Twins Off-Season Question #4: How Do You Play Five Outfielders Full Time?
Between the guys we know the organization likes to play and the guys who expect to play, is it feasible to get five players 500 plate appearances (or more) over four positions?
I'm just going to start us out by jumping off a limb screaming: NNNOOOOOOO!! (Fade scream, cue Wile E. Coyote landing.)
It's a question that's pretty cut and dried, considering last year the grouping of Michael Cuddyer, Carlos Gomez, Jason Kubel, Denard Span and Delmon Young combined for 2444 plate appearances. Cuddyer only managed 279 due to injuries, but mathematically it almost seams plausible, doesn't it? 2444 isn't that far from 2500. But the issue isn't the number of available plate appearances throughout the season, it's how many opportunities there are to get them.
After the season, mostly in November and December, Young's name was popular in trade rumors. Especially after Ron Gardenhire stated that his preferred starting outfield didn't include Young, it was even easier to foresee the shape of the '09 outfield and how playing time would be allocated. Yet here we are a month away from spring training, and pretty soon what was considered a strength of depth over the winter will turn into a battle for playing time.
Right. So how do we sort this out? By breaking it down. If Gardenhire is facing a right-handed starter, a southpaw, a guy who struggles to find the strike zone or if the focus is defense, there should be a set package for each of these scenarios. But ultimately, and perhaps more importantly than finding the right splits for any of these guys, let's have a look at service time. Whether we like it or not, it makes a difference.
Going into 2008, here's how service time looked according to Cot's Contracts. Numbers are listed in years and days on a major league roster.
Denard Span: 0.000
Carlos Gomez: 0.141
Delmon Young: 1.034
Jason Kubel: 3.009
Michael Cuddyer: 4.157
The only guy worth getting in depth on in this list is the notorious Carlos Gomez. Span's service time is under a year, Delmon Young will be arbitration eligible after this season, and the two Twins veterans are under team control. What we have to watch, from a financial as well as a scenario standpoint, is how the Twins approach Gomez in 2009.
Another full season for Carlos means he'll be eligible for arbitration following 2010. But by limiting his major league exposure--say by limiting him to 90 days on the 25-man roster--Minnesota could push his arb-eligible date back to 2011.
You can offer a lot of the same arguments you can hear elsewhere, that it's a cheap maneuver or that he needs to see MLB pitching or that he brings that sudden impact character to a game, but this move also has a number of positives:
- The outfield logjam for playing time clears. Young, Span, Cuddyer and Kubel can each easily garner more than 500 at-bats, much less plate appearances, when the fifth outfielder is just that--a fifth outfielder.
- In spite of a promising .289/.330/.470 line in September last season, Gomez still has no plate discipline or strike zone judgment. Rochester can be used as a primer, a confidence boost, and as a way to make sure he's still able to play every day.
- Gomez's specific outfield competition, Denard Span, has not only earned a starting spot due to his play, but fills a gap in the lineup that Gomez currently cannot fill: leadoff hitter.
- Jason Pridie will get an opportunity to establish a major league career, which is something he's earned.
- It allows the Twins to evaluate their current talent, albeit at different levels, without the pressure of "needing" to give a certain amount of playing time to each player.
- Oh yeah, it keeps Gomez from being arbitration-eligible for one more season. It doesn't seem like much now, but it's still money that can be allocated elsewhere. In this financial market, that's not a bad thing.
- One last thing: it keeps Delmon Young on the field, instead of on the bench. That's the last place Young needs to be.
Outside of service time, we certainly could look at splits and package scenarios. The Defensive Outfield - This one should be pretty obvious. Span in left field, Gomez in center and Cuddyer in right. Versus LHP - Using major league splits from the last three seasons, Kubel would be the designated hitter with Young (.790 OPS) in left, Span (.874) in center and Cuddyer (.851) in right. Versus RHP - There's not much of a decision to be made here, either. Kubel will be the DH again, Young will man left field (.721), Span in center (.795) and Cuddyer in right (.784).
What makes this decision crystal clear for me is the answer to this question: which outfielder is the furthest from being who he can possibly become? Whily Delmon still has a lot of work to do, his raw hitting ability is something this offense needs. Gomez has all the tools, but as of right now that raw talent still isn't turning into any semblance of an offense. And instead of causing playing time issues between all five players, hopefully the Twins see it as a developmental opportunity. Minnesota can make their depth a strength again, instead of allowing that depth to disrupt what happens on the field.
Q#1: What Do We Have?
Q#2: How Much Money Do We Have to Spend?
Q#3: Who Gets Offered Arbitration?
0 recs |
93 comments
|
Comments
I think this is a terrible idea
I don’t think you quite appreciate how terrible that outfield without Gomez would be. Span really isn’t that good an outfielder, and flanked by 2 no-rangers like Young and Cuddyer would be a disaster.
I would be very uncomfortable without Gomez in center when Baker, Slowey, or Perkins was starting.
Frankly, I think Gomez is the one guy who has to play almost every day. Ultimately, I think what’s going to happen is that Young and Kubel will essentially be a DH platoon, without calling it that exactly.
by Eric in Madison on Jan 15, 2009 10:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
You are right on.
Go look at Fangraphs. Gomez’s UZR/150 last year was 17.0. There was no center fielder in baseball with a UZR/150 that high who played at least 500 innings in center last year (Cody Ross was second with 16.8). Gomez also led all CFs in Dewan’s plus/minus with a +33. Gomez is quite likely one of the top five, or better, CFs in the game right now. He needs to be starting in center field every game possible – ESPECIALLY if one thinks it’s a good idea to start both Delmon and Cuddyer, two epically bad defensive outfielders, in the field simultaneously.
by DK on Jan 15, 2009 11:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Cuddy's defense
Where in the world did this “Cuddyer is terrible in RF” meme come from? Were we not just talking about how awesome it is to have that (healthy) cannon arm holding runners to first off the baggy and gunning down suckers at home?
Were we not just talking about how Bill James (IIRC) had Cuddy as the bar-none most valuable defensive RF in the game for the 2007 year, saving us something like 10-15 runs above average just with his arm?
I must have missed the memo.
formerly known in these parts as adamb
by ravenfly on Jan 16, 2009 12:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
HIs +/- is atrocious
somewhere around 25 plays a full year over the past 3 years. That’s horrific-one of the worst in the league. Roughly similar to Manny Ramirez. He makes up a little with his arm, but not nearly enough. He really isn’t good out there.
by Eric in Madison on Jan 16, 2009 1:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+/-
Help me out here; my google-fu appears to be weak. Can you link me to an explanation of +/-? Can’t seem to find one at any of the usual suspects.
Going off of range factor (yes, I’m aware how flawed it is, and you could argue that it’s particularly brutal to Cuddy given the weird RF in the dome) he’s hovered around league average, with a ton of assists.
formerly known in these parts as adamb
by ravenfly on Jan 16, 2009 4:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It's part of John Dewan's Fielding Bible
and is explained at billjamesonline, which is a subscription site, so I don’t want to cut and paste.
Essentially it’s a play-by-play system in which each play is evaluated.
by Eric in Madison on Jan 16, 2009 5:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He's waaaay better than Manny
Cuddyer is not as good as Span in right. He’s not as good as Jones was. But my sense is his range is about average for right fielders. Right field is a place where teams put lumbering sluggers. Cuddyer is not exactly lumbering. He’s not fast, but I wouldn’t call him slow. His jumps are a little slow sometimes. But he makes up for all of that with his arm. To me, he’s an above average right fielder, all things considered.
Young, is not bad either, but he’s the fourth best outfielder on this team.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on Jan 16, 2009 5:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I've been over this before.
Your “sense” means nothing to me when it conflicts with the numbers. Cuddyer’s career UZR/150 in right field is -11.1. That is atrocious any way you slice it, and his arm comes no where close to making up for it.
by DK on Jan 16, 2009 5:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ultimate UZR is a runs-based system
so that number is telling us that Cuddyer costs more than 1 win per 150 games on defense as compared to an average RF.
by Eric in Madison on Jan 16, 2009 5:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm confused
1 run over and entire season sounds marginal to me. If 1 run below average is atrocious, then you have just argued that defense shouldn’t be considered at all. Please help me out here.
by snolls on Jan 17, 2009 11:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He's talking about 1 WIN
or about 10 runs, not 1 run…
by Adam Peterson on Jan 17, 2009 6:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OK
I give. Uncle. I believe in UZR.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on Jan 16, 2009 6:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Young is definitely fourth best
his numbers were atrocious, worse than Manny last year in LF.
Yep, Cuddyer is -10 UZR or worse. He makes up for his range somewhat with his arm, but I doubt he gets any better than something around -3 to -5 or so.
by Adam Peterson on Jan 16, 2009 6:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Platoons
Young and Kubel will essentially be a DH platoon
I agree, mostly. Cuddy will also get some time at first base to give Morneau a break. There’s a reason why he fades at the end of the year when he’s forced to play every day.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on Jan 15, 2009 11:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To some extent
I’d sit Kubel against half of the LHP, in favor of Young. I’d also play Young in LF against other LHP, sitting Span (but only rarely, perhaps 5-10 games next year). I’d sit Gomez against the tougher RHP (especially those with really good sliders), and Cuddyer against other RHP. We’ve got roughly 2800 PA to go around between the four positions. Comes out to 560 per player, which will keep guys well rested and is a good insurance policy if anyone is injured.
by Adam Peterson on Jan 16, 2009 6:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Makes sense
Barring injury, they all should get 400+ at bats. And when the inevitable injury happens…
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on Jan 16, 2009 7:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pridie will get his chance
when the inevitable injury happens. Pridie needs to dominate AAA next year and force himself onto the MLB roster or force us to trade him.
by Adam Peterson on Jan 16, 2009 7:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I admit I haven't studied this fully
but Gomez’s .254 /.295/.350 line is a lot to overcome on D stats alone. I believe Span could do an above average job in CF and that Cuddy could do his normal job in right. You would lose a few runs in CF and probably more in RF, but hopefully the offense would make up for it.
Defensive stats are tough, so I’m just throwing this idea out there. Without the advanced stats, my gut says that the defensive hit that would go with improving the lineup is worth it on most days.
Also, I am of the belief that a guy who just turned 23 a few weeks ago could benefit from some AAA time he never really got. Most stud prospects his age are mashing in AA and not being over matched by MLB pitchers. It’s not fair to Gomez for people to be down on him just because he’s been rushed.
by carverslacker on Jan 16, 2009 1:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know, but here's my thinking
Span was marginally above average in RF, and below average in a very small sample in CF. My sense is he’d be average in a corner and below in center.
But the real issue is this: swapping Cuddyer in for Gomez is going to cost you maybe 60 or more plays a year if their numbers hold up. Cuddyer has been consistently bad. I don’t see why he’d be getting any better. That’s a huge difference.
I’m hoping last year’s .296/.360 becomes something more like .320/.400 this year, and if so there is no question you are better of with Gomez. Even without that improvement, I’m still in favor of playing him .
by Eric in Madison on Jan 16, 2009 1:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
Preface: I don’t understand defensive statistics well enough to use them in an argument. When I hear people reach a conclusion based on those stats, i pretty much have to just believe them
So, basically, I guess I believe you about Span, but that doesn’t mesh with what I watched. He absolutely flies around the outfield (and the bases, on a related matter). I rarely saw him mis-play a ball, which I did see Gomez do. I agree that Gomez is better, but based solely on my visual evidence, it didn’t look like it was enough to make up for the bat.
However, you are right that the real trade is Gomez for Young/Cuddyer. This is a big defensive loss, but you have to way it against the fact that, unless you actually think that he figured something out all of a sudden in september (please tell me why you think so), he just isn’t good enough to hit major league pitching.
Lastly, I want to stress a point I have brought up numerous times before: We need to differentiate between the better player, and the better team decision. For instance, who is a better baseball player, Alex Rodriguez or Nick Punto? Clearly, Alex Rodriguez. Now, who would you prefer that the Twins sign in free agency? I know we are all pretty anti Nick Punto, but it is preferable to the Twins committing $300 million to one baseball player
The same perspective needs to be taken with prospects. Carlos Gomez might help the Twins more this year than Cuddyer, Young or Pridie. However, the benefit that he can give us this year is probably smaller than the benefit that he would be able to give us if he had 1 year more experience at AAA. If he had never made it to the major leagues, and he was putting put .280/.340/.400 stats in AA and AAA, I don’t think we would be arguing to rush him to the majors. I think we would all recognize that with a little more seasoning, he could be a star, and that for a team like the twins, the most important thing is having cheap stars. If we let him turn into a star in the minor leagues, we get more stardom for the same dollars. If he becomes a star at the major league level, we then have to compete with the Yankees/Sox to keep him.
Everyone needs to remember that we became a good team because we had a bunch of cheap stars. Santana was a pitcher that we had locked up at the same time that Mauer, Morneau, Cuddyer, Nathan, etc were still playing for either the minimum or less than market value. That is how we went from the Twins of the 90’s to the Twins of the new millenium. From here on out, Mauer, Morneau, Cuddyer and Nathan now cost us more than half of our available salary ($40m+). They aren’t as valuable to us anymore, and unless they agree to stay for less than market value, we will have to trade them.
The key to the Twins being successful is that they have new, cheap talent. Right now the true value we have in major league talent is in Baker/Slowey/Blackburn/Liriano/Span/Mijares and maybe even Casilla. We also have some close to ready promising players in Valencia/Hughes/Ramos/Swarzak. To be a real contender, the Twins will have to count on the consistent emergence of fresh talent, or timing a bumper crop to arrive at once. Making sure that players have made the most of their growth potential in the minors is crucial.
This has become a poorly organized rant, but it is still an important point. If the Twins promoted every player as soon as they were better than their worst counterpart on the major league team, then Mauer would’ve wasted a year as a backup in the big leagues, and all of our pitchers would have wasted a year or two in the bullpen. We get an incremental win or two from such a promotion, but we lose much more than that in subsequent years, when they acheive their potential but have salaries that reflect their true value.
by snolls on Jan 16, 2009 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't buy that
Cheap talent is important, but less so with the new stadium. The key is to maximize the talent we have regardless of cost. Gomez has little to learn in AAA. You might save some money down the road, but the talent won’t be as good either. You send Gomez down now and what you end up with the what Gomez is now. You keep him and let him learn how to hit major league pitching and you might have something really special. You can’t learn how to hit major league pitching in AAA.
You asked if Gomez figured something out in September. In fact, Gomez made fairly steady improvement after a horrible May slump. Here is his line for September: .289/ .330 /.470/.800. That’s pretty good for an elite defensive center fielder.
As for Span’s defense, your eyes deceive you somewhat. His first couple of months with the team were fantastic, mostly in right. Why did he make so many plays in right? Well, he played well—let’s not take anything away there. But also, he was able to cover the line more because Gomez had the gaps. When Span played in center, there was a noticeable increase in hits into the gaps. He also misplayed a lot of balls in center—not errors, but balls tipping off his glove after a long run or balls getting past him that he should have cut off. And there were a few bad games when he actually played balls into homers and things. He’s the second best fielder on this team, but it isn’t really that close.
Also, people forget that Span’s numbers are somewhat inflated by a torrid streak when he first came up. He cooled as the season went along. Here are his September numbers: .278/.391/.398 /.789
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on Jan 16, 2009 5:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
.278/.391/.398
I’m so, so very happy with that from a plus defender and baserunning threat in the leadoff spot. Love it.
formerly known in these parts as adamb
by ravenfly on Jan 16, 2009 5:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
It’s a very good line, especially the OBP part. Span needs to start—no question. But he was not the best hitting outfielder on the team in September. Gomez was.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on Jan 16, 2009 5:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll take Span in September
OPS isn’t the right statistic to look at here, in my opinion. The statistic that matters is the OBP. .391 vs .330. That’s huge. OBP is worth more than slugging, and the slugging numbers are more easily distorted by a small sample size (one month).
by snolls on Jan 17, 2009 11:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll take it too
He simply needs to get on base in front of Mauer and Morneau. Any slugging we get from him is icing on the cake, but with Punto and Gomez hitting in front of him there’s not going to be a ton of RBI opportunities.
by Adam Peterson on Jan 17, 2009 6:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
A nice average for a rookie finishing up probably his longest season in his career (including his games in the minors).
by Twins Territory on Jan 16, 2009 7:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
.391
is just about the only number I really care about in his September numbers. I want OBP out of my leadoff hitter. The fact he managed nearly an 800 OPS while he “cooled” is OK by me.
Good point on Gomez’ range helping out Span on defense. This is entirely possible. When Span was in CF (a much smaller sample, by the way), his UZR was much lower.
Our best bet defensively (and we all know how Gardy thinks…) is Span-Gomez-Cuddyer in LF-CF-RF. We know Young is going to get plenty of playing time though…
by Adam Peterson on Jan 16, 2009 7:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nope
Our best defensive outfield would be Span-Gomez-Pridie, but we know we won’t do that, because offense is worth more than defense.
by snolls on Jan 17, 2009 11:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was only considering the five "real" starting candidates
for an OF job. Of course, offense is taken into consideration.
by Adam Peterson on Jan 17, 2009 6:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I understand
I wasn’t trying to be harsh. I’m just pointing out that we shouldn’t look at it as which is the best offensive or defensive outfield. Its balancing the two that matters.
by snolls on Jan 18, 2009 10:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Marginally above average in RF?
Span was much better than that. He posted a +10.1 UZR/150 in RF last year. Great defense out there. Over an entire season, that’s 10 runs saved, compared to average.
by Adam Peterson on Jan 16, 2009 6:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Span's defense....
….was pretty spectacular to me. The plays he made game after game to save runs was crazy. I’m thinking he’ll play in left here in ‘09, how do you guys think he’ll do there?
by Twins Territory on Jan 16, 2009 7:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he'll be great in LF
especially playing alongside Gomez. Both guys could play straight up, or perhaps Gomez could shade a bit toward RF to compensate for lack of range for whoever’s out there. With some of our fly ball pitchers, Span-Gomez would be a godsend.
by Adam Peterson on Jan 16, 2009 8:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree...
I think he’s the type of outfielder that can play any of the three effectivley.
by Twins Territory on Jan 17, 2009 1:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
It’s as though he was made for left field in the Metrodome. Left is almost as big as center under the Dacron cloud. And catching the ball with his right hand should help him on balls down the line. He sort of reminds of me Jacque Jones, except he has a much more accurate arm.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on Jan 17, 2009 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would project as follows
in terms of Wins Above Replacement (WAR):
Span: 600 PA, 2.7 WAR, split between LF, CF, RF
Gomez: 500 PA, 1.8 WAR
Cuddyer: 500 PA, 1.4 WAR
Young: 575 PA, 0.6 WAR
Kubel: 550 PA, 1.2 WAR
Basically, IMO Gomez is probably better able to make up for his poor hitting with great (+15 runs) defense than Young can make up for -12 run defense and poor baserunning with a little bit above average hitting.
by Adam Peterson on Jan 16, 2009 6:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent article
There are reasons to keep Gomez around, even though I agree it’s not the right decision. 1) Fans (at least the non-sabermetric ones) generally love him. 2) His D in CF does save quite a few runs, although defensive statistics are still behind offensive and pitching stats. 3) It would be admitting the Johan trade has not panned out as well as hoped to date – I certainly hope this isn’t part of the equation, which it probably isn’t.
it’s too bad the OF market and the SS/3B market aren’t switched. The Twins could have gotten a bargain upgrade and fair value for their surplus, but that’s the way it goes.
by carverslacker on Jan 15, 2009 10:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
His D in CF does save quite a few runs,
His defense is off the charts
As for how you play 5 outfielders fulltime, that’s easy. It’s like juggling three balls. It’s deceptive, because only one ball is in the air at any time.
3 outfielders, a DH and an injury.
by Johnny Safron on Jan 15, 2009 10:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Gomez is a gamer.
Gardy prizes defensive intensity. Gomez brings that. Every. Single. Game.
He’s going to be better this year than last. Why would you send him out?
Bat him 9th. With Gomez and Span playing outfield, you could put Tom Kelly in left and still have the best defense in the AL Central.
And, remember, scoring runs was not the problem last year…
by Old Twins Cap on Jan 15, 2009 10:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Gardy
Gardy also prizes veteran-ness and good decision making. Not exactly Gomez’s strong suits.
by snolls on Jan 16, 2009 10:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Neither is it Young's
Young is the odd man out, who will have to earn at bats in a DH platoon.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on Jan 16, 2009 10:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep.
He’ll be fighting for at-bats if he’s around come April.
by Twins Territory on Jan 16, 2009 7:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What is best for Gomez?
All indications (from their lack of activity this offseason) are that they’re playing for 2010. So the question is the same as last year at this time: Where will Gomez learn the most? If he is the center fielder for 2010, 2009 needs to be a learning experience, because, as you have said, he has all the tools. It’s just a question of when he will develop some key skills, like plate discipline.
I maintain that he will not learn plate discipline in AAA. He really doesn’t struggle with plate discipline per se, at least he didn’t in the second half of 2008. He struggles with pitch recognition, which is related to plate discipline, but not the same thing. He can work counts full, but if he can’t tell the difference between a fastball and a slider out of the hand, guys with good sliders will get him out on 3-2 counts all the time. And that is the one skill that he needs to learn to become an above average offensive player—not just working the count, but having a positive outcome.
My problem with sending him to AAA is there aren’t a lot of pitchers down there with good sliders. If a guy has enough control of a good slider to throw it for a strike on a 3-2 count to the fastest man in baseball, he’s not going to stay in AAA very long. So Gomez will not have the opportunity to work on the one thing he needs to learn if he’s sent to AAA. Sure, he could polish some stuff, but he’s not going to get over the hump against AAA pitching.
I agree with the comments on his defense, it is far better than Span’s. So he’s an asset to this team even as he learns how to recognize fastballs from sliders. He’s a plenty good number 9 hitter for a guy who gets to as many balls as he does. Our best team for 2009 and 2010 has Gomez in center. If Span has indeed earned a starting spot, it should be at the expense of Young or Cuddyer rather than Gomez.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on Jan 15, 2009 11:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Sliders
If Gomez goes down, and mashes AAA fastballs, curveballs and changeups, then I we will know that he is ready to work on the sliders. More importantly, we will know that he needs to face major league pitching to improve.
However, it is clear that he never dominated minor league pitching. We all recognize that he was always young for his level, and that he wa impressive CONSDERING that fact.
A ball: .275/.331/.376/.707.
AA ball: .281/.350/.423/.773
AAA ball: .286/.363/.414/.777 (in only 140 at bats)
Those stats are fine (good in fact). However, they are not domination. It must be noted that the AAA stats are a small sample size. If you take out a mysterious 20 HBP in AA his on-base percentage comes down a lot. We also have to remember that a lot of his on-base percentage was produced by bunts, infield singles and reached-on-errors (I couldn’t find a stat for reached-on-error). Major league fielding will reduce the number of these types of hits, though hopefully he will still get a lot of them.
So, lost in the fact that he’s so young, is that he still needs to prove he knows how to hit fastballs, and recognize off-speed pitches. His career is suffering because the Mets pushed him too fast. We can undo their mistakes, but it requires admitting that we didn’t get Santana quality players by trading Santana.
by snolls on Jan 16, 2009 10:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Two things
- Bunting and infield singles are part of his game. Luis Castillo had a lot of infield singles and nobody said they didn’t count. Ditto Ichiro. Even the HBP are significant. He got thrown at a lot last year. Why? Because he bunted a lot and pitchers hate that.
- I for one did not expect any one player we got in the Santana trade to have “Santana talent”. Not too many players in baseball have that level of talent. Maybe a dozen or so. To expect Gomez to ever reach that level is a lot to ask for a 22 year old. And it’s telling that you bring it up. Could it be that you expected him to be better because he was the only major league player we received for Santana?
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on Jan 16, 2009 5:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Totally right.
I don’t like when people call his bunts “cheap hits” and whatnot. That is a major part of his game whether people like it or not. If he can lay the ball down and run it out, he’s on base isn’t he? Plus, getting on base is like another at-bat for Gomez. He can steal within a few seconds and be in scoring position one pitch later.
by Twins Territory on Jan 16, 2009 7:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As far as hits are concerned
bunts are about as “cheap” as you can get, as a bunt will seldom advance runners beyond a single base. But that’s beside the point. Bunting is a huge part of Gomez’ offensive game. His OBP probably would have been even worse (yes, it’s possible) if he had never bunted.
by Adam Peterson on Jan 16, 2009 8:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
not the point
nobody’s saying bunts are cheap hits. Snolls was contesting Cmath’s argument that Gomez has nothing to learn in AAA. the point about bunts is that they conceal his lack of hitting skills — the ones he uses when actually swinging — the ones he needs to get better at. You can’t use overall OBP to judge his hitting skills if they include bunts. Without bunts, his OBP is miserable. And I think a man of his talent could, in fact, get much better at hitting. He was robbed of the opportunity to progress and is now playing way over his head.
Cmath makes an interesting point, that to improve at the MLB level he needs to see MLB pitching. But I don’t buy it. Why is that the best path for him, and not for every other player in the league?
He shouldn’t be wasting his development flailing cluelessly, and bunting to keep from being a complete liability. He should be learning to hit. Add his bunting to even average hitting skills and decent power, and he’s a huge plus offensively for a CF.
The guy has never shown that he has learned much about hitting. He doesn’t recognize and crush everything but sliders. He doesn’t recognize much of anything. He swings at more bad balls than just about anyone in the league besides Delmon Young. He could be so, so much better, if he wasn’t rushed so fast. Give the guy a chance to be a star.
In the minors, you can prioritize developing specific skills over winning games. He should work on what he does worst there, then spend his good years with the Twins. This is the perfect time to send him down, when he wouldn’t leave a gaping hole. He may or may not marginally improve the Twins this year, but at worst it would not be a huge drop-off. Take advantage of the depth, and send down the guy who would benefit most from it. It’s an investment in the future, both for him and the Twins.
by by jiminy on Jan 17, 2009 8:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good points
Yes, his bunting masks the fact that outside of his bunt attempts he was even worse than his overall line indicates. Definitely a LOT of room for improvement there. I think it’s an open question whether Gomez would improve more by playing in the majors versus AAA. In the majors, he would see the great sliders, etc and (hopefully) improve bit by bit at recognizing and laying off bad pitches. He would not see the great pitches in the minors, but he would probably learn patience and pitch recognition in general more quickly in AAA. All things being equal, I suspect Gomez would improve more by playing in AAA, but it’s not a slam dunk IMO.
As for asking why MLB is the best path for Gomez but not for other players… it’s because Gomez is already a valuable MLB player RIGHT NOW, even with poor hitting skills. Other, more average defensive players and slower baserunners have much less value until their hitting skills come around.
Bottom line, I think the best team we can put out there, at this point in 2009, is Span-Gomez-Cuddyer with Kubel at DH. Lots of playing time for all involved, and we can ensure that Young gets 500-600 PA as players shuffle around.
Finally, we have to consider the perception if Gomez were to be sent down to start the season. IMO, it would be perceived by all involved, including Gomez and his agent, that the Twins are sending him down solely to delay arbitration by a year. While this may a smart business move by the Twins, I don’t think it helps us come extension time (difficult anyway, given Gomez’ agent).
by Adam Peterson on Jan 17, 2009 9:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why is that the best path for him, and not for every other player in the league?
I never said the best path to major league success is to dominate in the minors first. I don’t believe that tenet. Though I recognize that this is a Twins tenet, I don’t buy it. My philosophy is, If a highly talented player has the skills to hold his own at the major league level, he’s best developed in the majors. I don’t think there’s a general rule here: Every player is different. But for very talented players like Gomez, Liriano or Garza, more minor league seasoning can do more harm than good by making them complacent with inferior competition. I realize that this is a philosophy rather than a scientific view. But so is the opposite. And there’s really no point in arguing about it.
I can, however, give my reasons for my philosophy. I believe that numbers are only one way to evaluate players in the minors. Some players play better in the minors than they will ever play in the majors. And some players take their games up a level when they play in the majors. I have seen too many players dominate AAA competition only to fall flat in the majors. And I have seen a lot of players step it up as competition gets tougher. The gap between AAA and major league competition is fairly wide. Whether a player can succeed in the majors with good AAA numbers is an open question. But if a player has been successful in the majors, there’s little point to sending him to AAA.
In Gomez’s case, I saw enough development last year that I think it would be pointless to give him more minor league seasoning. A lot of people disagree with that. If you asked me last May, I would have told you he’s overmatched up here and he needs more AAA seasoning. But after they put him in the nine hole, he started to relax and let his natural ability shine through. It was still maddening at times, but he gradually developed the confidence to succeed up here. By September, he was the best hitting outfielder on the team, all things considered. To send him down after all that might do more harm than good for him. And it can’t do that much good at this stage.
After arguing this point all offseason, I would be glad to declare an impasse and say we will have to agree to disagree.
One note on Pridie, though. If you think Gomez is maddening, just wait ‘till Pridie strikes out on three pitches with the bases loaded and one out. The grass is always greener. Pridie did roughly what Gomez did last year, except Gomez was in the majors and Pridie was in the minors. I don’t believe in changing the pecking order simply because of money.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on Jan 17, 2009 10:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
really
I could swear that last march, april, may, june, july, august and september, you were supporting Gomez strongly, as a great defensive CF whose minor league line showed that he was ready, and that he was steadily improving in front of our eyes. I could be mistaken, but that was always my impression of your review.
This next comment is in response to your comment above: "Cheap talent is important, but less so with the new stadium. The key is to maximize the talent we have regardless of cost. "
Respectfully, I think that this is a very naive view. I would like the Twins to maximize talent, regardless of cost, but they can’t. Only the Yankees and Red Sox can do that. If they should do it, then they should have signed A-Rod when he opted out, they should have kept Santana, and they should have signed Sabathia, Manny and Furcal. Then we would have maximized talent. The thing is, that would double our payroll this year.
I want to watch a successful and exciting Twins team. That is my goal. In order to do that, the team needs to recognize the bang they get for their buck. This is why we aren’t signing any 3B or SS right now. The team thinks that if they do, they get a marginal upgrade, and lose the ability to spend that many on a bigger difference maker in the future (like Mauer or Baker). If the Twins want to compete with the big boys, they have to look at what the keys to success have been for teams with lower budgets (A’s, Rays, Twins, etc.). That key is having a lot of talent whose growth exceeds their salary growth. Gomez may be our best CF right now (Its not clear to me how to balance his hitting against his fielding), but he’s not much above average. Gomez has one year of minimum salary, and 3 years of slow salary growth through arbitration remaining. If he can improve at all in the minor leagues, then we get a better bang for our buck during those 4 years. After those 4 years, the only benefit we get, is if he will sign for below market value, or the trade/draft compensation that we get for losing him. These also improve if he can be a better player through growth in the minors.
by snolls on Jan 17, 2009 12:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was inclined to give you the last word
But I feel I must correct one thing: I did express serious reservations about him in May. I held the position that, let’s see how he does in the nine hole. If he continues to struggle, then send him down. Fortunately or not, he didn’t struggle in the nine hole. He hit .286 /.328 /.400 /.728 out of the nine hole, which isn’t great, but isn’t enough to warrant a demotion. Unfortunately, when you struggle as bad as he did in the lead-off role, it does a lot of damage to your overall numbers.
On your other points, I respectfully disagree.Last year, we struggled to spend what we are required to spend under the labor agreement, which is why we signed washed-up free agents. This year, we will spend what we are required to, but will come in several percentage points below the 52% target. I really don’t see budget problems in the forseeable future, as long as we continue to develop from within and win enough games to draw at the gate. When we struggled monetarily, it was more on the revenue side. We have not had a revenue problem in three years. And I don’t see one in the future.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on Jan 17, 2009 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ok
The question is still how to spend that money. If you have the money to spend, spend it bringing in a new player. You still get more for your dollar by holding Gomez back a year, if he can learn ANYTHING at AAA.
by snolls on Jan 18, 2009 10:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I believe it is one factor
In the Twins case, it’s a bigger factor than they will admit. Jason Bartlett is the poster child on that score. This is why Roger’s report that a prominent Twins executive expects to send Gomez down for a few months in 2009 has added credibility. But I wish it were not as big a factor as it is. There is something sinister about intentionally being worse than you could be simply to save money four years down the road and beyond.
In some cases, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. You intentionally cripple your team to save money down the road and therefore fail to win enough to draw at the gate here and now. Hence you have a revenue problem that prevents you from spending the money you need to succeed. And down the spiral we go.
In Bartlett’s case, the Twins got off to a terrible start in 2006 and thus failed to draw nearly the fans a division championship team should until late August and September. We have argued round and round about what having Bartlett at short from April 1 on would have done to improve our chances of winning more, and drawing better. I have no idea how big an impact that had. But it had some impact. And the irony is, we never reaped the benefit of our early frugality—Tampa is.
If you do it, you do it with one player at a time so as to minimize the impact in the here and now. So we come back to how much impact not having Gomez from April 1 would have on our chances of being competitive and drawing enough to give us the means to make a run at it. This is where we are at an impasse.
One other thing: Bartlett arguably was better after his demotion than he would have been if he’d stayed up. He didn’t have anything to learn (leadership shmeadership), but he came back hungrier. Perhaps Gomez will be hungrier after a demotion. But I don’t think he’s the same kind of guy. Bartlett is laid back and thus needs added motivation to pick up his game. Gomez is a high-motor guy who actually gets too fired up sometimes. I don’t think he’d benefit in the same way. And again we are at an impasse about what he can learn beyond motivation at AAA.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on Jan 18, 2009 12:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why not send Young down?
He’s got stuff to learn. The Twins could save money next year and beyond if they can manage to keep him in AAA until August. So why not Young?
I don’t seriously propose sending him down. It’s kind of a reductio argument. But if Gomez is better than Young all things considered and we want to reduce the service time of our outfield corps, there’s an as good or better argument for sending Young out as Gomez.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on Jan 18, 2009 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Young could benefit more
from a kick in the a$$ standpoint than Gomez, IMO. He’s so laid back while Gomez is perhaps too fired up. Then again, Delmon is more likely to react negatively to a demotion…
by Adam Peterson on Jan 19, 2009 10:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If Gomez goes to AAA
it will only be because we want to limit service time, or because Gomez regresses, IMO. Considering where he ended up offensively last season, it would be difficult to regress. I’d be VERY happy with a little offensive improvement, perhaps from a .294 to a .310 wOBA. That’s about an 9-10 run difference over an entire season.
by Adam Peterson on Jan 16, 2009 7:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It's simple...
Monday: DH Kubel, LF Delmon, CF Gomez, RF Cuddyer
Tuesday: DH Kubel, LF Span, CF Gomez, RF Cuddyer
Wednesday: DH Kubel, LF Delmon, CF Span, RF Cuddyer
Thursday: DH Kubel, LF Delmon, CF Gomez, RF Span
Friday: DH Cuddyer, LF Delmon, CF Gomez, RF Span
Saturday: DH Delmon, LF Kubel, CF Span, RF Cuddyer
Sunday: DH Mauer, LF Kubel, CF Gomez, RF Span
Kubel plays 5 days/week. Delmon plays 5 days/week. Gomez plays 5 days/week. Span plays 6 days/week. Cuddyer plays 5 days/week.
Check out Goal Line Blitz, a fun web-based American footbal MMORPG
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=2882412
by joeiscool12 on Jan 16, 2009 12:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Kubel actually played 6 days a week, there… but yeah.
Check out Goal Line Blitz, a fun web-based American footbal MMORPG
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=2882412
by joeiscool12 on Jan 16, 2009 12:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Most weeks only have 6 games
But the point is valid. If you let Cuddy play first every once in a while also, they should all get close to 500 pa.
by lookatthosetwins on Jan 16, 2009 12:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather see Morneau
Morneau played in 163 games this past year. He’s a big part of the everyday lineup and hates to sit. I think this year maybe he should take a rest, because he refused it late this past year and slumped. But I want to see him close to 160 games at least.
by Twins Territory on Jan 16, 2009 7:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Morneau's slump
Was probably due not only to lack of rest, but also simply pressing at the end of the year. How much effect would sitting three games have over a six month season?
by Adam Peterson on Jan 16, 2009 8:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
20 games off of 1B
That would be like 1 per week. That means that instead of playing in the field 6 times per week, he’d play 5. That’s a much bigger difference.
by snolls on Jan 17, 2009 12:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Will sitting Morneau 10 games be worth it?
The question is, would his performance improve by an amount to make up for the 10 games where we start Buscher at 1B? (20 if there’s an additional 10 at DH). I don’t know. Depends on how much of his late season slump was physical/mental exhaustion and how much was simply pressing down the stretch.
by Adam Peterson on Jan 17, 2009 6:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He needs more rest
He always seems to fade down the stretch. So he could do with a couple of days off a month. Last year, it wasn’t an option because we really couldn’t do much of anything offensively without him in there. But if we had legitimate bench bats, like Delmon, we might be able to give him the rest he needs.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on Jan 17, 2009 8:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Options
Between Buscher and Cuddyer we have two reasonable options to put at 1B. This means that Morneau’s 60 PAs over 10 games get split over Buscher, Cuddyer, Delmon and Kubel. At most, you are probably looking at reaching base 2 fewer times over those at bats, with a 3 total bases lost. I have to imagine that a stronger Morneau makes up for more than that in his remaining 500 PAs.
by snolls on Jan 18, 2009 10:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Makes sense to me
We have the depth now (until someone gets hurt) to allow Morneau to rest and not take too bad a hit. Cuddyer would be my first choice to play a few games at 1B, allow Young-Gomez-Span to roam the OF on those days.
by Adam Peterson on Jan 19, 2009 10:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I like this plan
Simplistic, yes, and it does have a limitation that virtually all off days are Mondays and Thursdays, but it’d be easy to do, as long as Gardy has a calendar.
"There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
by BeefMaster on Jan 16, 2009 11:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
fired
I can’t think of a better reason to fire a manager than if he were assigning lineup slots based on days of the week.
Well, maybe if he were assigning batting order based on position played. But hey, no major league manager would stoop to that…
formerly known in these parts as adamb
by ravenfly on Jan 16, 2009 12:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
Now batting second, second baseman Nick Punto.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on Jan 16, 2009 5:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I really juts chose the days...
To help seperate it out. Obviously, you wouldn’t play the same people on certain days of every week. My point is mainly that it is pretty simple to give everybody plenty of plate appearances.
Didn’t Dusty Baker do that or somebody?
Check out Goal Line Blitz, a fun web-based American footbal MMORPG
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=2882412
by joeiscool12 on Jan 16, 2009 5:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh...
And the second baseman would actually be batting clean-up.
Check out Goal Line Blitz, a fun web-based American footbal MMORPG
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=2882412
by joeiscool12 on Jan 16, 2009 6:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That was a reference to Gardy
Who used to always hit the second baseman second no matter who it was.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on Jan 16, 2009 6:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
red dawg
Don’t forget batting masher Mike Redmond third.
Man, those Sunday afternoon lineups were brutal.
formerly known in these parts as adamb
by ravenfly on Jan 16, 2009 7:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He still does it...
We’ll see the mostly the same positions in the same spots all season. Shortstop eight, third base seven, etc.
by Twins Territory on Jan 16, 2009 7:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's true, however...
The fact of the matter is that whether it was Harris/Everett/Gomez or Buscher/Punto/Gomez or whatever… Those three were the three worst batters in the line-up and probably deserved to be at that spot in the line-up.
Check out Goal Line Blitz, a fun web-based American footbal MMORPG
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=2882412
by joeiscool12 on Jan 17, 2009 1:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Mutter, mutter, mutter...
If Cuddyer is going to have a great year then you really want/need him out there.
Must see if Young will become all he was predicted to become.
Span is our best lead-off option.
Oh yeah, defense. Hmmm…
If Cuddy hadn’t been signed to a long-term deal before getting hurt he would be the one to dump. Now you feel like you need to see if that investment pays off.
But aren’t they all investments?
"You got to be careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there." - Yogi Berra
by Marv_MN on Jan 16, 2009 1:26 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
SERVICE TIME! SERVICE TIME! SERVICE TIME!
This has been a great discussion about whether Gomez’s defense makes up for his offense, etc., and there are a lot of interesting unresolved questions — whether Gomez’s september stats will really continue, whether Span’s poor defensive numbers in CF are just small sample size, etc. — but none of this really engages Jesse’s main point about service time.
Gomez may or may not be improve the team this year. But the trade-off in sending him down is not just to have him be better the following year after receiving the AAA training he never got. He’d be better EVERY year thereafter. And that isn’t even the real point.
from the perspective of service time, you’d be trading probably one of his worst years — his early, amateurish efforts when he’s still learning to play — for one of his peak years — at the same price. If you skip on of his early serf years now, you add one at the end. If things go as one would hope for a man of his immense skills and extreme youth, when he finally does reach arbitration and free agency years, his contract will be huge. And it’s one of those years you get for free, if you forestall his service time now.
Considering what a liability he is at the plate right now, I doubt even his awesome defense really makes him the best man for the job this year — but if he is, it’s close. Considering you get a free year later, when he’s conceivably an all-star, if you wait, this to me is an easy decision.
You don’t even have to do it for a whole year. I think arguably you’d get more from him THIS YEAR if you send him down. Nothing concentrates the mind on plate discipline like believing you really have to do it if you want to play. And down there, he could concentrate only on that. When someone does get hurt or play himself out of a job, I think Gomez would come back much better.
Last year, all we heard from Gardy (in public, at least) was that he didn’t want to in any way hurt Gomez’s confidence and aggressiveness. That just seemed weird; confidence and aggressiveness were exactly the problem, at the plate at least — he thought he could hit every pitch thrown withing 20 feet. Make the guy practice patience and he could become a monster. Send him down!
by by jiminy on Jan 17, 2009 8:23 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Twins don't give a crap about his service time
We went through this with Longoria last year. Big league teams play to win. Period. And to what extent the Twins think Gomez can help them will determine where he gets his mail in 2009.
Bloggin' the bloggers since 1938.
by Johnny Safron on Jan 21, 2009 11:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is an excellent discussion
One thing that I haven’t seen brought up yet is that not all wins are of equal value to the team. If the Twins were a 70 win team in the AL East, the argument for sending Gomez down to preserve his service time would be much stronger. As an 85-ish win team with a realistic shot at the division, I think you have to go with Gomez if you think he can get you a win that might be the difference in the division. There’s a lot of money in it for the team if they make the postseason — I don’t have the necessary numbers to do a quantitative analysis, but keeping Gomez on the team does have a potential cash payoff as well. It seems to me like you need to take a shot when you think you have a chance for a playoff spot (within reason). By the time the Twins realize any benefits from sending Gomez down they could be looking a long ways up at a 100-win Cleveland team.
by cowdisciple on Jan 19, 2009 9:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
OPS+
Span 125
Gomez 79
Young 102
Kubel 118
Cuddyer 92
Wait — which one was indispensable again?
by by jiminy on Jan 21, 2009 8:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Shaving with a dull ax
I hope the Twins don’t make decisions solely on OPS+ for a whole year. I hope they also include considerations of improvement, and defense, and projection. If they do, Span is probably still a better player, all things considered. But the gap is not nearly as wide as the full year’s OPS+.And, if they do, Gomez is the second best outfielder on that list, all things considered.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on Jan 21, 2009 11:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Right
I think anyone would have to project some amount of regression from Span and progression from Gomez this year, as well as Young and Cuddyer ending up about the same (off the top of my head I’d guess probably around 100 – 105 OPS+ for both).
I see Cuddyer and Young as basically two versions of the same player at this point, except one is seven years younger. I don’t really care who plays more of the two of them, as long as they’re not both taking huge chunks of time from Span/Gomez/Kubel. I’d expect Cuddyer to end up playing more if he’s not hurt, though, since he’s become one of Gardy’s guys – which is a little amusing in retrospect considering three years ago he was one of the guys Gardy jerked around the most.
by DK on Jan 22, 2009 8:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Regression and Progression
An argument can be made for improvement from Gomez, but it would be just that, improvement rather “progression” back up to the mean. I have no idea where Gomez’ mean truly is.
As for Span, why couldn’t the same argument apply? Yes, his performance last year may have been a bit lucky and a regression to the mean might be in order, but he could very well improve, effectively cancelling out any regression. It all depends on if Span’s plate discipline was for real last year or just a one year fluke.
by Adam Peterson on Jan 23, 2009 6:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, fine
I didn’t mean to imply that “progression” by Gomez was anything other than “improvement”. Sorry for not meeting your semantical standards.
As far as Span goes, my only point is that considering his minor league track record, it’s hard to expect him to do that well for the full 2009 season. Maybe he’ll improve, maybe everyone will improve, but some players, with longer track records, deserve more confidence than others. I won’t be surprised if Span maintains that level of production, but I won’t expect him to until he does it again. More importantly, the Twins themselves should not be counting on him maintaining it until it happens, if it happens.
by DK on Jan 23, 2009 10:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I could care less about "semantical standards"
Just wanted to understand where you saw Gomez’ true talent level, whether he was unlucky last year (thus go back to the mean) or if he would improve.
Totally agree on Span. The track record isn’t there, meaning there isn’t the same kind of confidence we’d have for guys with much more consistent production. We’ll see.
FWIW, relative to each player’s PECOTA projections last season, Gomez’ .251 EQA was a shade above his 50th percentile projection (.249). Span’s .307 EQA blew his 90th percentile projection (.284) out of the water.
by Adam Peterson on Jan 24, 2009 9:06 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Projecting progression
Projection is the part of analysis I struggle with the most. I don’t think there’s a lot of science here. Sure you can compare a guy’s age and experience with his raw numbers, and that will get you a ballpark understanding. But the hidden variable is upside, and that is typically determined by scouts who watch kids work out and hit in the cage and do all kinds of stuff outside of games. My sense is scouts work as much on gut feel as they do on any advanced metrics.
If I were to compare Span and Gomez in terms of upside, I would say Gomez has more upside, but Span could become a star someday too. Gomez has more raw power and more raw speed. Span has a better batting eye. I’ve seen more guys with Span’s tools actually hit their upsides than guys with Gomez’s tools.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
by cmathewson on Jan 24, 2009 11:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Me too
Which is why I’ve been focusing much more on analysis of the 2008 MLB Gameday play by play data. I’m looking to know as much as possible about the past so that I can look for patterns in the future.
As for Span versus Gomez, yes. Gomez has more upside, but he is more raw than Span. Part of the reason I suspect guys with Span’s tools reach their upside more often is simply a matter of starting off less raw and having a lower upside. There’s not as far to progress.
by Adam Peterson on Jan 25, 2009 8:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I apologize
for being so snarky. I don’t want to come off as “Johnny Safron-lite”. Like usual, I agree with what you said there in full.
by DK on Jan 24, 2009 5:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No problem
I’ll leave it to others to debate semantics…
by Adam Peterson on Jan 25, 2009 8:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 














