bcs4

That doesn't explain the BA or WHIP. My big concern with Odorizzi is innings. I know he was on the DL with a back strain, but I don't think it was very long. I wonder why he didn't have more innings?

If he stays healthy I think he could be, especially when you consider his age. I think he'll end up 3B.

Shouldn't the Cubs have the same concern with Darvish?

Those numbers show that they're similar, but I don't think Gibson is trending as well because he's had big problems over the last 2 years. I think I could selectively pick stats on most 3,4 or 5 starters and show that one is better than the other. For instance compare ERA, WHIP and K9. The biggest problem with Gibson is mental. I don't know if Odorizzi has mental problems, but if he does, I doubt they're as big as Gibson's. If Gibson could fix that I think he'd be a pretty good pitcher, but he hasn't shown any sign of that. Right now, I'd much rather have Odorizzi.

This is weird. On paper I'm having a hard time thinking of a better Twins trade based on current value. This looks like a big improvement when compared to last years SPs. He's a fly ball pitcher, and the Twins have a very good defense in the OF. I simply can't believe that the Rays couldn't have gotten more for him from MLB teams, probably even good pitching prospects. Did the Twins blackmail Tampa Bay's management?

Wow.

Thanks for the link!

Ha ha.Yeah, mainly us. I'm sure the designers like them. If I was them I'd like them too.

Yes, statisticians and actuaries have their hands full, how can we understand and apply? The more complex a stat, generally the less useful if becomes. People use them incorrectly, and the weighting of the calculations are subjective. I liked Sabermetrics when it discovered that bunting, stealing bases, switch hitting, and having enough LHP and hitting in the rotation generally hurt more than they helped. Most Managers and GMs still overvalue that stuff.

Phew, I thought this thing was headed south fast. Thanks for your takes, they're very insightful. Bill

I hate the single space after too. I'm also not great at the quotes. sorry

Thanks for the info on SIERA, I'll take a look. Each pitch doesn't tie to a runner advancing. WPs and SBs do. In addition to his WPs, he gave up 30% of the Rangers' stolen bases. Together, they make a significant impact on his ERA. It could easily be 15%.

The prior year's FIP is a projection, and the formula bears that out. I don't know how Steamer uses FIP, but his projection is pretty much Lynn's 2017 FIP with little or no correlation to previous years. I was pointing out that it's not a valid comparison between Darvish and Lynn. It's not, because it doesn't account for Darvish's SBs and WPs, and their affect on his earned runs is projectable. They will likely cost 7+ runs every year unless he improves dramatically. The only things that would make Darvish more valuable last year are more subjective than objective.

Well, the only way to figure out why something doesn't make sense is to do a little digging.The only defense I've ever seen you use is to say something doesn't apply (without much support, and in a flippant way) or just to say that X stat is better than Y stat because that's what Statcast/Steamer or Teams use to determine value. I'm pretty sure that MLB teams are much more sophisticated than Steamer is, but I realize there are probably some really dumb GMs out there. I think that the Steamer gang would probably tell you that they aren't very good, relatively speaking, at accurately predicting an individual player's numbers. I've seen no comparisons of Steamer to the 2016 or 2017 projections that they made other than they were generally better than the other 7 or 8 prognosticators, however they don't give the method they used to rank them. For instance, what percentage of their WAR projections are within 25% of the actual WAR? A somewhat sideways BAPIP IS considered in FIP. FIP is an attempt to eliminate defensive players from the picture, but it does it by weighing things that may or may not do what it tries to do. To assume that every batted ball is hit in the same way is not really a great way to do it.I freely admit that it would be a very hard thing to do, but because it's hard to do, and SOs are very heavily weighted, it doesn't really reflect what makes a pitcher effective. It would be a better stat if it made an allowance for the deviation from the player's BAPIP to the league BAPIP, because that WOULD give pitchers credit for being more fieldable. Your example of an average from career BAPIP doesn't work because it doesn't look like FIP considers more than the single past year. So, apples to apples, only the single year BAPIP should be used to compare Darvish and Lynn to the projected FIP that was being discussed My points were to show why FIP wasn't a good measure for these two pitchers in this current year. Once again I'd bet Steamer would agree, because so many of Darvish's singles turn into doubles, and doubles to triples because Darvish can't hold people on base and he throws a ton of wild pitches. One other thing, I think Santana did have a BAPIP that was pretty high as a rookie. How do you suppose his WAR from that year looked compared to the following year's projection? Maybe you could take some time to give us your take on why Darvish's ERA was 15% higher than Lynn's. Dig in to the stats a bit. It might help us understand why Darvish is clearly more productive than Lynn.

I'm not sure it does when comparing Lynn and Darvish, here's why. Darvish had more SOs than Lynn, and that's a big factor in FIP, but these aren't: BABIP: Darvish .284, Lynn .248, and both teams had identical FPs. I think most of us would agree that some pitchers are easier to field, and I think this is a big enough difference to say it's a factor here. Wild Pitches Darvish 12, Lynn 2 SB Darvish 20, Lynn 4. You could say that the catcher determines the SB numbers too, except for that Darvish accounted for 30% of all Rangers SBs (pre all star because Darvish went to the Dodgers) while Lynn accounted for 7% of St Louis'. I think it would be more than fair to say FIP doesn't account for a lot of Darvish's shortcomings. In this case I don't think FIP is a better indicator, and I'm not saying ERA is perfect, but I don't think the FIP difference is justified in this case.

I wish I knew how they project ERAs. I've looked, but I haven't been able to find any Steamer projections for 2017. It would be interesting to see what he projected for other pitchers in 2017. I just think it's weird that he projects Cobb's and Lynn's ERAs up a point from 2017. They're both another year past TJ surgery, and they both threw really well last year.

The scary part of Santana's surgery is that he's not likely to be effective for a while after his return, maybe even the entire season. Yesterday I saw in Puckett's Pond that Cobb's and Lynn's expected contracts were. Together it was less than Darvish, and it was for 4 years. If it's true, I'd love to have both. Here it is: https://puckettspond.com/2018/02/05/minnesota-twins-if-not-yu-darvish-who/

I've been searching my history and I'm not finding it, so my post on Cordoba could be wrong.

More on Cordoba: https://redbirdrants.com/2016/01/08/st-louis-cardinals-2016-top-prospects-25-allen-cordoba/

Twins get this kid from the Padres. http://www.gaslampball.com/2016/12/8/13882902/padres-ss-allen-cordoba-cardinals-rule-5-draft Interesting, either he's a starter or utility. Would make Escobar SS? Then Polanco to 2B? Maybe readying Dozier trade.

I'd be more than willing to have all of them back if it weren't for the Twins unwillingness to eat salary and release players that aren't contributing. I don't want to see dead weight plugging up the pipeline. I would love to see the new management bring up new prospects a bit more quickly and let them play with less micromanagement such as what they did to Barrios (letting Bert and seemingly anyone else just walking by to give advice, and actually making a pretty major change in how far he brought his right hand behind his back), and their great need to force them to learn to bunt (used way too much), hit to opposite fields (one of the biggest fallacies in the Twins organization), and reduce Ks significantly (Ks don't matter nearly as much as other stats). If you give a kid too much to think about, you're going to screw him up. Their main concern should be to make them as comfortable as they can be in their transition.

Sure they hide bad gloves in the corners, But why? It wouldn't be hard to comb MiLB and pick up the absolute best fielding team in MLB. Every single position, including every pitcher. Why don't they do that? Because they need hitting, and they also need pitchers that can get people out... so there are tradeoffs. They generally get their hits from LF, RF, 1B, and 3B, but the Twins don't. They get them from 2B. I would trade a +1 oWAR SS that hits 240 with no power, for a -.5 oWar SS that hits 280 with some power every day. I'm not saying that Polanco is a 280 hitter, but I think he has a real chance of hitting 280, and I also think his fielding will improve because there's evidence of that in his MiLB history. Oh, and I'd take Nunez's last year with the Twins every year if I could get it, because he more than made up for any fielding (and .983 isn't bad at all) with his bat. Range stats are one of the weakest stats that can be considered. They're generally only a measure of putouts or assists per game. They don't measure range at all, and range isn't something that you can judge by watching. What's more, a guy with the greatest REAL range is likely to commit more errors because he's touching balls that other guys don't and he's likely throwing while moving at a greater speed, or while he's off balance. So no. It's not as simple as saying that every successful team has to have strong defense up the middle, any more than saying bunting is really important, or saying that switch-hitting is really important, or that steals are really important, or left-handed pitchers are really important. All of those are bull because they can be off-set by other things.

Yes, Sano was a big factor, but ops doesn't take fielding into account and he played only 80 games. Because fielding should be taken into account, his war is lower than Dozier's. So you are absolutely wrong, Dozier was the single biggest factor in 2015. The fact that Dozier's 2015 was significantly lower in 2015 than in 2016, 2014 and 2013 only adds to his value as a player. Replacing Polanco is a very minor problem when you consider the Twins other problems, and I think I framed it in that context by listing their bigger problems. Would he be a problem for a good team? Sure he would, but the Twins aren't a good team. As far as defense is concerned, the ten shortstops in MLB that played the most innings averaged a dwar of 1. Polanco was a -.52, so, theoretically, his fielding cost the Twins half of a game last year, but he's -1.5 below the top ten inning SS last year. But his war is .6, and he was 22 years old, and his MiLB stats show a history of improvement. So, no. He's not a big problem, the problems that I listed are bigger problems. You mention 3b, rf, lf, and I'll throw in 1b. You say they're not as important as SS. The reason that statement is wrong is that there is an expected offense for each position on the field. SS is not a position that great offense is expected, but 1B, 3B, LF, and RF are. Keppler had a great month last year, but his MiLB stats don't come close to supporting those numbers. Mauer should retire, we don't have a 3B, and LF is weaker than SS if you consider expected offense for that position. Then consider pitching. So, no. In the scheme of things, SS is a minor problem for the Twins

Thanks for the welcome. It's always good to talk with an educated Twins fan.