer
    Four players (Rosario, Dyson, Vargas, Arcia) three positions, LF, RF, DH (not to mention Varags' occassional 1B time). Plenty of playing time and enough playing time to see who can actually perform at the MLB level between Arcia, Rosario and Vargas past short sample size. I believe it's highly unlikely all of our prospects turn out to be MLB starter material.
  15. jimmer
    Well, if I had actually suggested trading Arcia for Dyson, I could maybe see your point. But I didn't. In any event, I like a guy who can manage to produce a WAR around 3.0 in only half a season's worth of PAs due to his defense and speed on the bases and I'll see what an increase in playing time will do. I'd give him the lion's share in a platoon and bring him into the games in the late innings for defense on the games he doesn't play..
  16. jimmer
    As long as we are dreaming, can I prefer getting Dyson (or Cain) in a trade and having it be Buxton, Rosario and Cain/Dyson? :-)
  17. jimmer
    And the gap is even closer when looking at rotations. Royals 19th, Twins 24th. It's amazing how much a great defense can help a rotation since their ERAs were so far apart.
  18. jimmer
    The Royals pitching staff had the 15th best FIP and the Indians had the 2nd best FIP. Royals, as a team were average in their team FIP. Indians were great. The Royals starting rotation has the 19th best FIP, the Indians had the 2nd best FIP. Below average rotation for the Royals, great starting pitching from the Indians. Based on that, you would think that the Indians starters would have pitched more innings that the Royals starters, especially when you consider Yost loved to use those three reliever so much, but they didn't. They were only 18th in IP, while the Royals were 8th. Since the Indians defense was so bad, their better starting rotation got knocked out the games earlier because of the defense allowing more runs than a defense like the Royals would have. Overall the Royals gave up less runs even with the much inferior rotation. P.S., Indians ended up with the 19th best rotation ERA while the Royals were 11th.
  19. jimmer
    There are long time stats found in box score for offense and pitching. Unless you count errors as an accurate stats, and I'm sure some do. So yeah, it's easy for people just to accept those numbers at face value.
  20. jimmer
    Who? Anyone who is saying that 120 is so much that it defies basic common knowledge, that's who. Because these people came up with that number. When someone puts out info and someone comes backs and says that info defies all basic common sense, that's a slam on the people who came up with it. Unless saying someone defies basic common sense isn't a slam.
  21. jimmer
    If one feels that the difference between one of the best defenses and one of the worst differences is around 50-60 points (or lower as some seem to think) and that 120 is just so darn ludicrous as to go way past 'basic common sense' then what kind of actual value is one actually putting on defense? What would be the point of putting any priority on defense if the difference in runs saved is so little over the course of a whole season? And here's the thing. Unless the math can be simply explained to anyone at all levels of comprehension, it's always going to be slammed as B.S. I would, for once, like to see someone come out and explain why the math is wrong by doing it right for all to see. It's so easy to say it's wrong (outside the margins of error) without providing any proof that it actually is. The inputs are wrong? ok, why? It doesn't take into account such and such? o.k., show me that it doesn't. . As if the people who do these things for a living don't think of these things when creating their info. It seems to be so common place to slam the people who do all these metrics for a living.
  22. jimmer
    It doesn't defy basic common sense at all. Statements like that is what separates people who value defense a lot as opposed to people who don't. That's it. Those kind of comments also show a complete inability to admit that, 'Hey, maybe I could be wrong about something' .
  23. jimmer
    Yeah, and unfortunately that ALWAYS happens. Even if we don't want to believe there was exactly a 120 run difference between the Indians and Royals defense, do we believe it was only like 25-35 runs? I personally have no issues with the 120 run difference and certainly believe that if it isn't QUITE that much, the number it actually is comes much closer to 120 than the 25-35. And yeah, the actual point of starting this thread was to point out what some of us already know, that our defense is really bad and didn't get any better which does have a HUGE effect on preventing runs. Seems some want to believe it practically has no real effect if they believe the difference between one of the best defense and one of the worst defense ONLY saved the team with the great defense about 30 runs over the team with the horrible defense. If that's true, why even care at all about defense? It explains TRs approach to building this team :-)
  24. jimmer
    yeah, I was just using actual runs scored and actual earned runs allowed since they are the widely accepted traditional stats that most have no issues with accepting as a true measure of talent, regardless of any other factors that play into those (for example how home park factors into it, differences in league and division opponents, etc :-)
  25. jimmer
    Mostly because it doesn't seem pretty big to me at all. Seems to me a superior defense over the course of a season would save a team that much over a horrible one. Less than a run a game? Doesn't seem at all out of the question. There's a 238 run difference between the best offense and the worst offense. There's a 277 run difference between the team that allowed the least amount of earned runs and the team that allowed the most amount of earned runs. But a 120 difference between one of the best defenses and one of the worst defenses should be too big, especially when the defense is essential to the pitching part? I guess I just can't wrap my head around that idea. I guess I consider defense a bigger piece of the game than many do. Again, how much do we want to minimize the importance of defense, anyway? And I don't take any of it as exact gospel, anyway. Neither do the people who generate the metrics.
×
×
  • Create New...