jorgenswest

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.

Until 1986 it had been June 15. Here is a little history from SABR if you are interested. I also would recommend some of the links within the article. https://sabr.org/latest/many-twists-and-turns-history-mlb-trading-deadline

I am hopeful. These observations come from watching TV and therefore probably aren’t worthy of writing down. I love his energy and he seems athletic. The tag out play was awesome. He seems to have a good arm and can block pitches. His glove could be more quiet receiving the ball on the edges. He can try to jerk the ball into the zone. There seems to be a communication problem at times. Some at bats are lengthy and he gets shaken off. Is that because he isn’t executing the game plan? Take a look at the last at bat. Hildenberger got ahead and then they couldn’t connect on how to proceed. At 2-2 Perez asked for time twice as Hildenberger and Astudillo couldn’t get on the same page. Pitchers have to have confidence in his pitch calling. He has to know the plan though I am not sure the Twins have any clue on how to pitch to Perez. From my view on the couch it seems like he has enough skill to be at least a mediocre defensive catcher.

The samples are 360 (with Wilson) and 358 (without Wilson). They are not random though as Wilson eventually became Berrios' primary catcher and caught the middle months of the season. Strikeout rates stabilize earlier than any other plate appearance outcome. If random it might start to become reliable at 150 PAs. It isn't random though. My point was that it might be his ability as a receiver. In my opinion he is the most skilled receiver that Twins have put behind the plate in several years. Some in baseball may not value that skill. I think the Cubs are an organization that does value that skill. Why else would they be interested in him? His very poor bat is well established. To be clear, my original reply was in response to reading comments similar to ... "How was Wilson able to block Astudillo from playing time?" Maybe I should have just said that it might be his receiving skills rather than highlighting some data. I don't plan on replying and getting into another belabored exchange. I will read your response.

In defense of the Twins decision to use Wilson and perhaps a reason the Cubs looked to add him in August. Berrios has thrown to Wilson for about half of his batter faced this season. With Wilson, Berrios has struck out 28.1% of batters. Without Wilson his rate is 20.9%.

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.

I have been thinking about this for a few days wondering how big is the penalty. It might not be that big. http://twinsdaily.com/blog/36/entry-11217-third-time-through-the-order-established-knowledge-or-statistical-illusion/

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.

If those eyes aren’t skilled then it is hopeless.

I don’t think slash stats in a sample short of a full season would support any conclusion. Pitch level data and strike out/walk rates might be useful in comparison at this point for Cave. His strike out and walk rates aren’t very encouraging. The skilled eyes of those watching him daily is much more valuable than the data in ~200 plate appearances. I wonder what they see.

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.

Many felt the same way about Hicks.

I doubt Molitor is a fan of the Buxton decision. He may not like the opener role. Could this lineup be a statement to the front office? He gave the least possible chance to win on a day where the Buxton decision and the opener are in the spot light. If it is a message, it may be one that gets him fired.

Everyone in the starting line up has been in the lineup as the 8th or 9th place hitter this season. That has to be historically bad. Gimenez and Forsythe have no starts as the 9th place hitter but several as the 8th spot in the National League. Kepler and Polanco are the only two players without a start as the last position player in the lineup. They both have starts as the 8th place hitter in the line up.

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.

The opportunity for Gonsalves is more about his learning and getting his feet wet than the Twins learning about him. I am certain their view of his future is no different today than it was a couple of weeks ago. Ours shouldn’t be either.

How is this any different than trading an expiring contract in a losing season. Would I trade a month of Buxton this year for a full season in his prime? Yes. Would I trade a month of Buxton this year to have him the full season next year? Yes. The only stable numbers in AAA are a strikeout rate of 28% and a walk rate of 6.5%. That is not worthy of a call up. If he loses a year of service it is because he had so little command of the strike zone in the majors and minors. Those same rates we’re no different and maybe better in 2015-16 AAA than this year. I must add that it would be folly to look at slash stats or any numbers on the last month. However the skilled eyes of those watching him everyday will know of a skill change long before they stabilize in the data. If those watching him are extremely confident that he has turned the corner in his strike zone recognition bringing him up could have benefit entering the off season.

I think Wilson has been both helpful to the development of Garver as well as the two pitchers for whom he was the primary catcher in Gibson and Berrios. I hope he is healthy and able to contribute to the Cuns success.

It is most likely the random variation of slash stats that need large samples to stabilize.

I don’t believe Grossman should be back but I don’t think Wade is ready to fill his role. It is a big step to the major leagues and Wade has stumbled in his step to AAA. His AAA numbers mirror Grossman’s major league numbers at the plate. I do think Wade offers more range in LF but I don’t think his arm or range make the other OF spots very viable at the major league level. Wade will have a few months next year to figure it out in AAA next year before getting passed by others in the organization.