jimmer

Sorry for the length, but bare with me The reason I like metrics/advanced stats is because it helps me rate players against players at the same position. Whether one wants to wrestle with the pin-point accuracy of it (like did he really save 20 runs could it have been more like 15), I feel they have a good grasp of being able to do that, because even if there’s subjectivity in it (and how much subjectivity is debatable), it’s at least applied evenly across the board. Let’s look at defense as an example. I like to use four categories when talking about how a player plays defense. He’s great, he’s good, he’s bad and he’s horrible. Now, I feel I have a good enough eye to at least go that far. I played at a pretty competitive level, and I’ve always watched a good chunk of baseball, so I feel pretty comfortable in that. What I don’t do is watch all of the games of all the teams with the sole purposes of evaluating players defense like the people who do the metrics. No one fan can do that because none of us watch enough games of other teams and when we do watch other teams, it’s certainly not with the sole purpose of evaluating the defensive ability of every player on the field and comparing against their positional peers. So, I may be comfortable in my belief that Plouffe was a good defender last year (and, not shockingly, metrics backs that up), I don’t watch enough of every team play while focusing just on 3B play to see where he rated 1-30. Even if I magically could watch that many games, I certainly can’t be sure my bias wouldn’t show itself, as much as I’d like to think it wouldn’t. So that is why, for the purpose of ranking player’s abilities against their peers, I have no problems with looking to organizations that do it for a living. These people have been doing these things for years and years. For me, metrics get better and better but aren’t perfect. The SABR guys will even tell you that, including guys like Dave Cameron. I don’t know anyone who takes it for gospel to include the people who do them for a living. They continuously look for ways to improve. Heck, Fangraphs is adjusting its pitcher WAR next year to include inducing pop ups. Nobody is making them do that, they saw an issue and they openly admitted it and are fixing it. What I think is important to note that, while not perfect, it’s certainly better than any one person’s evaluation. Many detractors don’t seem to want to admit that. They talk about the issues with metric, but blow off the inherent problems with fan bias. I wouldn’t feel more comfortable saying something like ‘I bet player X great defense only saved 5 runs as opposed to 20 last year, or I bet he saved more than 20.’ I don’t look at every play of every team’s games and see how that non-strike call (or a strike 3 called when it should have been ball 4) ended up affecting a rally like the guys who do this do. I don’t see every play of every game to see how Juan Ligare’s unbelievable catch turned what would have been a bases clearing double into out #3. I think defense affects games way more than some believe and the really great defenders save a lot of runs, likely even more than metrics currently says (as speculated also by the people who do them). I do find it interesting how some fans and GMs use metrics in an argument that agree with their opinion but so easily toss it aside as hogwash when it doesn’t. If one always does that, there is literally no reason to ever reference them. Even better, is when people think they know how to use them when they don’t and then, because of that, find fault in them. And the best, is how they think certain traditional stats tell a much better picture, not admitting how badly these stats we grew up on really are at giving us a true evaluation of even the thing they are supposedly telling us about a player. These stats get a pass because they aren't new, they aren't a 'metric'.

how did you know? :-)

I own some beachfront property in Kansas :-)

First, I like how 1B is covered, Like I said a few times, this will work itself out. Some will hit, some won't. Things have a way of working themselves out. I'm a Hicks believer too and the talent may be there, but it may never evolve. not going to count him as a solid OF. Gomez, I believe, had to leave to shine and letting Hardy loose was just plain dumb. That's on Gardy who pushed Smith to do it and Smith for letting Gardy push him.

waiting on hopes and dreams. Arcia is a DH type who has to play OF because we have Vargas, another DH type. Hunter should likely just be DHing or coaching (somewhere else). Hicks? Who knows. Certainly not a known quantity. Who knows how long Rosario will go. Will he get hit again for a positive drug hit. Buxton is coming. That's one.

Nolasco chose to go to Minnesota. Makes no sense to slam the place. Didn't have to pick here. He likely could have taken a good chunk less to play somewhere else.

My mind goes straight to Punto, but I agree with Chief when he says the player referenced is likely Plouffe.

'I'm always a little confused by conversations about a "#1" pitcher. How are we defining a #1? It seems like a lot of the reports that place Berrios' ceiling as a #2-#3 act like a #1 pitcher is a true ace, one of the top 10 pitchers in MLB or something. That doesn't seem right to me.' In my opinion, while some may think there are 30 #1 pitchers (one for each team) I don't think many people look at it that way. Some teams have, in quality, more than one #1 pitcher. Some teams don't have any. I'd probably say there's maybe 15-20 in MLB that can truly be called an Ace.

We are lacking quality defensive OFs and overall proven MLB starting OFs that aren't close to getting their AARP card. IMO, we are just waiting on hopes and dreams. As far as I'm concerned, right now our OF isn't crowded in the least...at least not with starting MLB quality OFs.

He only had one way to go for his K% and baseball made an effort to expand strike zone. Strikeouts are up across MLB so it seems odd we would expect that not to affect our players, especially ones with a keen eye for what has been a strike. it's no wonder MLB is looking into the strike zone again. And, for his career, Mauer has been a very good run creator (wRC+ of 131). He was as recently as 2013 (wRC+ of 143). If he continues to hit like he did in 2014, I'll be concerned, but we saw him going back to normal in the 2nd half (wRC+ of 125). I like his chances of being more like the Joe we've seen most of his career (minus 2009).

Mauer struck out less than 20% of the time (not even in the top 60 in K%), he's coming off a concussion, and they expanded the strike zone which is going to affect a guy with such an exact feel for what is, and isn't, a strike. As they adjust the strike zone and the concussion symptoms get smaller and smaller, I imagine his Ks will go back down. Even if they don't, he didn't strike out a ton anyway. On top of that, he's had one really bad year after tons of good ones.

Let's not forget he's loved by the media and the media votes. If Mussina had played up to the media, he'd be in the HOF.

It would concern me because if he's striking out that much in AA, I just imagine how much he'd K in the majors (not that Ks, by themselves, is a huge deal to me). I would also figure the other numbers would go down as well due to better competition. And, of course, the defense being poor.

He hasn't even turned 22 yet. I'd be happy if he spent the whole minor league season in the minors shaking off the rust.

I guess I can fall back on what I said earlier: 'I don't know what the answer is, but I imagine some players will hit better than we expect and some will hit worse and this gets worked out naturally. If the Twins trade Plouffe and put Sano at 3B and his defense is horrible, that's yet another spot where we decided defense holds no value.' Obviously if Sano's defense is average and he's hitting a ton like so many expect him to right out the gate, then we have some fantastic decisions to make.

and no one is saying that.

I think we should find out if Arcia, Vargas or Sano are actually able to perform at this level before we toss aside a 2.5-3.5 WAR player. And we have time to decide about Plouffe anyway.

I think all of Sano's value will come from his bat. I think it won't matter where he plays his defense will likely not be a strong suit. I also don't think we see Sano at 3B for 15-20 years either. I don't know what the answer is, but I imagine some players will hit better than we expect and some will hit worse and this gets worked out naturally. If the Twins trade Plouffe and put Sano at 3B and his defense is horrible, that's yet another spot where we decided defense holds no value.

If a 3B is between the 7th and 10th best 3B he's better than middle of the road. Plouffe was 10th in wRC+ last year, he was 4th in UZR, he was 10th in DRS. Fangraphs had him #4 defensively. So top 10 offensive 3B and top 4 defender who has hit his prime and settled into his new position. 9th in WAR at 3.5 WAR. As someone who has never been a big fan of Plouffe, he's a valuable player. A player many Twins fan under-estimate because it took him so long to reach his potential. Part of the reason it took so long, IMO, was the Twins inability to see he wasn't a shortstop much earlier in his career. IMO, if we had just gotten him last year and he had the year he had Twins fans would be drooling all over him.

Would you expect them to say other-wise? In any event, there's still game calling and being a settling presence that is something different than framing and I imagine pitchers like that for sure.

The funny thing is, people seem to be totally open to the idea that when a catcher received a low strike and they moved the glove down when catching it, that this was a bad practice and could cost their pitcher a strike. We've been told that all our lives and we accept it, because it's OUR eyes that tell us who is good and who is bad at it. Then it gets a name, framing, when people decided it's a good idea to identify who does this well and who doesn't because they have the technology to do so. They call it a metric and automatically it's a bad thing that should be severely scrutinized. Baseball Prospectus has done loads of research on this that is worth reading and I believe their conclusions as to who is good at it and who is bad at it, makes sense. They can see who gets more strikes on borderline pitches. As to the degree of runs saved in that regard, tinkering is still going on, but the basic question of who is good at framing and who is bad at it seems to be answered. IMO. Here's a tidbit from an article in march 2014, Fangraphs: 'Over the last three years, Lucroy has gotten 242 more extra strikes than McCann, 345 more extra strikes than Molina, and 442 more extra strikes than Posey. Over the last two years, he’s gotten 137 more extra strikes than Molina, 160 more extra strikes than Posey, and 170 more extra strikes than McCann. Compared to Posey, just on receiving, Lucroy has been worth something like 60-70 more runs over three years, and 20-30 more runs over two years.' Now, maybe wonder if the amount of runs saved is actually that much (or that little) but who is better at it and who isn't there isn't much doubt. IMO.

Yes, there is, which is why even though Fangraphs agrees Perez is a below average framer, they still rated him as the top defensive catcher last year.

I just spit soda out my mouth and it's fizzing in my nose as well. HILARIOUS!

yeah, but then there's the defense part of the equation :-)

You're right, I should have put IMO at the beginning of that, however, I'm not sure every time someone writes something they should need to say that and I'm hardly the only person who puts their opinion out there like that. I thought I had clarified that it was my opinion later in the last part of my response post the Kwak, but I'll try and put IMO out there a bit more.