AL Central Roundtable
Quite frankly I still find it hard to come here and make an earnest post so soon after we lost Kirby. I rationalize it this way: Kirby was my first hero that wasn't my dad, and it was Kirby who drew me to baseball in the first place. The end result of what he gave me is this site, and all of you who share this passion with me. And in the end, life goes on, even when it's difficult to justify what you're doing as meaningful.
Last week there was a brief discussion on three topics specific to each team in the AL Cenral. These talks were between The Cheat from South Side Sox, Will of Royals Review, Mark from Bless you Boys and Ryan and Jay of Let's Go Tribe. Oh yes, and me. As each of these sites put up their sections of the Roundtable I'll update the links on this post to make it easier for you to read them all. Enjoy the section on the Twins...
Beyond the Box Score: Twins or White Sox: Who has the best rotation in the division. Cite examples for discussion purposes.
Jesse of Twinkietown: Wow, tough question. Santana is the best pitcher in the division if not the American League (Cy Young winner 2004, contender 2005), but as for straight-up depth it's hard to argue with the success the Sox had in 2005. While Garland isn't going to have a repeat performance and McCarthy is coming up, the depth of Garcia and Buehrle at the front is tough. Contreras can be a big-game guy, and Vasquez may or may not return to the form of a front-of-rotation pitcher.
Behind Santana there's Radke who's speaking of retirement following 2006, and could experience a drop in effectiveness this year. Silva has a nice sinker and wouldn't give a free pass to a rabbit, but if he's the number two I need to see another strong year from him before I compare a Silva/Santana front to a Buehrle/Garcia front. After Santana/Silva/Radke are Lohse and Baker.
Kyle Lohse is a good number 4 starter, and after a raise in arbitration needs to perform to earn the salary. He's 27 this year, and I look for a better season than we've seen the last couple years. He has the stuff, he needs to acquire the discipline. Scott Baker is the number two pitching prospect in the Twins system behind phenom Francisco Liriano (led minors in strikeouts in 2005), but until Liriano is ready Baker will probably win the 5th starter spot. He has a strong future as a #2 or #3 starter.
Overall Minnesota has the best talent; but Chicago has the proven experience. Ranking the top starters from each organization by success I expect in 2006: Santana, Buehrle, Garcia, Silva, Vazquez, Radke, McCarthy, Contreras, Lohse, Garland, Baker, Liriano.
Jay of Let's Go Tribe: Santana is the runaway best single starter, of course, but I think I have to go with Chicago for the whole rotation. Chicago has such nice depth in their rotation, while I don't see anything much dependable after Santana in Minnesota. They should get at least one nice season out of Baker and Liriano, but the fact that everyone is acting like Liriano is instant-ace is kind of telling.
Jesse of Twinkietown: I don't know anyone who thinks Liriano is an instant-ace, I just think there's a lot of excitement about his potential-what he could be in 2007 and beyond. I certainly don't expect anything great from him before then.
The Cheat: Minnesota has the better #1, Chicago has the better #5. As a whole, the Chicago rotation is better, but Minnesota is probably more dangerous, despite post-seasons past, in a short series.
If both Liriano and Baker turn out to be solidly above average pitchers in `06, this would be a much more interesting question. But right now, with the Twins calling Kyle Lohse their #4 (I consider him #5, if not, #6) they don't have as many horses as Chicago.
Jesse of Twinkietown: I think the easiest way to break it down is like this-the White Sox had to pick a guy to start the season in the bullpen instead of the rotation. The Twins are holding an open competition for the fifth starter between Baker and Liriano. Chicago's rotation is better because of the plethora of pitchers they can choose from.
As for Lohse, I see him as a comparable player to Garland-both have enough stuff to win, but largely they will be average pitchers throughout their careers with one or two good (but not great) campaigns. Whether Lohse can put together that kind of season remains to be seen.
Beyond the Box Score: Venture a guess as to how Jason Kubel will hold up in 2006, in a sense of both durability and statistically.
Jesse of Twinkietown: There are so many conflicting reports on Kubel it's hard to know what's true. It's like a propaganda war. Those closest to Kubel say he's healthy and will have a legitimate shot at starting in RF on opening day. If this is true, the second-best hitting prospect in the Twins organization in the last 10+ years will be in the lineup. After such an impotent offensive display last year, this idea of a hitter (even if he's a prospect) has all Twins-fans a bit giddy.
So much of his stat line will depend on how healthy that knee is. If it truly is fine, then expect something around the line of .280/.350/.430/.780. If he doesn't win the opening day spot in RF (playing 120-130 games), I still expect him to take it eventually (playing 80-90 games). He won't come out of the gate and be the high-impact offensive force he would have been sans injury, but I'm optimistic that he'll find his way back as the season progresses.
Bottom line is that we need him to produce at a decent level. With luck we'll have the third-best offense in the division, probably fourth. Mauer will continue to get better, but we need better performances from guys like Morneau, Hunter and Stewart. If these guys play to their abilities, and Rondell White and Luis Castillo play at average levels, we'll be okay with our pitching staff.
The Cheat: Health-wise, better than `05 Justin Morneau. As for his productivity, I see him starting at AAA, (He's still got options left, right?) before eventually coming up with the big club and having an incredible 350 ABs like most Twins prospects seem to do.
Beyond the Box Score: Detail the most effective and least effective transactions and moves by the Minnesota Twins this past offseason.
Jesse of Twinkietown: This is a much debated topic at our site. The most effective and best acquisition is the trade for Luis Castillo, in which we gave up nothing but one of our 7 million pitching prospects and a couple throw-ins. In Castillo we solidify the best defense up the middle in the AL Central (Mauer, Castillo, Hunter), get a major upgrade as an OBP guy at the top of the order (career .370 OBP, below this line only twice since 1998), and we pick up a bag stealer (not as effecive as he was in the past, but still more effective than what we had). Reports say he's lost his burst on the basebaths, leading to fewer stolen bases, but overall he's an excellent pick-up and nice upgrade.
The least effective transition is the Tony Batista signing. It's not the doomsday prediction some are proclaiming, but that doesn't make it a good signing. His career OBP is nothing more than miserable, and rumor is that he's out of shape. His defense isn't good, he's slow, and he has a funny batting stance. He'll hit for some power, but that doesn't make up for the deficiencies in the rest of his game. His contract is non-guaranteed, so if he doesn't play not just average but well, I'm not sure how long he'll stick. Regardless, I expect Cuddyer back at 3B at some point in the season, with an OF of Stewart, Hunter and Kubel/Ford.
Another way of looking at it is that the Twins didn't make the move for a big hitter. That could be the least effective transaction in the fact that it didn't happen. With all our prospects, especially off the mound, there was a way to get something done...it just didn't happen. At the chance of sounding outrageous to fans at my site-Minnesota's window of opportunity may be closing. If this is true, waiting for Liriano may just waste more time. Liriano, who is second only to the young gun in Seattle in terms of prospective talent, and another mid-level prospect could have yielded a 40-HR designated hitter. This may have weakened the starting rotation three years down the line, but the return would have been ten times as good as the combination of Rondell White and Tony Batista.
Having said that, the eventual tag-team of Santana/Liriano runs shivers down my spine...
Will of Royals Review: I still think the Twins are going to struggle scoring runs, especially if Stewart, Hunter and Ford struggle at all. I liked the Batista signing, warts and all, since the team clearly needs power. Minny just might be one of the more fascinating teams of the `06 season, sorta like a Central version of the Blue Jays in terms of the variance of their performance. Everything just looks a little shaky: you throw Rondell White, Luis Castillo, Batista, Torii and Shannon Stewart together and what do you get? That has the potential to be an above average core or something pretty awful.
Jay of Let's Go Tribe: I think the Twins are in real danger of being outscored by the Royals this season. Hunter is one of their very best hitters, and it's been several years since he was significantly better than average at the plate. Note the career OPS+ of exactly 100 - this is their third-best hitter! I respect the pitching talent and several of the young position players, but I honestly think they would have been better off going for a "mini-rebuilding," dumping off Hunter and Stewart and possibly Radke for guys who can help them in 2007 and beyond. If I were a Twins fan, I'd be absolutely livid at my team for bringing in Batista and White - two guys with recognizable names who will probably be less productive than your average Triple-A lifer. It really calls into question if that front office has any idea what a good hitter even would look like.
Jesse of Twinkietown: The issue of a "mini-rebuild" has been brought up a numerous times, and Terry Ryan refuses to acknowledge that a move of that magnitude would be necessary. I can see arguments from both sides, but if the Twins can continue to infuse young talent to an established roster (as they did pre-2005), then there won't be a need for a mini-rebuild. I tend to agree. Making a more high-risk move to improve the team now, however, like trading some of those all-too-precious pitching prospects (see Liriano thoughts above), would definately help.
As for the comments on Hunter, there's an idea floating around (even in Minnesota) that Hunter is supposed to be a great hitter. The fact is that he never was, but he had one good season in 2002 and people don't forget that. We've had a below-average offense (especially for power) since we've become competetive again, and unfortunately Hunter has been asked to hit third or fourth in a jab-and-doge offense. Hunter is an ideal hitter in the six or seven hole-decent average, good power, not the best plate discipline. With Batista there's a number of livid fans running through the streets gnashing their teeth and ripping their clothes off in agony. I've seen it. As for White, he's not what anyone was looking for, but he's not as bad as your comparison.
Even though it won't happen, we could be outscored by the Royals and it wouldn't matter. We'd still win more games.
Jay of Let's Go Tribe: Of course the Twins will still win more games than the Royals. But when two other teams in the division also have good pitching, how can any team contend that is even-odds to have the worst offense? And not to harp on the mini-rebuild idea, but Ryan's view is indefensible. It isn't a question of whether it's "necessary." It's a question of asking whether 2006 is really "your year," and if it isn't, then you make the best possible decisions with an eye towards 2007 and 2008. Frankly, it's rare that a team would have the opportunity to re-load that quickly - just coming off a nice run of contention and yet loaded with very young talent. And they're just blowing the opportunity completely.
The Cheat: Luis Castillo is obviously the Twins best move of the off-season. I don't think many people recognize how brutal Twins' batters were in the #2 spot last season. They combined to post a, worst in baseball, .307 OBP. Castillo, even though he's about to turn 30 and at a position notorious for their precipitous collapses, represents the single largest upgrade at any one position of any team in the division.
Of course that move is offset by the Twins ridiculous quest for a "30 homer guy." I'll be interested to see where Gardenhire chooses to bat Batista. All the Twins had to do to finally get their 30 HR guy was wait a year; Morneau will top that mark this year, assuming he doesn't come down with the bubonic plague.
Jay of Let's Go Tribe: Wandering a little off-topic, the Twins' best move for the 2006 season actually happened last offseason, when they extended Santana's contract. It seems like it shouldn't be necessary to praise teams for fostering positive relationships with their own players, and then locking them up long-term under financially favorable terms. But apparently it is necessary, given the number of teams that either (a) fail to recognize when the time is ripe to do this, or (b) for whatever reason, fail to get terms that are even slightly better than market value. The Phillies and Orioles come to mind. In any event, the Twins clearly know who they want to keep, and they manage to keep those players happy and get them to sign great contracts. And I'm glad to see the Indians modeling them in this regard (and others), because those are some of the smartest moves you can make.
That's all for now. Keep checking back later in the day for additional links.
59 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Jay's last comment
I thought this comment was interesting, considering that the franchise that pioneered that strategy in the early-to-mid-90s was none other than his own Indians.
Really entertaining exchange, Jesse - it's interesting to hear what the other teams' fans have to say. It looks like the other fans are much less confident of the Twins' success for next year than Twins fans are, too.
Just can't help myself ...
John Hart's Indians were not a family, and it was not an organization based on values. It was an organization of Albert Belle, Kenny Lofton, Jose Mesa -- not an organization that would boot Milton Bradley out of town for dogging it on one popup too many. I don't know if that's why the Indians still don't have a championship, but I do know that we don't have a single player as beloved as Kirby Puckett. And any Indians fan who thinks we do is just kidding himself.
by Jay on Mar 9, 2006 8:39 PM EST up reply actions
bias?
And, perhaps, the general feelings expressed on this site are a bit too optimistic.
But on the other hand, sometimes the familiarity with the team might be a big advantage when it comes to projecting how the team will do. Hopefully this isn't just my bias talking, but I feel this is the case when talking about the Twins' offense.
"I think the Twins are in real danger of being outscored by the Royals this season."
"...even-odds to have the worst offense..."
Really? Is he serious?
I guess I can kind of see where someone would get this idea if you look strictly at changes in the roster and expect that to be the only difference in the team this year compared to last year. Our signings, in and of themselves, hardly do anything to scare opposing defenses.
But here's the thing. Looking at all of our returning regulars -- if I had to put money down on each of them whether I thought they would do better, the same, or worse compared with last year, I can't think of one player I wouldn't bet on having a better season at the plate. (Maybe Stewart -- it's hard to tell if he's in decline or just had an off-year.) Add in a couple of veteran bats and it becomes much harder to pitch around whichever young guy might be on a hot streak. Personally, I feel our offense will do much better. I would be almost as shocked if we scored the fewest runs as if we scored the most! In other words, my best-guess projection would be around middle of the pack, maybe a bit worse.
I also think it's important to note we have a number of young guys who will get a lot of playing time and who are pretty tricky to project. However, I would say we have a pretty good idea of a worst case scenario for those guys, and the performance we saw last season was it!
by adam @ Twinkie Town on Mar 9, 2006 1:07 PM EST reply actions
Stew...
I think the reasonable conclusion is that he's in decline. As a younger player, he depended a lot on his speed to help him hit for a high average, and also to make up for a poor throwing arm with good range on defense, and to cause some damage on the basepaths. With all of his leg/foot injuries over the years, he's not going to get that speed back again. (Also, enough leg injuries will sap your power, and his power was also down last year.)
If the Twins are lucky, Stewart will rebound some, but given his skill set, age, and injury history, that seems unlikely.
I agree with the larger point that to expect this offense to be worse than last year's offense is fairly silly. Any time you're the worst in the league at anything, it's pretty tough to get worse.
getting worse?
by Jay on Mar 9, 2006 8:59 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry for confusion...
I guess I don't reasonably see 4 total black holes in the lineup. Rondell White figures to be a slightly better than league average hitter, and not so platoon-susceptible as LeCroy was.
Cuddyer's been a slightly less than average hitter for his career (career EQA .255), so it seems unreasonable to say that at age 27 he'll somehow turn into a black hole.
Hunter, likewise, has been about a league average hitter for his career, and was had a great season rate-wise last year, considering he plays an up-the-middle position.
You already mentioned Mauer, Morneau, and Castillo. (I won't include Kubel here because management has been extremely deliberate with promoting players recently. See: Santana, Johan and Morneau, Justin.)
Could Bartlett be a black hole? Sure, he could, but I don't know if that's especially likely. He's posted good enough minor league numbers to put his median PECOTA forecast at 16.7 VORP.
So, you're looking at maybe two guys who are likely to really bring the offense down--Stewart and Batista. (And Stewart only because the bar for left fielders is so high and he's in decline. From a position independent standpoint, he still figures to be around a .260 EQA.)
Honestly, unless Gardenhire pulls something stupid and puts Punto/Castro in for most of the playing time at SS, the problem isn't so much going to be with black holes on offense. The problem, much like last year, is the lack of star power in the lineup. The best performers on offense are spectacular only relative to their position (Mauer and Hunter) and when you realize that they play two of the weakest hitting positions in the game, you see that there isn't much top-tier hitting on the team.
Jay
If you apply the same logic to the Twins and project improvements from Mauer, Morneau, Kubel, and Bartlett, and then you consider that the team lost no pitching and at least upgraded its second base and DH positions from outside, it should take a step forward. He's predicting a step back despite improvements, which is contrary to the logic he uses on his own tem. That is bias.
bias?
- You got outscored by the Royals last year.
- The Royals offense should also improve.
by Jay on Mar 9, 2006 8:51 PM EST up reply actions
Royals
I hope
Projections
Royal Hitting Prospects
So, the Royals do have a couple of classy hitting prospects, but neither one will be ready to put up good numbers before 2008. Gordon may earn the 3B job in 2007 and Butler may see time then as well, but I'd expect results no earlier than 2008.
weirdest off-season decision
But what's with the idea that they cannot upgrade at 3rd because they have promised the job to Batista??? Ryan's job is to win, period. No one should be above the team! It's irritating enough to refuse to platoon Jones, or refuse to DH stewart, out of respect for a veteran. But this is not even a Twins veteran! He's a free agent with a non-guaranteed contract. What's the point of a non-guaranteed contract if you tie your hands anyway?
If they had said, we just can't afford the (miniscule) risk of Koskie's third year becoming guaranteed, fine. But to refuse to pay $1 million more salary to upgrade from a proven out-machine to an actual (if former) Twins veteran is loyalty in reverse. Taking a flyer on Batista is one thing if the total risk is basically half Castro's contract. But if the cost includes a promise not to upgrade when the chance arises, that's just bizarre!
So I would say the weirdest off-season decision was not accepting Koskie in trade with most of his contract paid by someone else, at least as publicly explained.
More to it!
What more could have been to this deal...Toronto may never have offered the Twins the same deal or the Twins may have been more concerned with the contract. It seems to obvious to have brought Koskie back. Who knows, maybe there were some things said between the two when Koskie signed with Toronto, although both are class people and that seems unlikely.
by roger @ Twinkie Town on Mar 9, 2006 5:57 PM EST up reply actions
Koskie Overrated
Even when it wasn't the precise reason that put him on the DL, Koskie had to deal with back pain a lot during his latter years as a Twin, and the turf (any kind of turf) only makes those problems worse. Between that, and other injuries, and just getting older, Koskie is no longer the asset he was in the field. And that's when he does play. This is Koskie's most significant statistic over the last 5 years--games played:
2001-153
2002-140
2003-131
2004-118
2005-97
That's a rather disturbing trend, no? And even playing in only 97 games last year, Koskie still amassed over 400 plate appearances, which is all he needs to do to get the 1200 PA from 2005-2007 that will vest his 2008 option for $6.5M.
Koskie's skills don't age well, and the Twins would've had to take on what amounts to a back-loaded 3-year contract for $2M, $2M, and $6.5M per year. Koskie is not so much of an upgrade that he would've been worth that much payroll commitment.
I'm pretty sure...
by djskilbr on Mar 10, 2006 12:37 AM EST reply actions
Look it up...
It's definitely 1200 PAs from 2005-7, you can check the article that Cot's links to. In addition to being 1200 PAs from 2005-7 it's also 600 PAs in 2006 OR 2007. So there are three separate ways that Koskie can make the option vest.
"... the CRAP, ABSOLUTE FILTH, we are going to get from Craptista."
Are you off your meds again? What's the point in getting this upset over one addition to the team? Remember how the Twins won the division in 2004 with Blanco putting up a -8 VORP over a mere 353 plate appearances? Do you really think that putting your point in all caps is going to make it more correct? Oh right, I bet it's your catchy nickname for Batista that will really convince me you're right.
Batista has yet to make a single regular season plate appearance, and Gardenhire has already been less than thrilled with him in spring training. Chill. I'm all about criticizing Batista for his shortcomings, but you can save the vitriol for your upcoming appearance on Hardball with Chris Matthews.
And even if Batista isn't better than Koskie, there's not enough difference between Koskie and Cuddyer at this point to justify locking Koskie in for the next three years.
I agree there...
At least BBII won't be starting past May 1 at the latest. That is the only thing that restores my faith in humanity.
by djskilbr on Mar 10, 2006 12:41 PM EST up reply actions
No Comparison
This is so ridiculous that I don't even know where to start, but I'll give it my best shot. For starters, in 2004 the Twins won the division with 92 wins, and did so in a division that saw only two teams play over .500 ball.
Well, things changed. Last year two teams finished with more than 92 wins in the Central, and the Twins weren't one of them. You see, when a division gets stronger, it typically means it's tougher to get away with sub-replacement level offense anywhere on the diamond. The Twins can't be reliant on other teams' shortcomings for their success this season.
Your comparison is silly for another reason, that being that having a sub-replacement level offensive player at catcher has nowhere near the same effect as having a sub-replacement level player at third base. Position matters when assessing a player's contributions, and it's much easier to tuck away a sub-replacement level hitter at catcher than it is at third base (a far more prominent offensive position and where the baseline for performance used to calculate VORP is much, much higher). When a player is inadequate at a position that requires a lot of offense, it's typically harder to compensate for that at other positions that are not used to bearing the crux of a team's offensive expectations.
So basically, you're way off the mark thinking that the Twins winning in '04 despite Blanco's futility is any justification for accepting the same level of futility from Batista at third base in '06.
by twinsfan02 on Mar 12, 2006 12:50 PM EST reply actions
Whatever
Everyone is freaking out because our 7th hitter isn't going to light the world on fire. Lots of championship teams are/have been in similar positions.
"Your comparison is silly for another reason, that being that having a sub-replacement level offensive player at catcher has nowhere near the same effect as having a sub-replacement level player at third base."
I think you're overestimating the difference betweeen a replacement level 3B and a replacement level C. Replacement-level Batista would look like about .244/.288/.411 and replacement-level Blanco would look like about .230/.286/.381. (Those are numbers from some of their possible outcomes in their PECOTA forecasts.) Most of the difference in offense between 3B and C is that an All-Star 3B will hit better than an All-Star C. But by the time you start looking at replacement level 3B, they just aren't that different from replacement level C.
But at any rate, 8 runs below replacement is 8 runs below replacement is 8 runs below replacement. VORP is already position adjusted, penalizing Batista for being a third baseman after you're already using a position-adjusted statistic is a ridiculous double standard.
"So basically, you're way off the mark thinking that the Twins winning in '04 despite Blanco's futility is any justification for accepting the same level of futility from Batista at third base in '06."
What are you going to do about it? Tie yourself to a post in the metrodome until the Twins release Batista? I'm not saying it's a justification for anything. What I'm saying is that good teams can carry bad players. It happens all the time. Not every championship team has "championship-caliber" players at every position. Certainly, not every championship team gets "championship-caliber" performance from each of their players. My comment was merely to point out that this has already happened with the Twins before.
I'm all for evaluating players and trying to figure out how good/bad they will be, but the level of anger and resentment over this one single move is just way overboard. Batista, as one of 9 guys on the offense, is just not going to make as big of a difference as most would have you believe.
replacements
Not sure why that would be so. The "replacement level" accounts for differences in position. In theory, -8 VORP at one position is just as bad (and only as bad) as -8 VORP at another.
"Batista isn't going to put up a worse than -8 VORP at 3B this season. That level of offense would be recognized by the staff as unacceptable, and they would get Batista out of the lineup before he makes it to that mark."
-8 VORP is not that hard to pile up -- it's only EIGHT RUNS below replacement, it's just one really horrible month basically. And at the risk of trolling, there is a real question as to whether "the staff" is capable of recognizing unacceptable offensive production when they see it. Defensive performance, yes. But would you not agree that they seem oblivious to horrendous hitting, and confuse solid-average hitting with very good hitting as well?
Here's why I think....
The worst VORP, Miguel Olivo at -12.8 was compiled with the insane rate stats of .151/.172/.276. Of course, those are only his Seattle numbers. If you combine his San Diego numbers with his Seattle numbers, he's essentially replacement level. So, now you're down to only 10 players with less than -8 VORP.
Guzman likely wouldn't have made it to -9.6 if it wasn't for his long-term contract. Batista has no such long-term contract.
Now, looking at other years, it looks like teams were better at employing their talent last year, as there have been closer to 20 players/year with -8 VORP or less in the early 2000s. But, just looking at the lists of players, you'd have a hard time finding anyone who would have defended many, if any, of those performances as acceptable.
"But would you not agree that they seem oblivious to horrendous hitting, and confuse solid-average hitting with very good hitting as well?"
I don't think this is necessarily the case, though I could see where you might get that idea. I think that in the case of players who they perceive to have high defensive value (Castro, Blanco, etc.), they are willing to accept horrendous hitting. If you talked with them in private, they'd probably tell you that they think it's more brutal than they admit in public, but part of being a good manager (in my book) is not throwing your players under the bus in the press.
And I don't know that we can really tell what they consider to be solid-average hitting and what they consider to be very good hitting. The only objective evidence of their opinions that we have is the record of lineup/signing decisions. And those decisions only tell us about how they grade players relative to one another, not who they consider to have solid-average hitting and who they consider to be very good.
On the whole, it's always going to sound like teams are overrating their players in the media, because it's in their best interest to make their players feel like they are valued employees and to make fans think that there is a product worth supporting.
worst
Yes, -8 VORP is a fairly rare performance, and it's also fairly rare for a major league GM to give a guy like Batista a job.
"The only objective evidence of their opinions that we have is the record of lineup/signing decisions."
That's right. Batista, Stewart, Ortiz, Cuddyer, Kielty ... either they don't value productive hitting, or they don't know it when they see it. I won't say it's open-and-shut, but I think the burden of proof is on the other side at this point.
Whoa
Kielty:
2003 - .227/.344/.381 (with TOR)
2004 - .214/.327/.371
2005 - .267/.365/.414
Stewart:
2003 - .326/.395/.481 (with MIN)
2004 - .305/.387/.451
2005 - .280/.337/.408
I think it's pretty clear who's been the better hitter over the time since that trade. (Also, Kielty's had some nasty platoon splits that Stewart hasn't been as prone to.) Did they overpay for Stewart in terms of his free agent contract? Maybe, but they really needed that .305/.387/.451 line out of the leadoff spot in 2004.
I'm not sure what your point is with Cuddyer. His career EQA is .255, about league average, he's still young, and given his injury history and low cost it's still worth taking a risk on him to see if he can improve by staying healthy all year.
And yes, Ortiz wound up being the worst mistake Terry Ryan's made in a long time (although the Joe Mays contract is up there), but it was far from obvious that Ortiz would wind up being the MVP-type hitter he became. It's not like teams were beating down his door when the Red Sox signed him. (And a relevant detail of that transaction is that the Red Sox were able to sign him for less than the Twins would've had to offer him as a returning player. It was less of a risk for the Red Sox to sign him than it would have been for the Twins, especially given the Red Sox budget.)
The Twins haven't been able to develop productive hitting from within like they have been able to do with pitching. Truly productive free agent hitters are out of their budget. (Just look at the ransom the White Sox had to pay to keep Konerko, an above average, but far from elite first baseman.)
I don't think it's fair to say that they don't value productive hitting so much as productive hitting is overvalued in the current market, and for the Twins to play Moneyball, they have to focus on defense and their internal strengths.
value
I agree that Stewart has been better than Kielty, and Stewart's 2004 was very nice. I personally wouldn't have given up on Kielty so easily. More to the point, I don't see how a low-budget team like the Twins can justify spending $20 million on that fairly marginal amount of upgrade. I might accept your thesis about productive hitting being overvalued in the market. The fact remains, however, that an organization that understood the value of offensive production would never have spent $20 million on Stewart.
I don't see how you can let him off the hook so easily on Ortiz. A lot of people thought Ortiz was a potentially valuable piece, and a lot of people commented at the time that the Twins might be making a huge mistake. All you have to do is look at the guys they DIDN'T cut.
Good to get another perspective
Again, that's not about talent evaluation but about personalities.
The Stewart/Kielty trade was great for the Twins because it rescued them from a losing campaign in 2003. Resigning him is turning out to be a marginal move, however, because he only played half a season in 2004 with the right foot problem, he played near the bottom of the league at his position (and in the lead-off spot) last year in part due to injuries, and he's looking like he's got the foot problem in his left foot now. So, worst case, the Twins get a half a season of good production and two and a half seasons of marginal to nonexistent production for $20 million. That's almost as bad as the Joe Mays signing.
incidentally, everyone is calling for the Twins to sign Mauer and others long term. After teh Mays and Guzman signings, I don't blame him for waiting a year.
As for Ortiz, John Hart could have had him for $1 million bucks. Nobody wanted him except for Theo, and he described the deal as a "flyer". It's easy to second guess. And I could find as many players that the Indians made the wrong call on (Aaron Boone, Coco Crisp, Ben Borousard, ...)
coulda
Back to the Twins and Ortiz. At that moment in time, Hart (in Texas) had Palmeiro and Teixeira under contract. Shapiro (in Cleveland) had just acquired Travis Hafner -- from Hart ironically. I think you have to say those two GMs get a pass.
And anyway, after being non-tendered, Ortiz had his choice of teams. Half the AL probably would have given him $1 million, and he chose Boston. Only the Twins could have kept him at will. So you can't just write it off as a mistake that the whole league made.
And who did they give his playing time to? Was it guys like Teixeira, Hafner, Palmeiro? No. It was Mientkiewicz, LeCroy, Kielty and (indirectly) Stewart. And without knocking any of those players individually, one was overpriced, one couldn't hit, and the other two had options left.
Ortiz was already a good hitter, and those Twins badly needed good hitters -- particularly with a defensive specialist at 1B. And they basically cut him on his 27th birthday. I'm sorry, but it was a colossal mistake, and not just in hindsight. You shouldn't just dismiss it as bad luck, it was poor judgment.
Reality...
Regarding Cuddyer, the Twins coaching staff has determined that he isn't an option at third in part because he is deaf in his left ear. Hopefully, given the opportunity at being a regular in right field will enable him to settle down and hit .300+ with 20+ homers.
by roger @ Twinkie Town on Mar 14, 2006 9:08 AM EST up reply actions
Broussard, Crisp and black holes
As for your comment that the Twins still have four "total black holes in their line-up", I'm at a loss on this one. Stewart is a .300 hitter when healthy. If Stewart isn't healthy, Ford is a worthy replacement. Castillo has a career OBP over .375. Mauer is an emerging star. White has hit over .300 in his last two major league season and several times over his career. Hunter's no OBP guy, but he has a healthy career SLG. Morneau continues to emerge. You yourself cliam to be a Cuddyer fan. Kubel is looking like the next big thing. And Bartlett had OBPs over .400 in his last two AAA season. That leaves Batista. Call him a black hole if you like, but he's not four guys. So who are you calling a black hole besides Batista?
hype
As for the Crisp trade, it was complicated, and I would recommend that you read our four-part series on the subject (One Two Three Four) and see if you don't change your mind. Bottom line, when you have a good offense, you don't "miss" a .345 OBP at the top of the lineup.
I congratulate you on identifying several Twins who might hit .300. Several of them will be an empty .300, if they happen at all, and several of them will be at an offensive position (DH, LF, RF) where such numbers can rightly be called a black hole.
Here's your projected OBP's: Castillo .374, Mauer .360, Ford .343, Bartlett .339, White .338, Morneau .336, Stewart .330, Hunter .330, Batista .282. No wonder you're so hot for Coco Crisp. On this team, he'd be considered a great hitter, just like Torii Hunter.
OK
Given your enlightenment, I'll be glad to see the .285 OBP from Aaron Boone, the .300 OBP from Casey Blake, the .310 OBP from Jhonny Peralta, and the .320 OBP from Ben Broussard. Because, you know, power doesn't really matter. And it's easy and fun to pick OBPs out of thin air and give them to guys on the other team. So having those black holes in the Indians line-up makes the Twins black holes seem gray by comparison.
And it's a good thing we can pitch better than the Indians. I'll be watching with particular glee when the Indians slip backto the 85-win team they are and the Twins win the division. Then I'll be glad to go on your site and gloat. Because, as you know well, it's what enlightened men do.
Enlightenment
I'm pretty sure if we compared slugging rather than OBP, the Twins would come out looking even worse. There is no comparison between the Indians and Twins lineups. For me to even try to compare them would make me look like I'm picking a fight with you, which is not my intention.
The Twins' "better pitching" allowed 20 more runs than the Indians last season. That said, the Twins seem a lot more likely to be able to sustain their pitching performance, and maybe even improve on it, than the Indians are. I think the Indians will have a fine bullpen, but last year's 2.80 ERA seems unrepeatable.
I have no wish to be a troll here, even unintentionally. If my comments can't be taken as well meant discussion points, I'll bow out.
Trolling in enemy waters
Really. Well you could have fooled me. When you call any hitter who does not project to have a .350 OBP by the Great PECOTA oracle a "black hole", you're being a troll. I won't go into the layers of oversimplification in your analysis. But I will point out that by your own definitions, the Indians have a few black holes. Whereas, you act as though they're the 27 Yankees. I understand you're bias in favor of your own team. But I would hope you could look at other teams with more charity, especially on their blogs.
"Black Holes"
There, you'll see that in the American League last season, third basemen, second basemen, center fielders, and catchers all had OBPs less than .330, on average.
So, most teams look to be hitting 4 guys with OBPs less than .330, and the Twins look to be hitting one guy with an OBP less than .330. I think you need to re-think your standards.
OBP
And OPS is a good metric, but it only just begins to adequately describe the value of a player. The full value includes taking good at bats (lots of pitches), hitting in close and late situations, sparking ralies, situational hitting, speed on the base paths, etc.
As for Crisp, I would love to have him on my team. A .335 OBP is not bad by any means considering that his SLG was .465, leaving his OPS right at the bell weather. Not just because of what he has done, but at 26, he has a lot of upside. I would think an Indians fan would recognize his value to that club. He was an ignitor. He had good power. His speed was not just about base stealing but taking the extra base. He had a hand in a lot of the Indians' runs. It's by no means certain that Jason Michaels will ever duplicate what Crisp did last year, let alone what he will do this year for Boston.
Clarification
averages
There are many more points to make, and I hate to leave a good discussion, but I'm going to bow out here. As I said, I never meant for things to turn unpleasant, but I know when people start to exaggerate and misrepresent and emote all over the rug, there's no point continuing.
ubelman, I thank you and the other folks here for engaging me in a little interesting conversation -- and I look forward to seeing your pitchers handcuff the pathetic White Sox hitters this season. See if you can get Santana to throw at Thome's knees, okay?
Bye now ...
Re: Trolling
Jesse
Anything...
Oh yeah, while I may not agree with you on all points, your presence in the discussion was very worthwhile.
Cuddyer
As for being given opportunities, it's just as often that Cuddyer's opportunities have been cut short by injury as they have been cut short as part of a larger plan. It doesn't help his cause that he keeps playing like a classic tweener--not enough glove for the infield, not enough bat for the outfield. I hope his bat comes around this year, but he was really an awful fielding third baseman.
"I don't see how you can let him off the hook so easily on Ortiz."
It's not really my place to put them on or off a hook about Ortiz. If I recall correctly, at the time, I even advocated keeping Ortiz around. But at any rate, I just mean to say that it wasn't obvious what Ortiz was going to turn out to be. There does reach a point where you just have to say "enough" and let someone develop with another team because they haven't worked out so well for you, even if they do have some potential left.
Clearly, offensive evaluation isn't this front office's strong suit. At the same time, they've been great at developing/stealing pitching. Just like there are few/none perfect players, there aren't many perfect front offices.
Yeah
I think part of that is because of their hitting philosophies. They are alwasy telling their guys with any speed whatsoever to start hitting the ball into the ground. Guzman, Rivas, Ford they all heard the same thingm and they all failed to hit nearly as well ever again.
The scary thing is they are telling bartlett the same thing now.
As for Ortiz, no one blew any whistles when he left. Liike was said, Boston gave him a tiny little last chance contract because they could afford to do so. Unfortunatly, it blew up in our faces big time.
by AdamOnFirst on Mar 13, 2006 11:50 PM EST up reply actions
philosophy
Some coaches tell the hitters, put the ball in play and good things will happen.
Some coaches, often the same ones, tell the pitchers, let your defense work for you.
Well, they can't both be right.
Agreed...
Some of us here in Twins land ARE really offended by the Fatista signing and think it's a crime what management has done to Cuddyer all these years, so it's nice to hear (I think at least, correct me if I'm wrong) that same basic stance from a division rival fan.
Oh, and for the record, I agree that TR cannot get a pass on Ortiz. Our management clearly has not been great at developing hitters and we can't just swipe that under the rug.
Anyway, good stuff, and thanks for the insight.
by djskilbr on Mar 14, 2006 2:07 AM EST up reply actions
You underestimate the staff
Take last year, Bartlett was hitting better on paper than Peralta when Bartlett got sent down. Wedge stuck with Peralta and Gardy ditched Bartlett. Why? well it wasn't the numbers. It was attitude, body language. Bartlett was pressing and needed to get his head on straight.
Or take Cuddyer in 03. He got a month of sucking before getting sent down. And neither Kielty nor Mohr played consistently before him because Gardy always payed the hot hand.
Gardy errs on the side of sitting guys or sending them down if they're not producing and fileding better than he judges the alternatives. In that, he is unlike a lot of managers, E.g. Wedge.
huh?
No. Third base is not intrinsically more important than catcher offensively. Historically, third base is an offensive strength while catcher is not. But it need not be that way. The Twins have a certain catcher who is the best hitter on the team. They would be hard pressed to find a third baseman even close to his level offensively. So if you carry a catcher who hits well above VORP, you can offord to carry a third basman who hits a little below VORP, especially if the catcher hits third and the third baseman hits seventh or eighth.
Who would you rather have, Blanco and Koskie or Batista and Mauer? I'd say taking those two offensive positions together, I'd rather have Batista and Mauer. Now if you compare the other positions on this team to the 92-win team, you have upgrades at second and short, you have a full season of Morneau at first, you have an upgrade at DH, and you arguably have an upgrade in right field. Combined with improved pitching over the 2004 team, particularly in the back of the rotation, and this is a much better team. How much better would it be with an upgrade at third? Perhaps a win or two over the course of the year.
Again..
Actually, it is for the purpose of this discussion, since in the current era league averages for third basemen are higher than they are for catcher. Thus, when discussing VORP, we're working off that paradigm. So basically, yes, third base is intrinsically more important offensively since one must hit higher at third to be considered a league average performer at the position.
"Now if you compare the other positions on this team to the 92-win team"
Again, completely off-base. You can't possibly compare this team to the 92-win team because the 92-win team won in a division that wasn't nearly as strong as the division the current team plays in. How hard is this to figure out?
by twinsfan02 on Mar 13, 2006 11:12 AM EST up reply actions
VORP
And I'm on your side that Batista is a disaster.
by AdamOnFirst on Mar 13, 2006 11:17 AM EST up reply actions
VORP
Are they? Quick example:
Varitek- 45.6 VORP in 539 PA's
Glaus- 45.4 VORP in 634 PA's
Nearly identical VORP's for the exact two positions we're debating. Varitek here is clearly the more valuable player. Who, however, contributes more to an offense?
MLV (Marginal Lineup Value, i.e. the number of additional runs a player would add to a lineup of otherwise average performers)
Glaus- 27.0
Varitek- 18.5
RC/27 (runs created per 27 outs)
Glaus- 6.77
Varitek- 6.42
VORP's positional adjustment recognizes the value of having a good catcher and that the theoretical drop from Glaus' production to another third basemen should technically be less than Varitek's, making Varitek a more valuable commodity. However, Glaus+replacement level catcher technically is better production than Varitek+replacement level third baseman.
For instance, last year:
Yorvit Torrealba- 0.1 VORP in 119 PA's
Pablo Ozuna- 0.0 VORP in 217 PA's
Both these player's are a drain on the offense, as their respective MLV's look like this:
Torrealba- -6.0
Pablo Ozuna- -8.3
However, by combining those values with the above MLV's for Glaus and Varitek, and Glaus+Ozuna still outscores Torrealba+Varitek by a wide margin.
Again, VORP recognizes that Varitek is the more valuable commodity because the disparity between his numbers and a replacement level catcher are greater. However, because the baselines are markedly different, Glaus still contributes more to run scoring.
by twinsfan02 on Mar 13, 2006 11:47 AM EST up reply actions
Edit..sorry...
by twinsfan02 on Mar 13, 2006 11:49 AM EST up reply actions
Too many metrics...
Team 1:
Varitek - 45.6 VORP, 539 PA
Replacement Catcher - 0.0 VORP, 95 PA
Replacement 3B - 0.0 VORP, 634 PA
Total, combined - 45.6 VORP,1268 PA
Team 2:
Replacement Catcher - 0.0 VORP, 634 PA
Glaus - 45.4 VORP, 634 PA
Total, combined - 45.4 VORP,1268 PA
VORP thinks they bring the same value to a team. It really is just that simple.
Metrics
Irrelevant? First off, MLV isn't a Bill James statistic, it was developed by David Tate. Secondly, MLV is partially used in the calculation of VORP. I find that to make it pretty relevent.
And of course VORP measures them as equivalents, that's what this whole debate is about. I basically should have said this from the get go: VORP isn't measuring aggregate value, it's measuring value relative to position. That doesn't mean that a 45 VORP is equivalent to a 45 VORP in total production regardless of position, but rather that it is equivalent in relative value. Key distinction. In any event, I digress, and give you freedom to have the last say.
by twinsfan02 on Mar 13, 2006 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
Bill James
And since you don't want to talk about position adjustments anymore, I won't bother elaborating any more on that point.
Play nice
Of course you can compare this team position by position to any team. I just did. What I think you're trying to say is the rest of the division is stronger than it was in 2004. And that is certatinly true. So 92 wins will be harder to get than they were in 2004. How much harder depends not only on the improvements on the Twins but on other teams in the division and around the league. If that's your point, I agree. But there's no need to be a jerk about it.
And I would tend to disagree that the divison is good enough to have more than one 92-win team. If all four teams are stronger in 2006 than in 2004, wins will be harder to come by for all teams. So the games against the East, West and NL will determine whether this divison has as many wins this year as last. I think it's fair to say that Toronto, Boston, New York, Tampa Bay, Balimore, Oakland, Seattle, and Texas will be better this year. So it will be harder to win as many games outside the division.
And the interleague schedule is much tougher this year as well. The fact that two teams from this division won more than 90 games last year had more to do with the fact that the AL Central played the NL West than anything. This year the Central plays the NL Central, and wins will be much tougher to come by.
And I think both the White Sox and the Indians are overrated. The White Sox were pretty darn lucky last year. And the Indians took a step back this ofseason, IMO. The Tigers and Twins made the most improvement, which will make it tougher on the White Sox and Tribe.
The bottom line is, in a four-team race with improved competition all over the league, 92 to 94 wins will do. Whether the Twins are enough is an open question. That's why we play the games. But are they better than 2004? Certainly.
Wins
Strange, because they had more than one 92-win team in '05.
"And I think both the White Sox and the Indians are overrated."
Which has nothing to do with you being a Twins' fan...does it?
Anyways, I have no desire to debate this further, so as with ubelmann, you have right to the last word.
by twinsfan02 on Mar 13, 2006 2:24 PM EST up reply actions
92 wins
Or you could say, those 2002-2004 teams were not really all that great, what with the 85-88 Pythagorean wins in a truly horrendous division, where no other teams were even ATTEMPTING to win. (Oh, sure, the 2004 Indians were attempting to win in that adorable 2001 Twins kind of way, but they were no real threat to the 2004 Twins.)
Not sure what to make of all that, but at the risk of offending everybody, I don't think the 92-win 2004 team makes for much of a yardstick, that's the bottom line. And while I'm no fan of small sample sizes, they have an incredible poor showing in the ALDS. If you can't win a short series with Santana and Radke and Nathan (v.2004), your roster is probably pretty thin.
"And I think both the White Sox and the Indians are overrated."
Here we're back to the big Pythagorean question, but a Twins fan has no real dog in that fight. Whether you believe in run differentials or not, either way, the division had one 99-ish-win team and one 93-ish-win team, neither of them the Twins.
"more to do with the fact that the AL Central played the NL West than anything"
Have to agree with you there. Interleague play has no effect on strength of schedule EXCEPT for the "natural rivals" business, where I believe it's Twins-Brewers, Sox-Cubs, Indians-Reds. And in 2006, I think anybody would agree that the Indians have the edge from that.
Whatever Indeed
The point was that third base has a higher baseline for a reason. More players are capable of playing third base and hitting respectably than are capable of catching and hitting respectably. Hence, it's much less tolerable that the Twins' are willing to settle on a no-hit third baseman than it would be for the Twins to settle on a no-hit catcher.
"Not sure why that would be so. The "replacement level" accounts for differences in position. In theory, -8 VORP at one position is just as bad (and only as bad) as -8 VORP at another."
Think about this for a minute. What would hurt an offense more, having a replacement level first baseman, or a replacement level catcher? Due to the fact that a higher percentage of a team's offense is supposed to come from first base, it's clearly a worse case scenario to have a replacement level first baseman. You seem to presume that simply because VORP makes a positional-adjustment that it is just as likely to find a good-hitting catcher as it is a good-hitting first baseman.
VORP is great for comparing individuals cross-position, but it doesn't necessarily reflect well on a team-scale. Good-hitting first baseman (or third basemen) are more abundant, hence not having one is going to put a severe crimp on a team's offense because they'll have to make up that production at a less prolific position (where it's less likely to find someone, say, of Varitek's caliber).
The Twins have a player like Mauer already fixed at catcher, but unfortunately plus production from Mauer and Hunter doesn't make up for average or subpar production at more premier offensive positions (LF, 1B, 3B, RF, DH).
by twinsfan02 on Mar 13, 2006 10:04 AM EST reply actions
replying to previous comment
by cortalekanak on Jan 13, 2007 9:24 AM EST reply actions

by 


















