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
    How would that average against change if the pitcher pitched for even an average defensive team?
  2. jimmer
    exactly my question
  3. jimmer
    That's an interesting opinion since I imagine we could look on this site now, in the past and the future, and see predictions for each of the last three seasons (and the upcoming season) and see all sorts of differences. Some in high 60s, some in low 70s, some predicting us to be at .500, some predicting us to be playoff contenders.. Whose simple common sense are you referring to? The best thing about these projection systems is that they take the fans' bias eyes out of the equation and really, these are just projections. In the stat world, there is a bit of a difference between projections and predictions. For example, Dan isn't predicting Buxton actually has that many MLB plate appearances.
  4. jimmer
    Must admit, when I read the title of this thread, I was expecting something completely different. Something like, 'I predict Vargas to slug over .500 on days that start with the letter T' or something like that :-)
  5. jimmer
    I suppose if you choose to judge defense by errors and fielding %, but having 30 or more different scorekeepers views on what is and isn't an error is too subjective to me, so I find it to be a very unreliable way to judge defense (on top of the sure number of fielding chances that can effect those numbers along with difference in home field surface (turf, grass), etc. Jeter, by errors and fielding %, was a good defensive shortstop. Except that he wasn't a good defensive shortstop at all.
  6. jimmer
    From the article: 'Disclaimer: ZiPS projections are computer-based projections of performance. Performances have not been allocated to predicted playing time in the majors — many of the players listed above are unlikely to play in the majors at all in 2014.' And ZIPS isn't actually from Fangraphs. The guy who creates ZIPs does weekly chats for them and occasionally an article, but he's not staff
  7. jimmer
    Exactly. Top four defense is better than just okay. As with many of our players who really outperfomed their regular career norms (Hughes, Escobar, Plouffe, Dozier, Suzuki) will they be able to sustain that level while the new people are adjusting to the bigs? Although new, we likely should include Santana in there too.
  8. jimmer
    Fangraphs had Plouffe at 10th in DRS (a counting stat), 6th in range (RZR), and 4th in UZR. He had a very good year in the field.
  9. jimmer
    Nice research! Chipper will get in, Arod likely won't, and Mauer probably should just based on what he's done so far. In the case of Mauer, there were some years that are much better than people think, but because people focus on counting stats too much they under-rate those years. On top of that, between what the perception of what 1Bs need to do and, well, injuries, it could be an issue. Not so long ago, I thought he'd be a first ballot HOFer for sure, now he may end up a borderline guy if that. Before his switch to 1B, I'd hear people state that even with his career BA and OBP, if he didn't reach 3000 hits he wouldn't be in. My response at the times of hearing those, no catcher in MLB history has even reached 2700 and only seven have reach 2000.
  10. jimmer
    I think in reality, the measure of a great GM is his ability to get the most value from his players he can in relation to the amount he spends on them and hopefully that value is enough to make them competitive more years than not. Beane is a great GM regardless of the fact he has zero W Series titles. I think the same can be said of Friedman. I think most owners understand that when 1/3 of the teams in the majors make the post-season tournament, rarely does the best team actually win, and so, in reality, that's probably not the best measure of a GMs performance. I think way too much importance is put on the postseason tournament's ultimate results. It's been pounded into us that it's the most important thing and to the fans, it is. To the players, it probably is. For most owners, I'd say it's about the money, regardless of what they might say, cause they sure won't say it's all about the bottom line. I believe that how a team does over the course of a 162 game season is more indicative of it's talents than how it performs in a one game playoff, a best of five game playoff, or a best of seven game playoff.
  11. jimmer
    'The MLB draft is incredibly difficult to judge or even analyze for more than a decade for various reasons.Top prospects don’t always make it big and there are hidden gems found in late rounds. However, when you have the opportunity to draft second overall in the draft, it is important to get it right.' A somewhat good example of this is that for all the hoopla about having the #1 pick, when Ken Griffey Jr is voted into the HOF next year, he will be the first #1 overall pick to ever make it into the HOF.
  12. jimmer
    I'm not sure I'd agree with the statement that 'WAR isn't the greatest stat' out there when trying to figure out how much value a player provided overall. It certainly isn't perfect (which the guys who create it will be the first to say, especially when used improperly in discussions, which happens a lot) but I can't think of one better. It's why I used it and I'm guessing why you used it as well in your post earlier when trying to show how the team will likely be a .500 team. I think this team is a year or two away from what the 2011 team is and, in regards to a couple of examples you put out there for depth, Eduardo Escobar could very well have had a career year, and I'm not sure I'd count on that again. If Nolasco falter, you say we have Meyer, who may end up being a very good pitcher but doesn't mean he would be this year. My issue isn't our depth so much as our lack of many actual proven good or proven better than good players overall. BTW, in regards to pitchers WAR, Fangraphs is still using FIP as a main component (which is good), but they are adding pop ups into the WAR calculation as well. So, we'll see some differences in how some pitchers are viewed.
  13. jimmer
    You don't need a bunch of studs. A team can make the playoffs with a bunch of above average players, which he definitely was last year. In fact, one could argue he was a stud last year when looking at what he provided overall. Whether he continues that is the question. Last year, KC got to the W series with only 3 starting position players that rated as good players or better. Only one rated All Star level or better. And yes, he stopped hitting HR, but he also started getting on base at a better clip. It's a game of adjustments.
  14. jimmer
    If we believe he will continue to be the player he was last year, I agree with you. I'm not sure I believe he can, which is why I think he is over-rated by most Twins fans I've come across. But if he can maintain how he did last year, it would make us a good enough team to make the playoffs.
  15. jimmer
    One has to look at where players are projected for WAR in 2015 when trying to determine if we are gaining enough to be competitive. Even then, those are projections meaning what they should do, and doesn't account for players over and under-performing. We also can't just assume every one who had a good WAR last year will maintain that and also expect improvements to make it show we've gained enough to have a chance at .500. Can't look at last year's WARS and project them to next year. It's not really how it works and the guys at Fangraphs has stated this multiple times in chats and articles. I don't see how this team, with such a low amount of quality, experienced major leaguers, has a realistic chance for .500 this season. If I'm reading Steamer projections right, for our 40 man, we're projected to a hair under 18 WAR for position players and a bit over 9.00 WAR from our pitching (and a bit over 6.00 if looking at at RA9-WAR). We may not have a lot of projected negative guys, but we have a lot hovering at zero and between zero and 1. That puts us in the low 70s win category
  16. jimmer
    And to continue on with that, I'm not sure how good of an idea it is to just figure that a guy who had his best OPS+ at age 30 is going to continue to do that well, but some people like to believe that a player's last season, even if it's a career season, is the best predictor of his next season no matter how much history he has to the contrary. I've never found that to be very true, but I'm sure it's worked out before. It can be a comfy blanket of an idea as we find ourselves extending/signing players like that though.
  17. jimmer
    that was very funny!
  18. jimmer
    He didn't give the team a chance to win regardless of the stats or metrics. The metrics/stat tell us that he did just that.All the metrics/stats tell us is how well he was able to do that. It's not like the metrics/stats say he was horrible but he still somehow managed to keep us in the games so there's really no conflict there. If anything, I'd say some of the simpler stats, like quality starts (and quality start percentage) didn't do him justice when talking about how well he kept us in games, even though many point to that stat when determining whether or not a SP gave his team a chance to win.
  19. jimmer
    ZIPS is the most accurate projection model for baseball out there. I look forward to seeing theirs. And, I need to note, I said Steamer 'predicts' in my previous post. These models don't actually predict. They project. It's a subtle difference. I've seen projections for next year where no team is projected to win 90 or more games in the AL. I really don't think that the people who do the projections are really predicting every AL team to fall short of 90 wins. So, yeah, grains of salt for sure.
  20. jimmer
    Well, as a young padawan, you should know that having a beard was the reason Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon were so confident :-)
  21. jimmer
    Steamer predicts Hughes to 3.89 FIP and a 2.5 WAR.
  22. jimmer
    Exactly, FIP isn't predictive. We shouldn't be using that to predict next year. xFIP is better for that and it had last year at 3.18 Somewhere in between last year and what he's done before is where I was saying we should expect him to be. And that I hope people won't view that as a negative. Look at it this way, he had the 6th best FIP and that resulted in like the 42nd or so best ERA due to our defense. Imagine what happens to his ERA if he even goes to a 3.50 FIP (which is still quite good), with the defense behind him, he's looking at a mid 4.00 ERA and some people will freak.
  23. jimmer
    If that's what it takes to have Hughes have another season where his FIP is better than Kershaw's (the only current SP with 1000 IP or more and a career FIP under 3.00), King Felix's, and Pedro's career FIPs, then DO IT! :-)
  24. jimmer
    Again, I hope you are right.
  25. jimmer
    I know all about FIP, and you seem convinced past the point of any chance of convincing you other-wise, so I hope you are right.
×
×
  • Create New...