Souhan: Eight observations from camp

[jimmer]

C'mon, jimmer.  Give it a chance.  You're pretty skeptical on this, but most of the knocks I've seen on Torii are related to how he will (or won't) impact the 2015 W-L record.  There's a bigger picture beyond that, as you know. 

 

We'd have a hard time quantifying leadership, clubhouse dynamics, "winning attitudes", etc, but after four brutal seasons, changing dynamics can't be anything but a good thing.  We have far more evidence and reason to believe Torii can be a net positive influence here than not.

IMO, the big picture I see is ticket sales.  A PR move. 

 

As far as having 'far more evidence and reason' to believe Torii can be a net positive influence here than not, I don't see ANY evidence that he can be a net positive, much less FAR MORE. I believe people buy into the idea he is a good leader/clubhouse guy (and dismiss a lot of things pointed out that we KNOW he's done and KNOW he's said that questions that belief).

 

I believe evidence and reason in this case should likely be replaced by faith, and if people want to believe or have faith that he's good in that aspect and it for sure translates to positive for the team on the field, that's fine. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Maybe Mike Pelfrey will be our Wade Davis

Davis is very much an outlier, and only 26 when he converted.

 

I'm all for giving Pelfrey a shot in the pen, especially if it keeps him out of the rotation, but I can't help but feel if he really had plus potential out of the bullpen, someone would have tried it with him by now.  He hasn't been particularly useful as a starter for the last 4-6 years, and great relievers weren't exactly undervalue before now.

 

Davis is not the right example to use, and I am not sure who is.  Zach Duke was 31 last year, but even that feels like quite the outlier (and he's a lefty).

[jay]

I believe evidence and reason in this case should likely be replaced by faith, and if people want to believe or have faith that he's good in that aspect and it for sure translates to positive for the team on the field, that's fine. 

 

I generally quite prefer the hard numbers to faith but color me a believer, my friend!   

 

Worship is Tuesdays at 3 when you decide to join! 

[gunnarthor]

IMO, the big picture I see is ticket sales.  A PR move. 

 

As far as having 'far more evidence and reason' to believe Torii can be a net positive influence here than not, I don't see ANY evidence that he can be a net positive, much less FAR MORE. I believe people buy into the idea he is a good leader/clubhouse guy (and dismiss a lot of things pointed out that we KNOW he's done and KNOW he's said that questions that belief).

 

I believe evidence and reason in this case should likely be replaced by faith, and if people want to believe or have faith that he's good in that aspect and it for sure translates to positive for the team on the field, that's fine. 

Again, ignoring any intangible, he was a good player last year.  Better than most Twins players.  His WAR was knocked down by defensive numbers - numbers that are really hard to put faith into but you seem quite willing to do so.  But his offensive numbers were very good.

 

As for the intangibles, there is a lot of evidence that supports Hunter being a good teammate and a good influence on younger players.  At a certain point, the anti-Hunter thing gets a little weird and I start to wonder what is it about Hunter that rubs people the wrong way. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Again, ignoring any intangible, he was a good player last year.  Better than most Twins players.

Hunter's 2014 Rbat, on a per-PA basis, would have ranked 7th on the 2014 Twins.  That's just pure offense -- no fielding, no positional adjustments.  If not for Mauer's collapse, Hunter would have ranked 8th, worse than our primary 2014 starter at all three outfield spots, and only better than our C and SS.

 

Basically, for on-field performance, the Twins appeared to make finding a healthier but much older (and more expensive) version of Willingham a top offseason priority.

[jimmer]

His WAR was knocked down by defensive numbers - numbers that are really hard to put faith into but you seem quite willing to do so. But his offensive numbers were very good.

 

As for the intangibles, there is a lot of evidence that supports Hunter being a good teammate and a good influence on younger players. At a certain point, the anti-Hunter thing gets a little weird and I start to wonder what is it about Hunter that rubs people the wrong way.

Hard for SOME to put faith in, because some think the eye test must be right until defensive metrics are proven 100% perfect. As if the eye test is even close to perfect. One only needs to believe (have faith) that it's better than any one person's eye test. One needs to believe that even if it's not perfect, it should be given real consideration, due to no better alternatives out there being better, especially if you look the defensive metrics mostly just for the rankings of how a player did compared to his positional peers THAT year. Even if you know that how a guy did one year isn't his actual defensive talent.

 

The metrics in a good majority of cases, including Hunter, agree with my eyes. And defensive metrics, which I have repeatedly said aren't perfect, are still made by groups of people who watch every player play every game for the sole purposes of comparing players against their positional peers to do their comparative ratings. Do you know any one fan who does that?

 

I don;t think I have a big enough ego to discount every metric because I think my eyes must be better. Not only is the eye test less accurate due to just not being able to watch a larger enough sample sizes of games, it's inaccurate because ten of us could be put in a room and not agree, by EYE test, where most players rate compared to others. Guys like Simmons would be easy, but there aren't many like that.

 

What if my eyes say Hunter is a bad defender and your eyes says Hunter is a good defender. Whose 'eye test' is right?

 

Now what if the metrics also agree with my eyes? Does that mean it's only the metric I put faith in? Should I trust YOUR eyes over mine AND the metrics just because you want to slam a metric for not being perfect?

 

I don't need the metrics to tell me Hunter is a bad defender. He's a bad defender, IMO, at this point in his career. Throw the strawman argument, that says I believe Hunter or anyone is a bad defender just because of metrics, out the window. It's something Ive never said.

 

And, BTW, his offensive numbers we average for a RF and not actually very good at all.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Again, ignoring any intangible, he was a good player last year.  Better than most Twins players.  His WAR was knocked down by defensive numbers - numbers that are really hard to put faith into but you seem quite willing to do so.  But his offensive numbers were very good.

I think his numbers are knocked down by his soon-to-be age 40 -- a number that is pretty easy to put faith into but you seem quite willing to resist doing so.    Seriously, how many 40 year old FA signings have ever been worth $10 mil in on-field performance?  Even the ageless wonder Paul Molitor wasn't worth much on the field in his age 40 season.

 

Also, in addition to ranking 7th on the 2014 Twins, Hunter's "very good" 2014 offensive numbers (Rbat) ranked 74th (per PA) out of 149 qualified MLB batters last year.  While his 2015 salary would have ranked 42nd in the same group (and second among Twins batters!).

[Otto von Ballpark]

And, BTW, his offensive numbers we average for a RF and not actually very good at all.

Good point.  His wRC+ ranked 10th out of 21 qualified RFers in 2014, and 14th of 23 in 2013.

 

Not exactly a level that allows for much age-related decline.

[jimmer]

You know, as twins fans we seem to be close to unanimous in our belief that Arcia, Willingham and Delmon were really bad defenders. the metrics agree. The same metrics that Based on the same way of interpreting info also say Hunter is a really bad defender now. So the metrics nailed it on Arcia, Willingham and Delmon and are completely off the mark on the soon to be 40 year outfielder?

[gunnarthor]

 

I don't need the metrics to tell me Hunter is a bad defender.  He's a bad defender, IMO, at this point in his career.  Throw the strawman argument, that says I believe Hunter or anyone is a bad defender just because of metrics, out the window.  It's something Ive never said.

 

And, BTW, his offensive numbers we average for a RF and not actually very good at all.

No one is arguing that he isn't a bad defender.  But some of us are questioning the valuation of those numbers.  Huge difference.  He can be a bad defender and still be a good player.  But the only way you can argue that he isn't a good player anymore - and only a PR move - is by giving full weight to those defensive numbers, b/c the offensive number values were good - and were better than Mauer's.

 

(And his numbers were pretty good for AL RFers last year, his wOBA, wRC+ and oWAR were all top 6-8 off all RFers with over 300 PA (25 in total).  And better than Arcia in each, as well.)

[ShouldaCouldaWoulda]

http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins/293963751.html

 

'As Buxton pulled a shirt over his v-shaped torso, Hunter wagged a finger. “You got all you need physically,” Hunter says. “I’m going to give you everything else. I’m going to be in your ear and in your head. You can’t listen to everybody. That’s a mistake I made. But you better listen to me. We’re going to write out a contract, and you’re going to sign it, and we’re going to go to work.”'

 

So, HUNTER is going to give Buxton everything else he needs.  At least we know who to thank when/if Buxton works out.

 

And besides Hunter demanding the young man listen to him and sign a contract saying he will (oh brother) does Hunter tell him who he should and shouldn't listen to? Do we get to know who Hunter thinks it's okay to listen to and who isn't?  

 

Is this the leadership everyone is pointing to and saying is good?

So, we can expect Buxton's plate discipline to decline? Crap, thought he would actually be a high OBP guy.

[old nurse]

 

And, BTW, his offensive numbers we average for a RF and not actually very good at all.

Depends on what you call average. Last year there were only 21 RF had qualified numbers. If Hunter were an average bat, what of the others filling out on the other 9 teams. If you include all RF who had 300 AB, Hunter looks to be about a the 1/3  point, or well above average. Against league average for all RF, Hunter's numbers look real good. In the numbers games it is all how you want to spin it.

[jimmer]

I believe that when a player is just average offensively at his position and is a horrible defender at his position, that means that overall he is not a good player anymore. Especially when I consider that players turning 40 don't normally improve anymore.

 

And bringing up Mauer is funny. Mauer had a horrible year for him but he was coming off concussion and isn't close to turning 40. It's reasonable to believe a bounce back is happening. Not so much for a soon to be 40 year old especially defensively.

[Kwak]

You know, as twins fans we seem to be close to unanimous in our belief that Arcia, Willingham and Delmon were really bad defenders. the metrics agree. The same metrics that Based on the same way of interpreting info also say Hunter is a really bad defender now. So the metrics nailed it on Arcia, Willingham and Delmon and are completely off the mark on the soon to be 40 year outfielder?

The "eye test" also nailed Arcia, Willingham and Delmon.

[Tibs]

Davis is very much an outlier, and only 26 when he converted.

 

I'm all for giving Pelfrey a shot in the pen, especially if it keeps him out of the rotation, but I can't help but feel if he really had plus potential out of the bullpen, someone would have tried it with him by now.  He hasn't been particularly useful as a starter for the last 4-6 years, and great relievers weren't exactly undervalue before now.

 

Davis is not the right example to use, and I am not sure who is.  Zach Duke was 31 last year, but even that feels like quite the outlier (and he's a lefty).

You're looking into my post too much. It's just wishful thinking.

[gunnarthor]

I believe that when a player is just average offensively at his position and is a horrible defender at his position, that means that overall he is not a good player anymore. Especially when I consider that players turning 40 don't normally improve anymore.

 

And bringing up Mauer is funny. Mauer had a horrible year for him but he was coming off concussion and isn't close to turning 40. It's reasonable to believe a bounce back is happening. Not so much for a soon to be 40 year old especially defensively.

He'll be 39, not 40.

 

As I and others have stated, he was much better than "average" unless you want to give it some strange meaning.  The idea that you think his numbers + bad defense = not a good player, fine.  Feel free to think it.  But that definition would mean you think Mauer, Arcia, Santana, Dozier and Pinto are also all bad players. I don't think you think that.  I think you have decided to give full value to the defensive numbers attached to Hunter to make formulate your opinion. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

He'll be 39, not 40.

He IS 39. Turns 40 in July.

[jimmer]

The "eye test" also nailed Arcia, Willingham and Delmon.

That's what I said and that was the point.  Eye test nailed those guys. The metrics also did. Yet somehow in Hunter's case, using the same type of inputs, the metrics that validated the eye test with those three guys are somehow way off? Hard to believe.

[jimmer]

He'll be 39, not 40.

 

As I and others have stated, he was much better than "average" unless you want to give it some strange meaning.  The idea that you think his numbers + bad defense = not a good player, fine.  Feel free to think it.  But that definition would mean you think Mauer, Arcia, Santana, Dozier and Pinto are also all bad players. I don't think you think that.  I think you have decided to give full value to the defensive numbers attached to Hunter to make formulate your opinion. 

No, he'll be 40.

 

Yes, I think average offensive production compared to positional peers (as pointed out by spycake) plus horrendous defense (which is what Hunter brings now) is not a good player. Especially when players normally continue to slide at his age. He was below league average in overall value last year.

 

The difference between Hunter and most of those other guys is that those other guys are WAY younger and have room to grow.  Most are just getting their feet wet.  Arcia, Santana, Pinto are new to the majors.  Even Dozier is fairly new to the majors, Mauer is low 30s and was recovering from concussion.  Hunter turns 40 this summer.  It's not anywhere near this equals that scenario. Players don't get better at the point of the career he has reached.

[gunnarthor]

No, he'll be 40.

 

 

39.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hunteto01.shtml

 

Since you want to argue over that, I think the rest is not worth re-stating. 

[jimmer]

39.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hunteto01.shtml

 

Since you want to argue over that, I think the rest is not worth re-stating.

I said he TURNS 40 this season. I didn't say he is 40.

 

Torii Hunter's birthday is July 18, 1975 according to the link you provided. On that page it SAYS he's 39 right now (so he can't be turning 39 this year like you stated earlier). This is 2015 and it hasn't gotten to July 18th yet.

[USAFChief]

Hunter's age is established.

 

Let's move on.

[stringer bell]

Like most other topics on TD, each side can cherry-pick numbers to support their case. The one factor not mentioned is that Hunter hit after one All-Star, and in front of two of the very best hitters in baseball. He won't have that protection with the Twins.

[nicksaviking]

You know, as twins fans we seem to be close to unanimous in our belief that Arcia, Willingham and Delmon were really bad defenders. the metrics agree. The same metrics that Based on the same way of interpreting info also say Hunter is a really bad defender now. So the metrics nailed it on Arcia, Willingham and Delmon and are completely off the mark on the soon to be 40 year outfielder?

People are really buying into the metrics that say Hunter was worse in the field than all of those players last year? I doubt it.

 

Maybe they'd be more reliable if all the players played in the same stadium and played under the same defensive preferences of the same manager.

[jimmer]

People are really buying into the metrics that say Hunter was worse in the field than all of those players last year? I doubt it.

 

Maybe they'd be more reliable if all the players played in the same stadium and played under the same defensive preferences of the same manager.

I wasn't actually referencing last year for all those guys, more just about their overall time spent with is when they were Twins. Most of us had our eye tests tells us that while they played for us, they were horrible defenders. 

 

And why would it be hard to believe a guy who turned 39 last season might be one of the worst defenders in the game now?  Is it because he used to be a great defender for us in 2007?  That was a long time ago in baseball playing time.  He has declined a lot defensively the last couple years and one SHOULD expect that. How many people his age are still good defenders?

[jay]

How many people his age are still good defenders?

Not that it's much better, but I don't think anyone is saying he's a "good" defender... maybe just better than the very worst.

 

I fully believe he was/is going to be bad in the field, but it's tough to buy he was worse than Willingham and a few others. It's a bit hard to swallow that he's gone from +15 DRS just two years ago and had a 25 (!!) run swing to -10 just a year later to then dropped 8 more to -18. His speed score hasn't declined significantly from his time with the Angels and it's not like he forgot how to read a ball due to age. It seems fair to question some of the numbers, as folks are doing here.

[jimmer]

Not that it's much better, but I don't think anyone is saying he's a "good" defender... maybe just better than the very worst.

 

I fully believe he was/is going to be bad in the field, but it's tough to buy he was worse than Willingham and a few others. It's a bit hard to swallow that he's gone from +15 DRS just two years ago and had a 25 (!!) run swing to -10 just a year later to then dropped 8 more to -18. His speed score hasn't declined significantly from his time with the Angels and it's not like he forgot how to read a ball due to age. It seems fair to question some of the numbers, as folks are doing here.

Well, like I've said many times buddy, I look at defenders in 4 categories.  Great, Good, Bad and Horrible. Doesn't matter to me if some of the other names were slightly more horrible or not, horrible is horrible.

 

And remember Willingham played LF (as did Delmon for us) so he's being compared to LF who for the most part, are the worst OFs of the 3 spots.  If Willingham had been moved to RF, he'd likely be at the bottom since he'd be compared to RF who are normally better than LF.  It's like how a guy can be a below average CF, get moved to RF, and be considered very good.

[nicksaviking]

I wasn't actually referencing last year for all those guys, more just about their overall time spent with is when they were Twins. Most of us had our eye tests tells us that while they played for us, they were horrible defenders. 

 

And why would it be hard to believe a guy who turned 39 last season might be one of the worst defenders in the game now?  Is it because he used to be a great defender for us in 2007?  That was a long time ago in baseball playing time.  He has declined a lot defensively the last couple years and one SHOULD expect that. How many people his age are still good defenders?

It's because his defensive decline matches up with his move to Conerica. If we like UZR, it was +14 his final season with the Angels. I don't think he's a good defender, but I don't think he's nearly the worst, there are plenty of less athletic corner OFs out there and they wouldn't have nearly the instincts and experience. Below average? Probably. One of the worst? No.

[jimmer]

It's because his defensive decline matches up with his move to Conerica. If we like UZR, it was +14 his final season with the Angels. I don't think he's a good defender, but I don't think he's nearly the worst, there are plenty of less athletic corner OFs out there and they wouldn't have nearly the instincts and experience. Below average? Probably. One of the worst? No.

UZR takes into account ballpark and adjusts for it, but fine.  We're not going to get anywhere.  

[jay]

If Willingham had been moved to RF, he'd likely be at the bottom since he'd be compared to RF who are normally better than LF. It's like how a guy can be a below average CF, get moved to RF, and be considered very good.

I get the CF to a corner difference, but I guess I've always considered LF and RF to be pretty equivalent. Is that incorrect?