Looking Forward: Projecting the 2010 Twins

by Adam Peterson on Dec 17, 2009 5:00 AM EST in By the Numbers Comment 60 comments

As the rumor mills fly, optimism abounds for the upcoming 2010 season. Just how good are the Twins going to be in 2010? What are the biggest holes that need to be filled during the off season? And just as importantly, how can we assess the effect that potential moves could have to improve the ball club? Many of you have probably heard of using "Wins Above Replacement", or "WAR" as a method to evaluate a player's total value to a team, compared to a "replacement" player, one who is freely available at no cost from AAA, in season free agents, etc. For the last couple of years, the website Beyond the Boxscore, and more recently on a Twinkie Town Fan Post by Jon Kammerer, fans have compiled a list of player by player WAR projections to project an estimated number of wins for entire teams, divisions and leagues.

I've done similar projections for the Twins the last few years, with varying levels of success. This year, I'm taking my projections in a different direction. Starting with actual 2009 statistics as a baseline, can I track the Twins' WAR projections as moves are made throughout the off season? This article gives us a start for a move-by-move assessment leading up to opening day. First things first, where do I put the Twins as of today? Bottom line, I project the Twins at 84-85 wins as the team is currently constructed. I've posted the full WAR spreadsheet on Google Docs here. I'm sure many of you will immediately be up in arms at a projection of a 2 win drop-off compared to 2009, a full three wins below Jon's analysis. I'll get into much more detail after the jump, but before we get there, let's take a deeper look at the three 2010 projections I've done to date compared to the 2009 data.

Date	C	1B	2B	3B	SS	LF	CF	RF	DH	SP	RP	Hit	Pitch	WAR	Wins	Notes
2009 Season	7.2	3.2	(1.3)	1.4	0.8	0.9	1.9	2.2	3.1	12.6	5.1	19.4	17.6	37.1	82.1	Actual 2009 season data
01 Nov 2009	6.1	3.1	0.6	0.4	1.4	1.1	2.4	2.1	2.2	12.5	5.3	19.5	17.8	37.3	82.3	End of season. No free agents
06 Nov 2009	6.1	2.9	1.2	0.6	2.9	0.3	2.7	1.7	2.3	12.5	5.3	20.7	17.8	38.5	83.5	Hardy-Gomez, Buscher
10 Dec 2009	6.1	2.9	1.2	0.6	2.9	0.3	2.7	1.7	2.3	13.5	5.4	20.7	18.8	39.5	84.5	Pavano, Bonser

How do I get to my projections for each player? I don't use any single projection system out there, but I don't use my own home-grown system either. Since some projections are more conservative than others (for example, Bill James' is notoriously optimistic), I put a number of systems, including Bill James and CHONE, side by side along with the previous three years data and eyeball wOBA and FIP performance for a given player. I put a lot more thought into how I assign plate appearances and innings pitched for each player on the team. You probably notice that most of my PA/IP projections appear a bit low. This allows me to account for risk of injuries, as well as assess a team's depth in the projections. Projecting every position player and member of the starting rotation to play a full season will over-project by quite a bit.

What have I found so far? First of all, I was very surprised that plugging in the final 2009 season statistics into the WAR projection spreadsheets came out at 82.1 wins, five fewer than the Twins actually won (87), and around four fewer than the Twins Pythagorean win total (86.6). Does this mean the WAR projection system is fundamentally flawed when applying to entire teams? I don't think so. I've written on a number of occasions about how the Twins do the "little things" that don't appear in the box score (or wOBA or FIP), but help a team score or prevent runs. I suspect that this explains most of the five run difference and a little luck explains the rest.

Step by step this off season, how has the team improved? Surprisingly, the moment the season ended, my projections actually jumped slightly from 82.1 to 82.3 wins. How could this be, considering that free agents Carl Pavano, Joe Crede, Orlando Cabrera and Ron Mahay were no longer on the roster? Looking at the table above, other than projected declines at catcher (-1.1) third base (-1.0) and DH (-0.9), other positions offset. Middle infield, in particular (+2.5) projected an improvement, primarily due to last season's second basemen (1.3 runs below replacement) being historically bad, and expecting some improvement from a Casilla-Punto-Tolbert-Tolleson combination.

Looking at the moves so far this off season in two chunks, by my projections the Twins have improved themselves by about two wins trading for Hardy and reinstating Pavano. As expected, the Hardy trade improved SS (+1.5) and 2B (+0.6, Punto being a better 2B option than Casilla). These gains were offset by a large loss in LF(-0.8, due to Delmon Young playing pretty much full time). In the end, just over a one win improvement due to the trade. Pavano accepting arbitration also improved the Twins by around one win by setting the #4 spot in the rotation. I only project 140 innings from Pavano, so while one marginal win may not be "worth" the presumed $6-7M he'll get in arbitration, those innings replace 140 innings from Swarzak, Manship and Perkins, which is an improvement over the above replacement value the others would have provided.

Looking forward, I'll continue to update this spreadsheet as the Twins make moves and roster spots are set leading up to opening day. According to the projections, the Twins biggest holes are in LF (Delmon Young slightly above replacement), 3B (Harris-Tolbert is not very good, and I don't project much from Valencia - although he projects better than Harris or Tolbert), and 2B (Punto). Same as the Twinkie Town consensus. In the meantime, I look forward to your comments. Where am I terribly wrong with the projections? What would you do to improve the ball club, and how much effect would it have?

0 recs | Comment 60 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Replacement Level

We actually agree on total WAR, 39.5. I think you used a slightly lower replacement level. Mine was 48.4. Do you find the same spread between teams as I projected in my other post?

by Jon Kammerer on Dec 17, 2009 8:15 AM EST reply actions

I haven't worked on the other teams

but it’s interesting that the total WAR works out about the same. I used the BtB replacement level of 45 wins from Sky’s spreadsheet. It’s certainly possible that the replacement level is a bit low and that my real projection of total wins is more in line with yours. What I’m really looking at is how the team improves through the off season, and that’s independent of the baseline replacement level.

by Adam Peterson on Dec 17, 2009 12:39 PM EST up reply actions

It might be best to do this for EVERY team,

then set the replacement level so an average team ends up at 81 wins. If not that, it might be more accurate just to use WAA and compare that to 81 wins. I guess in that case you’d have to determine what average is, but that might be easier than determining replacement level.

by lookatthosetwins on Dec 17, 2009 1:29 PM EST up reply actions

fangraphs used 47 wins as replacement level

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/war-it-works. It may vary between 45-48 wins. It shouldn’t matter much for player comparisons or divisional comparisons. The only time the exact number would matter is predicting playoff odds.

by Jon Kammerer on Dec 17, 2009 2:16 PM EST up reply actions

Good suggestions

If your wins don’t reconcile to a zero sum across the league then your predictions are going to be off. Even having your average team as .500 doesn’t help if it predicts the league winning percentage to be .510 or .480

by DJL44 on Dec 17, 2009 3:16 PM EST up reply actions

That's what I've done in the past

but frankly, I don’t have the time to do every team. Setting the replacement level correctly helps us to project the “true” total number of wins the Twins will have next year. So take the “82-84 wins” with a grain of salt when comparing to 2009’s 87 wins. I’m not making the argument that this is, or is not, an 85, 87, 90, 95, whatever win team. Can’t do that until replacement is set correctly, and that would differ based on how optimistic or pessimistic someone is with their projections.

What this ended up telling me was (a) we started the off season at about the same level we performed last season, and (b) we’ve improved by a little over two wins since then.

by Adam Peterson on Dec 17, 2009 3:31 PM EST up reply actions

Trouble with separtating out SP from RP

Using CHONE I have the Twins 2wAA from position players and 2wAA from pitchers. This isn’t leveraged, though. Rally hasn’t posted averages for wOBA and FIP so I used 2009 averages, which might make a small difference. Anyway 85+ wins using wAA.

by Jon Kammerer on Dec 20, 2009 7:05 PM EST up reply actions

playing time

Thanks for posting your spreadsheet. The main differences between our estimates is that you give less playing time to starting position players and more to Pavano and Slowey. I also assigned 8 more baserunning runs, just carrying forward 2009 non-stolen base contribution from BP.

by Jon Kammerer on Dec 17, 2009 2:53 PM EST up reply actions

I tend to ignore BP

for many statistics, including baserunning and especially defense. I’ve got my own baserunning stats, I’d prefer to use those once I get three years stats and I can do a weighted regression. Until then, I’m eyeballing.

by Adam Peterson on Dec 17, 2009 3:34 PM EST up reply actions

Agreed on defense and VORP

Do you have a particular reason to distrust the baserunning numbers? I was always impressed by Dan Fox’s work before he was scooped up by the Pirate front office.

by Jon Kammerer on Dec 17, 2009 4:35 PM EST up reply actions

Nothing in particular

I’ve just done it myself, that’s all.

by Adam Peterson on Dec 17, 2009 6:33 PM EST up reply actions

strange

I’m not sure I buy it. The team is better than last years. The Tigers and Indians are worse. The Whitesox are mildly better and the royals are the royals… yet somehow it is projecting less wins? I’m guessing we are sitting on a 90 win team right now, maybe 92 if things break. If we improve 2nd and 3rd, we are looking at 95 plus.

by diehardtwinsfan on Dec 17, 2009 8:20 AM EST reply actions

to finish the strange post.....

95 wins in the central will not be as strong as 95 wins in the east because our competition has weakened while the east is stronger minus the BlueJays next season.

Doofenschmirtz Evil, INC.
Phineas and Ferb

by doofus on Dec 17, 2009 9:14 AM EST up reply actions

This projection only considers the Twins players

and the WAR for each. It does not consider that other teams in the division appear to be worse than last year, presumably more wins for the Twins. In this sense, it’s “context neutral” at least as far as division competition is concerned.

by Adam Peterson on Dec 17, 2009 12:37 PM EST up reply actions

Well, I'm one of those optimists who think Delmon will improved with guaranteed playing time.

So I don’t think he’ll be as much a liability as all that.

Also, I’m going to be genuinely shocked if we go into spring training without someone at second or third — Crede, at least. But maybe someone else. And with very few exceptions, anyone would be an improvement.

I think if we lose more games, it will be because of the move to the new ballpark. We simply won’t know the quirks yet, and there will be an adjustment period — and we lose the psychological advantage over Chicago, who had some sort of mindblock about the Dome. I bet we’ll lose at least 3 more home games to Chicago this year.

http://www.realityfish.com

by Robin G on Dec 17, 2009 9:48 AM EST via mobile reply actions

Delmon

Considering that Delmon has produced -0.4 and -1.3 WAR the past two years in Minnesota, -0.2 is actually an improvement. But I agree, he’s a guy who if the light bulb turns on, could significantly increase his wOBA and WAR.

by Adam Peterson on Dec 17, 2009 12:41 PM EST up reply actions

2B/3B

I agree, and I find it very hard to believe we won’t upgrade one of the two positions. I fear it will be nothing more than Joe Crede at the end of the day, though.

by Adam Peterson on Dec 17, 2009 12:42 PM EST up reply actions

I'm pretty confident they'll land Kouzmanoff

After DeRosa signs with the Giants, the Padres will have no other suitors for Kouz. They seem determined to dump him. So they’ll take Perkins for him straight up. It’s a calculated risk on Smith’s part that the Padres will come back and accept the offer on the table as is. But I think it’s a pretty safe bet.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Dec 17, 2009 1:12 PM EST up reply actions

If the Red sox trade for Adrian Gonzalez, that's one more high spending team out of the market for a 3b

There should be cheap options all over the place.

by lookatthosetwins on Dec 17, 2009 1:30 PM EST up reply actions

+1

Boston could potentially trade for Gonzalez (shifting Youk to 3B) or they could sign Adrian Beltre (Youk remains at 1B).

For the sake of argument, lets say that Boston trades for Gonzalez. This takes Boston out of the picture, severely narrowing 3B targets. If the Giants sign DeRosa (please, oh please!), the Padres will almost be forced to trade Youk to the Twins if they are serious about dumping Youk.

I envision the Padres excepting the Twins offer of Perkins for Youk (a Twins steal!). 3B market will go down considerably this offseason as Boston will fill its 3B/1B problem. Texas is set, Baltimore is set, Mariners are set.

Giants, Twins, and Angels are the only other teams that appear interested in 3B.

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any of us." - Kirby Puckett

by 33MorneauMVP on Dec 17, 2009 3:15 PM EST up reply actions

Kouz, not Youk

I’m assuming

by DJL44 on Dec 17, 2009 3:17 PM EST up reply actions

yes sir

my mistake there. You can get confused when talking about Youk and Kouz. Aside from the k being switched, there is not a whole lot of difference in the name.

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any of us." - Kirby Puckett

by 33MorneauMVP on Dec 17, 2009 3:22 PM EST up reply actions

I agree

it’s a calculated gamble by Smith, but probably a good one. It all hinges on the Giants, as I don’t think Boston cares one bit about Kouzmanoff. It’s Adrian Gonzalez, or more likely (due to trade cost for Gonzalez), Adrian Beltre in Boston.

by Adam Peterson on Dec 17, 2009 3:35 PM EST up reply actions

Hmmm

Hmm, this is sorta pessimistic. How much did you account for bullpen changes? A lot depends on whether last year was a little bit of a fluke or not (it might have been).

"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all."
~ Earl Weaver
"In God we trust. All others must provide evidence."
~ Billy Beane

by AdamOnFirst on Dec 17, 2009 9:53 AM EST reply actions

What bullpen changes are you talking about?

At this point, I’m considering 410 IP combined from Nathan, Guerrier, Rauch, Mijares, Crain, Keppel and Neshek, as well as 95 innings of replacement level relief.

by Adam Peterson on Dec 17, 2009 12:44 PM EST up reply actions

Presumably

Presumably the whole year of Rauch, etc.

Not totally sure what I meant, honestly. Your comment higher up about regardless of fighting over the baseline win expectancy based on league average metrics, etc, the Twins seem 2 wins better than last year, seems fair. On average, that seems about right thusfar. Of course, a single number would be defined as a weighted median of some kind of probability curve, and I think this Twins team has such a curve with a pretty solid positive skew on it (ie, has a lot of upside). Consider Pavano pitching 200 innings, or close to it, that’s another win, Hardy fully bouncing back (surly his James/Chone/etc projections are somewhere between last year and previous years, what is his ‘true’ performance?), and maybe something like a bounceback from Neshek or solid improvement from Young and we’re sitting very solid, especially if we add the expected third basemen.

Of course, simply losing, say, Mauer, for a long time would be catastrophic to our team WARP, so maybe we aren’t so much positively skewed as relatively variant. I view variance as a pretty good thing, since I think even if we somewhat under perform we’re still likely to sneak into the playoffs (I think probably 70% of our “WARP continuum” has us very likely winning the weak division), but if we over-perform, we become truly dangerous very quickly, the kind of team that is really a danger to go all the way.

Mostly, that’s just me thinking aloud.

by AdamOnFirst on Dec 17, 2009 4:46 PM EST up reply actions

Probability curve

is exactly the way you need to look at it. Accounting for perhaps 3 wins due to a low replacement level, where do you think we were on our own probability curve last year?

by Adam Peterson on Dec 17, 2009 6:34 PM EST up reply actions

2009 Twins team WAR was 38.1at fangraphs

So 85 WAR and 87 wins. If we’re 2 WAR better now, that’s 87 WAR going into 2010. The standard deviation on WAR to wins is 6.5. I think the important point in all this is that the Twins still need to improve because they are on the steep portion of the playoff probability curve. A 2-3 WAR improvement will greatly increase our playoff odds.

by Jon Kammerer on Dec 17, 2009 9:37 PM EST up reply actions

Great insight

What is the marginal playoff odd value of each 1, 2 and 3 additional WAR?

by DJL44 on Dec 18, 2009 10:03 AM EST up reply actions

There are some sample win curves in the link below

http://www.texasleaguers.com/home/2009/2/4/texas-rangers-win-curve-part-ii-playoff-probability.html

I’d suggest that the curve is shifted to the left because the general weakness of the central. I’d estimate the Twins at a 30%ish playoff chance now. That could increase 10-20% depending on how much they improve.

by Jon Kammerer on Dec 18, 2009 1:10 PM EST up reply actions

Curve

It’s tough to say, without me really looking at the numbers (lazy, I know). Just doing some mental math off the top of my head, Nathan had maybe a few more blown saves than usual, we’ll have to see if that was bad luck or an age trend, Mauer was obviously up, even with the missed time, but Morneau was down for the entire second half. Our second basemen are bad, but even they were down. Cuddyer was probably on the positive side of the curve. Slowey was on the negative side with the injuries, so was Baker, probably, with his start.

It’s tough to weight and reconcile all of that to an actual numeric point. I guess my theoretical musings are beyond my time/willingness to actually do the requisite data work that would actually teach us anything.

by AdamOnFirst on Dec 18, 2009 10:55 AM EST up reply actions

Overperforming WAR

Why wouldn’t they be expected to outperform their WAR again this year? Are they going to stop doing the little things that aren’t noticed by FIP and wOBA (including not noticing how good Joe Mauer is behind the plate)?

by DJL44 on Dec 17, 2009 10:28 AM EST reply actions

I think they will outperform their WAR

again this year, for exactly the reasons you cite. Sorry I wasn’t clear on this point.

by Adam Peterson on Dec 17, 2009 12:45 PM EST up reply actions

This seems about right to me

One of the things that Adam only mentioned in passing but I think is important here is that there were a few guys last year who will almost certainly regress. Joe Mauer is a great, great player; he’s unlikely to be a 8.2 WAR player again in 2010. Nobody is really consistently at that level. Cuddyer and Kubel are likely to not quite be as good next season as they were this season.

A couple of things the season hinges on to me are: can Delmon Young actually generate 1.5-2.0 WAR as a full-timer? Personally I doubt it, but if he’s going to improve, now’s the time. Also, will they fill another infield hole, and with whom? Someone who can add a win or more to the 3B column? Finally, as always, heath in the rotation. Can they get full quality seasons from Baker and SLowey? There is room in the WAR projection for them to be better, though I wouldn’t necessarily predict they will be.

by Eric in Madison on Dec 17, 2009 12:03 PM EST reply actions

No chance

Delmon is not improving by >3 WAR overnight. His defense drags down his contribution quite a bit and LF replacement value is really high.

by DJL44 on Dec 17, 2009 12:46 PM EST up reply actions

I agree with you

but it’s clear that that Twins are counting on significant improvement from him

by Eric in Madison on Dec 17, 2009 12:55 PM EST up reply actions

Regression

I’d buy that Mauer could regress a bit. He had a historic season. I think you can reasonably expect Cuddy and Kubel to be about the same. I wouldn’t be surprised if Kubel improved a bit given that he started to improve against lefties towards the end of the season. Morneau may improve too if he plays a full season. I expect a pretty big bouce back from JJ Hardy as well. Delmon is a big question mark, as is Punto. In Punto’s case, here’s hoping for an even year Punto. So in a nut shell, I think for the most part (unless Mauer really regresses) we are looking at a slightly improved team. So I don’t buy the regression part.

What I’m really curious is how much left we have to send… If not much, I hope Bill goes out and signs Kelly Johnson and Crede to incentive based contracts… If more still, 95 wins is very real.

by diehardtwinsfan on Dec 17, 2009 12:22 PM EST reply actions

What's the question mark?

If Delmon can reach 1 WAR?

The Twins need a backup plan for a 4th outfielder, not Jason Pridie. Straight up replacing Delmon would be fine also.

by DJL44 on Dec 17, 2009 12:52 PM EST up reply actions

Bigger ????

Is that of the starting rotation. I wonder how healthy everyone will be, as well as how well they will perform. Can Blackburn pitch like he did in the post-season, or slowey stay healthy, or duensing stay consistent, Can baker emerge as the ace, and Pavanos health as well. I think alot of the wins rely on the pitching staff

Want Railings got tohttp:// www.Kassonconcrete.com

by Baby_K on Dec 17, 2009 2:52 PM EST reply actions

92 Wins

Trust me on this.

The beard abides.

by Jason Kubel's Beard on Dec 17, 2009 4:46 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

the Beard

has spoken.

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any of us." - Kirby Puckett

by 33MorneauMVP on Dec 17, 2009 5:25 PM EST up reply actions

92 wins

In my mind is not that far considering how weak our division is

Want Railings got tohttp:// www.Kassonconcrete.com

by Baby_K on Dec 17, 2009 5:40 PM EST up reply actions

this is reasonable

I’d say it’s on the top end of reasonable, but reasonable none-the-less. Get a decent 2b and 3b and I think we can top 95 pretty easily.

by diehardtwinsfan on Dec 17, 2009 6:05 PM EST up reply actions

Yep

Hell yeahhh

Want Railings got tohttp:// www.Kassonconcrete.com

by Baby_K on Dec 17, 2009 11:05 PM EST up reply actions

hmmm....

I guess there are a couple of points to make. Mainly that the number reached doesn’t take into account what other teams are doing. The AL central is really week, it looks like Detroit may be trying to reload for the future (albeit without getting that much weaker), the Sox are spinning their wheels, and the Royals are the Royals. I think this is why the Twins have been outperforming projections lately. Also, I don’t put much faith in the idea that the Twins “do the little things” that aren’t captured by the analysis. This team doesn’t really do the little things all that well; the defense is more or less average, and the baserunning has been terrible over the last couple years. All that considered Young will probably be a little bit better (there is no reason to think there will be a considerable improvement), and Hardy is a pretty big upgrade. I think the biggest factors will be (hopefully) full seasons from Morneau and Slowey.

by Torgo78 on Dec 17, 2009 6:51 PM EST reply actions

I beg

to differ on the little things, Torgo thinks it means defense it doesn’t the little thing are the fundamentals. ex. Turning a double play when presented, stealing a base on defensive indifference, tagging up on a fly-ball, that sort of thing. When you think of fundamentals THINK of the legendary piranhas

Want Railings got tohttp:// www.Kassonconcrete.com

by Baby_K on Dec 17, 2009 11:12 PM EST up reply actions

The division may be weak but....

95 wins is a bit much even with a beltre or hudson.

A couple of things. I am a White Sox fan, but please don’t hate me just yet. I only post on this blog because I respect the Twins as a team. I also find it interesting to see what Twins fans think of their own team.

One point that I haven’t seen discussed. The Twins new ballpark. How will it affect the team that played very well in the dome for a number of years? Will it be an offensive heaven or a pitchers dream? That may play to the twins advantage/disadvantage.

The biggest question mark I see with the Twins in their starting pitching. How will it hold up over 162 games?

I think it will come down to the White Sox and the Twins in 2010, with the biggest question the Sox have being their offense. It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out.

by Timmehhey on Dec 17, 2009 9:42 PM EST reply actions

95 wins

In it’s current state, I agree 95 is unlikely. I think you fail to understand how bad we were at 2B in particular last year, and 3B the year before. If we get upgrades at both (or even if Crede returns), we are looking at some pretty huge upgrades overall and quite possibly 95 wins…

by diehardtwinsfan on Dec 18, 2009 8:27 AM EST up reply actions

Target Field

An article in the 2010 Hardball Times by Greg Rybarczyk, projects HRs down 30% for night games in April and October due to cold. HRs up 10 to 15% during midsummer day games. The elevated portion of the rightfield wall will be 50 ft longer than the current baggie and should slightly suppress HR to RF. It is unclear how the winds will play. It shouldn’t be extreme either way, but should be less HR friendly than the Metrodome.

by Jon Kammerer on Dec 17, 2009 10:31 PM EST reply actions

I think

that will go to the twins advantage, for park that is less homer friendly. But it will be very interesting to see it all play out, the players trying to get warm in the cold. I just hope we make it to the post-season so I can see ballplayers wearing three-layers and trying to run around, HA HA HA!!!!

Want Railings got tohttp:// www.Kassonconcrete.com

by Baby_K on Dec 17, 2009 11:09 PM EST up reply actions

Entertaining if nothing else

I don’t know about you, but when I think of good baseball fun I think of snow and sub freezing temperatures.

by Timmehhey on Dec 18, 2009 11:28 AM EST up reply actions

As Expected, DeRosa's price is coming down

according to MLBtraderumors, the Yankees have been talking to DeRosa, but won’t meet his demands for 3 years / $18-21M.

Last week, DeRosa was asking for 3 years / $27M, which we all thought was high. Given the number of 3B and OF options left on the market, I still think DeRosa ends up with 2 years / $10-12M somewhere. Probably not Minnesota, but I’d like to see SF sign him quickly so that the Padres asking price comes down for Kouzmanoff.

Then again, DeRosa at a reasonable price would be very intriguing. Start him at 3B, move him to 2B if Valencia comes up and Punto hits terribly. Move him to LF if Delmon fails (again) to deliver on his promise. I’d rather trade Perkins for Kouzmanoff, but DeRosa isn’t a bad option.

by Adam Peterson on Dec 19, 2009 7:47 AM EST reply actions

lets keep in mind

that we could just as easily win 72 games as we could 92 games

Staying Healthy is probably the single most intricate component.

Rene Tosoni is good.

by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Dec 20, 2009 3:42 AM EST reply actions

I wouldn't go that far

When was the last time we won 72 games? This is the best team we’ve had since 91. If we don’t win 90 in this division, I’ll be disappointed.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Dec 20, 2009 11:21 AM EST up reply actions

just wondering

that 3B from that padres wouldn’t quite so bad i guess. but i would like to see the twins take a chance on another 3B out there that nobody seems to be talking about right now Adrian Beltre. Ya he’s probably past his prime a little bit but he hasn’t lost his skills in the field yet. Overall i think that would be a nice upgrade to have with Hardy, Punto and Morneau pretty solid defensive infield.

by SoDakMan33 on Dec 21, 2009 11:44 PM EST reply actions

I think Betre is waiting for the Boston situation

to figure itself out. Now that the Lowell trade is dead, the Red Sox are probably out of the running for Beltre. Now I wouldn’t be surprised to see him with the Giants or Angels.

by Adam Peterson on Dec 22, 2009 9:24 AM EST up reply actions

Tigers fan here

Don’t shoot me. lol.

I’m not understanding something. The Twins had a team WAR of 38.1 last year (before even factoring in Mauer’s D). You won 86 games in the 162 game season. With a 47 win replacement level, that puts you at 85 wins and depending how many runs you want to add for Mauer’s D, that puts you at 86 wins.

Regardless, you guys are the favorite right now. Span, Morneau, Mauer and Hardy all project to be 3+ win players and Kubel and Cuddyer should get you around 2 wins. Your pitching staff does not have an “Ace” like a Verlander or Greinke, but I don’t think that really matters. Depth is more important and you do have a lot of capable guys that you can put out there.

What is the feeling with Span at CF? How is he defensively? He has graded out too well on UZR in CF but that is too small of a sample size to really know anything.

by Scottwood on Dec 22, 2009 8:16 PM EST reply actions

That should read

Span has not graded out too well on UZR in CF. Typo.

by Scottwood on Dec 22, 2009 8:17 PM EST up reply actions

I'd have to go to the spreadsheet

but I believe it sets a replacement level of 45 wins for AL and 52 wins for NL teams. As we’ve discussed earlier in the comments, this may have been a bit low for projecting total wins. Right now, the Twins appear to be projecting 2+ wins ahead of last year’s team, which would put them in the driver’s seat for the division. Of course, a lot of things can happen (especially injuries)…

As for Span in CF, his -13.8 career UZR/150 in CF is not in line with his +16.7 and +5.8 in LF and RF, respectively. It’s probably a sample size issue, a bit too high in LF and too low in CF. I think over a full season we’ll see Span end up around average, perhaps slightly below average in CF.

by Adam Peterson on Dec 23, 2009 10:27 AM EST up reply actions

I think he'll do better out there when he plays every day at the same position

It’s tough to move around and play well everywhere. The corner outfield spots are as much about tracking the slice and hook of the ball as running to a spot. In center, balls are more true, so you have to get a good jump off the bat and run to a spot. The more you’re out there, the better you get.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Dec 23, 2009 12:25 PM EST up reply actions