jorgenswest

I am not counting on Reed rebounding. They need to bring in three relievers to match with May and Rogers. If Reed gives them a sixth guy they can count on no one will be overused.

My preference in the middle infield is one year guys. I expect Gordon to rebound and reach the majors this year. I expect Lewis in May 2020. I don’t want to be committed to any of the free agent middle infielders beyond this year.

I don’t think he was ever a poor defensive catcher. He showed a good bat with the Angels but he also had solid veteran catchers blocking him in Brian Downing, Ed Ott, Bob Boone and Tony Pena. The Angels also called him up at 19 so they had to make a decision on him and moved him off catcher. He was still blocked when traded to the Pirates by Pena and Junior Ortiz. That his defense at a young age didn’t compare to those veterans shouldn’t have given him the label of poor defensive catcher. He also was brought up to the majors so early he never really had time to develop before teams needed to make 25 and 40 man roster decisions on him. After that he was no longer seen as a catcher until the Twins signed him and gave him the opportunity If Astudillo’s defense is similar to Harper’s defense he should be the front runner for starting catcher next year. Harper was able to answer the question about his defense. I hope Astudillo can also.

There isn’t anywhere near a plethora of good defensive catchers. If there were, guys like Wilson and Butera would have very short major league careers around their peak and then be replaced by the next very good defensive catcher around age 27. The reason those guys can stick around until age 35 is because it is really hard to find a good defensive catcher and nowhere near a plethora.

Carson Cistulli compared Thorpe to Jalen Beeks. Both left handed with similar polish and command. Both with questionable fastball. The good news to me is Beeks returned Eovaldi in trade so there is solid value there. For the most part, the Rays used Beeks as the guy who pitches after the opener. The Twins need left handed pitching whether he lands at the back of the rotation or the bullpen. They need guys that they can flip for pitching help when they are contending for the playoffs next July. It is encouraging to know that the Twins have prospects of this value outside their top 10.

Falvey is holding the leash. Falvey’s own leash can’t be longer than 2 more years.

I think one of Cave or Kepler will step up as a solid RF. It is good to have both, Kepler has the plate discipline and needs to make better contact more often. He will improve as he enters his prime. Will it improve enough? Cave barreled the ball often and needs to manage the strike zone or pitchers will not throw him pitches he can barrel. His strike zone management will improve as he hits his prime. Will it improve enough? I would lean towards Kepler with the better strikezone management to be more likely to take the step forward next year. I think Cave is going to have some struggles as pitchers adjust and he improves in his plate discipline but has the higher long term ceiling. There is a spot for both on the roster and there will be plenty of playing time for both. They need to perform.

On trusting defensive metrics... Is it just the available measures you do not trust? Do you believe that individual defense has a significant impact on preventing runs?

Slash stats vary widely in partial season samples. I don’t think they have any meaning for the future and do not represent a trend.

One way to try to measure the value of a manager has been to look at runs scored and try to see if they more more than an expected number of wins. Can a manager win more than their share of close games? I don’t think this measures has shown a significant impact. It is very difficult to measure how many extra runs a coaching staff added or prevented due to the preparation of the players and the relationships they build towards getting the most out of a player. How would that be measured? The Twins front office needs to find that manager who is better than almost anyone else at preparing and getting the most out a player’s ability.

My objection is using slash stats and WAR to support an argument for or against Cave’s future value. WAR does a good job of talking about the past but at his sample helps little looking forward. The Twins need to look forward and there are good reasons (strike outs and walks) to be concerned about both bats. The one valuable asset to count on is Buxton’s defense.

I do know that both his strike out rate and walk rates over his full 2017 season were better than Cave's 2018 rates. I do know that he is far superior defensively. I would guess if you could go back and pull a sample from the end of the 2017 season back to match Cave's sample size he would have more WAR but I don't think WAR should support any argument at that sample. I do know that Buxton's sample would not be selective like Cave's where his data is skewed due to sitting disproportionately against left handed pitching.

If anyone is projecting Cave based on his OPS and WAR they should add that the sample in his half season is not enough to be reliable. His strike out and walk ratios should be a concern. We have to wonder if he can hit lefties well. Scaling his numbers to a full season makes even less sense when his data is disproportionately skewed to right handed pitching. He is a reasonable fall back option for Kepler or Buxton but his OPS/WAR do not project reliably forward.

I will have to think about it. You may be right. I would hope a manager with superior relational skills would help get the best out of players and also right the ship quicker when things go bad. I wonder if a manager is a consideration at all in signing a contract either as a free agent or to remain with the team. Maybe not. Money is king here. Machines do a lot now but I do wonder if managing playing time, bullpen, batting order, match ups and the like still has an important human element. I guess I am relectant to agree that managers add almost nothing because then I have wasted a good amount of time being a critic of their decisions. If managers add almost nothing then that doesn’t leave much to criticize.

A lot of stuff happened that was out of Molitor’s control. I don’t question that. Manager’s matter though. Has anyone pointed out some deficit they need to fill now that Molitor is gone? What did he bring to the table that will be really hard to replace? The Twins (or any mid market team) need a great manager and front office to compete. Average won’t do it. “Not his fault” won’t do it. It is on the front office to find that great manager. If they can’t it should be their jobs on the line next.

If players are generally hitting free agency around 28... What factor should competitive balance play in any restructuring? Should there be a concern that the large market teams will have the majority of the best players in their peak seasons? Two kinds of players might populate the mid market teams. They might have good prospects in their initial struggling years with a good season or two prior free agency. The others might be players in their decline in their 30s. These might be guys originally signed by a large market team but traded off for the last one or two years of their contract or players they signed as free agents at 28 who were near average in their primes but mediocre in their early 30s (and the last few years of their contracts). I don’t think they can fix the service years without also addressing the current lack of competitive balance that could become more imbalanced.

Duffey did well in the role and allowed Stewart to begin with the 8 and 9 hitters. I think it worked the way it is supposed to last night.

It supports the opener as long as that opener is a really good pitcher or you can take advantage of match ups like opening with a left handed pitcher against left handed batters. Those top of the lineup batters are usually going to get an extra at bat against someone. If starting pitcher is clearly the better pitcher than I think you want that starting pitcher going up against the better hitter that extra time.

I am not sure that Berrios or even Gibson would call if suffering.

Everyone knows that pitchers have much more difficulty the third time through the lineup. Right? Isn't this established baseball knowledge? Data does back it up. Anecdotally we hear stats on almost every baseball broadcast about how much poorer a pitcher performs his third time through the order. League wide there is data to support this claim. According to OPS+ here is how starting pitchers have performed the first, second and third time through the order this season. PA#1: 91 OPS+ PA#2: 101 OPS+ PA#3: 117 OPS+ Wow! There is a huge difference between a 91 OPS+ batter and a 117 OPS+ batter. We can see it in the ERA also. PA#1: 4.08 PA#2: 4.20 PA#3: 4.57 Teams may be making significant decisions based on this data. I am skeptical. I think the data is very skewed by the group. A pitcher facing a team the third time through is guaranteed to face the better hitters on the team and unlikely to face the weaker hitters on a team the third time through. We can see it in the data. PAs 1st time through: 37803 PAs 3rd time through: 22470 The majority of those missing 15333 plate appearances come from players who would have been batting at or near the bottom of the order. The top 6 position is the batting order have an OPS+ of 110. The bottom 3 (excluding pitchers) have an OPS+ of 87. I don't have data including pitchers for the group but the 9th place hitters have an OPS+ of 56 with pitchers so that 87 would certainly be lower. That OPS+ range of 23 between the early part of the order and the bottom of the order nearly matches the OPS+ range of 26 between the first time through the order and the third time through the order. Maybe this shouldn't be established baseball knowledge. Maybe a pitcher's performance really hasn't dropped significantly the third time through. Maybe it is the statistical illusion created by the group. The majority of the hitters in the third time through group are simply the better hitters. I wondered if there might be a different angle to attack the question of whether a pitcher's skill level really drops the third time he sees a hitter. I used baseball reference play index and looked at the group of batters instead. Using the season 2015-2017 and selecting a minimum of 570 plate appearances in those seasons I created a group of 294 batting seasons. I wondered if those batters as a group performed significantly better the third time they saw a pitcher. Here is the median OPS+ of the group according to time through the order. PA#1: 101 OPS+ PA#2: 102 OPS+ PA#3: 105.5 OPS+ The third plate appearance was better the third time through. The range as we often hear when reported in terms of pitchers is not nearly as vast. In fact it might not be worthy of comment on a broadcast. Of the 294 seasons for a batter in 2015-2017, 113 of those seasons the batter had their best OPS in their third at bat. PA#1 - Best OPS 31% of batters PA#2 - Best OPS 31% of batters PA#3 - Best OPS 38% of batters More batters had their best OPS+ the third time they saw a pitcher. I wouldn't describe it as many more though. I am not sure that a pitcher's ability drops that significantly the third time through the order. I think much of the reported difference is simply the group of batters who they happen to see the third time through. Batters do seem to perform slightly better the third time they see a pitcher over the last three seasons. Is that difference enough to drive decisions about a pitching staff? Is the opener a solution to this problem? Does a real problem exist? Those better hitters at the top of the order are likely to get an extra at bat against someone every game. If the solution is using an opener, that opener is going to have to be a really good pitcher to get through a team's best hitters. Note: Baseball Reference Play Index was used to gather the data.

I don’t think catcher ERA is a thing but both had better strikeout and walk rates with Wilson. Wilson was the primary catcher for these two until his early August injury.

Service time is the primary factor. The Twins can extend control by offering and extension or managing service time. It was widely reported that the Twins offered Buxton a multiyear extension last winter. Buxton turned them down. That is a gamble on Buxton’s part as he is betting on himself the remain healthy and performing at an elected level. Buxton performed poorly and the Twins went with plan B.

Austin has extremely high strikeout rates with low walk rates against right handed pitching. It isn’t a big jump to think that Mauer might be a better hitter against right handed pitching next year. I hope they find a way to put Austin in the line up against every left handed pitcher. I also hope they have a 1B plan for right handed pitching. If not Mauer, then maybe Kepler with Cave taking over RF.

I would really appreciate to have the full post quoted so that the part after the sentence you chose that started being convinced was included. I apologize if that sentence out of context implied that I haven’t read have written. My fault. I am not convinced that a month this year is better than a few weeks next year.

It is a business and it should be. It is the front office’s obligation to protect the interests of the organization. I haven’t seen an argument that a month this year is better than a full season in his prime. I haven’t seen an argument that a month of this losing season is better than a few weeks next April. I am not convinced that the at bats he will get this month are critical to his success. I also am not convinced that his reaction to the decision will have an impact on his future performance. Will the White Sox call up Eloy Jimenez who has destroyed minor league pitching and has shown solid pitch recognition in his strike out rates? Probably not. It is in the best interest of the organization to keep control an additional year of his prime.