jimmer

I said he TURNS 40 this season. I didn't say he is 40. Torii Hunter's birthday is July 18, 1975 according to the link you provided. On that page it SAYS he's 39 right now (so he can't be turning 39 this year like you stated earlier). This is 2015 and it hasn't gotten to July 18th yet.

No, he'll be 40. Yes, I think average offensive production compared to positional peers (as pointed out by spycake) plus horrendous defense (which is what Hunter brings now) is not a good player. Especially when players normally continue to slide at his age. He was below league average in overall value last year. The difference between Hunter and most of those other guys is that those other guys are WAY younger and have room to grow. Most are just getting their feet wet. Arcia, Santana, Pinto are new to the majors. Even Dozier is fairly new to the majors, Mauer is low 30s and was recovering from concussion. Hunter turns 40 this summer. It's not anywhere near this equals that scenario. Players don't get better at the point of the career he has reached.

That's what I said and that was the point. Eye test nailed those guys. The metrics also did. Yet somehow in Hunter's case, using the same type of inputs, the metrics that validated the eye test with those three guys are somehow way off? Hard to believe.

I believe that when a player is just average offensively at his position and is a horrible defender at his position, that means that overall he is not a good player anymore. Especially when I consider that players turning 40 don't normally improve anymore. And bringing up Mauer is funny. Mauer had a horrible year for him but he was coming off concussion and isn't close to turning 40. It's reasonable to believe a bounce back is happening. Not so much for a soon to be 40 year old especially defensively.

You know, as twins fans we seem to be close to unanimous in our belief that Arcia, Willingham and Delmon were really bad defenders. the metrics agree. The same metrics that Based on the same way of interpreting info also say Hunter is a really bad defender now. So the metrics nailed it on Arcia, Willingham and Delmon and are completely off the mark on the soon to be 40 year outfielder?

Hard for SOME to put faith in, because some think the eye test must be right until defensive metrics are proven 100% perfect. As if the eye test is even close to perfect. One only needs to believe (have faith) that it's better than any one person's eye test. One needs to believe that even if it's not perfect, it should be given real consideration, due to no better alternatives out there being better, especially if you look the defensive metrics mostly just for the rankings of how a player did compared to his positional peers THAT year. Even if you know that how a guy did one year isn't his actual defensive talent. The metrics in a good majority of cases, including Hunter, agree with my eyes. And defensive metrics, which I have repeatedly said aren't perfect, are still made by groups of people who watch every player play every game for the sole purposes of comparing players against their positional peers to do their comparative ratings. Do you know any one fan who does that? I don;t think I have a big enough ego to discount every metric because I think my eyes must be better. Not only is the eye test less accurate due to just not being able to watch a larger enough sample sizes of games, it's inaccurate because ten of us could be put in a room and not agree, by EYE test, where most players rate compared to others. Guys like Simmons would be easy, but there aren't many like that. What if my eyes say Hunter is a bad defender and your eyes says Hunter is a good defender. Whose 'eye test' is right? Now what if the metrics also agree with my eyes? Does that mean it's only the metric I put faith in? Should I trust YOUR eyes over mine AND the metrics just because you want to slam a metric for not being perfect? I don't need the metrics to tell me Hunter is a bad defender. He's a bad defender, IMO, at this point in his career. Throw the strawman argument, that says I believe Hunter or anyone is a bad defender just because of metrics, out the window. It's something Ive never said. And, BTW, his offensive numbers we average for a RF and not actually very good at all.

Did you see the Pelfrey resigning coming? :-) If Hunter hits decently, he'll be back with us in 2016.

IMO, the big picture I see is ticket sales. A PR move. As far as having 'far more evidence and reason' to believe Torii can be a net positive influence here than not, I don't see ANY evidence that he can be a net positive, much less FAR MORE. I believe people buy into the idea he is a good leader/clubhouse guy (and dismiss a lot of things pointed out that we KNOW he's done and KNOW he's said that questions that belief). I believe evidence and reason in this case should likely be replaced by faith, and if people want to believe or have faith that he's good in that aspect and it for sure translates to positive for the team on the field, that's fine.

if you want the guy with the best OBP on the team not being in the top 3 of the lineup, then yeah. For me, when you add the overall OBP to that high wRC+ and #s with RISP, it still looks more like #2 or #3. To me, anyway. I like him #2 now, but I can see valid reasons why #3 still make sense as well. He fits both spots very well, IMO.

and the other 8 % he strikes out :-)

yeah, I put the smiley face at the end of all that because, well, it was a joke. I am neither a Ryan basher or Ryan defender. I go case by case. He's obviously done some very good things as GM, his first go-around under very tight purse strings. Obviously he's gonna have his good signings and his bad, some that the metrics say are good and some that say are bad. The thing about the Hunter signing though, is that the metrics say he was horrible and I know my eyes, at least, agreed. I don't know how it's possible he passed anyone's eye test unless someone is JUST looking at knowing the fundamentals (like where to throw, etc) and ignoring the rest (like range).

I'm waiting for him to sign someone metrics say WAS a good signing. Wouldn't that have to happen first to see if he's cites metrics as one of the reasons? :-)

How about his career wRC+ over 130 and career line with RISP of .330/.456/.479. I'm not advocating he stay #3, but those specific numbers might suggest it's not ridiculous to put him there.

yup

So, the head of umpires works for MLB, and they give the umpires the pitch f/x info that, by studying it, has caused the umpires to increase in strike zone that they call. The umpires do that cause they are graded on strike zone accuracy which can be determined by pitchf/x given to them by MLB. And knowing that, we can't conclude that MLB has directed the expanded strike zone (even if that means, hey guys, call the strike zone by the rule which you haven't been doing)? And now we have MLB saying that Ks are out of control and they are looking at shrinking the zone that has gotten bigger over the last five years, a zone that has coincided with the pitchf/x era.

and by success rate in this instance they mean the bunt was put in play fair not that was a hit or that it did it's intended purpose.

That's just bunts put in play not all bunt attempts.

and a followup article about bunting against the shift //www.fangraphs.com/blogs/more-about-bunting-and-beating-the-shift/

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-truth-about-bunting/ 'The frequent bunters bunted the ball fair 49.5% of the time. The infrequent bunters bunted the ball fair 46.1% of the time. I should note before I forget that I excluded pitchers from this. There’s a clear advantage to bunting more often, in terms of bunt success, but it’s also pretty small, and even the upper-tier bunters, as a group, bunt poorly a lot.' 'So why don’t we see more bunting against the shift? Certainly, there has to be some element of stubbornness. But it’s also just a hard thing to do, even with a lot of practice, which most shifted hitters don’t have. A foul bunt or a missed bunt is just a strike, a strike that also makes the defense aware of the bunt possibility. The pitcher, as well, becomes aware of the possibility, and might throw less buntable pitches. The math might still work out in the pro-bunt favor — I’m not close to smart enough to work all that out. But I’ve never seen bunt success rates before, and I wasn’t expecting 50%. That’s a pretty low success rate, for bunts that aren’t even necessarily successful.' 'For years, it’s seemed so obvious to me. When Kyle Seager successfully bunted for a single against the shift last summer, it felt to me like a top-ten Mariners moment. If the defense wants to give the hitter an easy hit, the hitter should take the easy hit, without question. I could never understand how hitters could be so stubborn in the face of a potentially high batting average. Turns out there’s no such thing as an easy hit after all. Oh, bunt singles against the shift look easy when they’re successful, but so do Chris Davis home runs. Most of the time, Chris Davis doesn’t homer.'

Oops, I started a thread that's title starts with the dreaded F word :-)

I believe Hunter has already proven that (by metrics and eye test of some) and they decided to discard what the metrics said. If the SABR numbers the last two years, and especially last year, didn't convince them the soon to be 40 year old was no longer a positive force on defense, not sure they'll figure that out this year by SABR ways. It will come down to their eyes if they make that call just like the eyes that decided he's a still good RF and that the OF defense wasn't bad last year and wasn't any significant factor in the pitching results.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins/293963751.html 'As Buxton pulled a shirt over his v-shaped torso, Hunter wagged a finger. “You got all you need physically,” Hunter says. “I’m going to give you everything else. I’m going to be in your ear and in your head. You can’t listen to everybody. That’s a mistake I made. But you better listen to me. We’re going to write out a contract, and you’re going to sign it, and we’re going to go to work.”' So, HUNTER is going to give Buxton everything else he needs. At least we know who to thank when/if Buxton works out. And besides Hunter demanding the young man listen to him and sign a contract saying he will (oh brother) does Hunter tell him who he should and shouldn't listen to? Do we get to know who Hunter thinks it's okay to listen to and who isn't? Is this the leadership everyone is pointing to and saying is good?

True and he might get thrown out on the attempt. :-)

And, you know, K rate is up across the league (not just our team's fans' favorite punching bag). Due to the continued K rise across the league, MLB is looking to change it. Over the past five seasons, the strike zone has expanded about 40 square inches, from 435 square inches in 2009 to 475 square inches in 2014 The largest part of that expansion is in the lower area of the strike zone, with umpires more frequently signaling strikes for pitches below the kneecap. Low pitches are generally considered more difficult to handle for batters, most of whom have a tougher time driving the ball when reaching down for it. Not surprisingly, the walk rate across the majors is down while the strikeout rate is up. http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/12320861/major-league-baseball-shrink-strike-zone-2016-report-says

Hunter's team in the public eye for sure, which is too bad because I thought Dozier picked up Cuddyer's mantle pretty well.