Based on what?  He has actually managed to be worse in many regards.  If you want to attack the author for not having watched the team, Hicks isn't the place to do it.  He has been terrible, we're all just so happy to see the defense that we're missing his abysmal performance at the plate.

 

With the caveat that the sample size is too small to lean on, and Hicks can absolutely revert to his old form - his K rate is lower while his BABIP is roughly the same (.300 in 2014, .304 in 2015). His slugging is up (and, accordingly, his OPS is up as well). His walk rate is at an abysmal 4% - he's normally around 12%-15%, so we expect that to climb a bit as well.

 

His batted ball profile is trending higher towards line drives, lower fly balls - which should eventually result in more hits as well.

 

He doesn't look as "lost" as he did last year in the left handed batters box. He's staying on some good pitches and putting the ball in play. They're not all dropping for hits - which I'm okay with so long as a player is having good at bats. Hicks has had some bad ones, but compared to prior years, even his bad at bats look a little more promising.

I'm still not overly concerned with Hicks' results.

 

What I care about are these three things:

 

1. Good centerfield defense

2. Takes the bat off his shoulder every at-bat

3. Makes contact from both sides of the plate but especially against righties

 

So far, so good. I don't care about his walk rate because Hicks is naturally a patient hitter. Right now, Aaron is working on making contact and taking good, aggressive at-bats. If he can figure out how to do that, he can always ease off and take a few more pitches. He hasn't forgotten how to take a walk, he's trying to improve as a hitter and it appears to be working.

 

With the caveat that the sample size is too small to lean on, and Hicks can absolutely revert to his old form - his K rate is lower while his BABIP is roughly the same (.300 in 2014, .304 in 2015). His slugging is up (and, accordingly, his OPS is up as well). His walk rate is at an abysmal 4% - he's normally around 12%-15%, so we expect that to climb a bit as well.

 

His batted ball profile is trending higher towards line drives, lower fly balls - which should eventually result in more hits as well.

 

He doesn't look as "lost" as he did last year in the left handed batters box. He's staying on some good pitches and putting the ball in play. They're not all dropping for hits - which I'm okay with so long as a player is having good at bats. Hicks has had some bad ones, but compared to prior years, even his bad at bats look a little more promising

 

These may be great reasons to hope things will improve, but so far his results have not been good.  There is still too much weak contact and his approach is still far too inconsistent.  The author said he's been terrible with the stick and while these measures might suggest improvement is coming, it doesn't change that the results to date have sucked terribly.

 

He should continue to have the opportunity to improve, though.  His defense is like a new person this time around and we should give him the rest of the year as his last chance to salvage a role, but I don't think it's inaccurate at all to say his offensive production has been terrible.

 

These may be great reasons to hope things will improve, but so far his results have not been good.  There is still too much weak contact and his approach is still far too inconsistent.  The author said he's been terrible with the stick and while these measures might suggest improvement is coming, it doesn't change that the results to date have sucked terribly.

 

He should continue to have the opportunity to improve, though.  His defense is like a new person this time around and we should give him the rest of the year as his last chance to salvage a role, but I don't think it's inaccurate at all to say his offensive production has been terrible.

 

Right - and I agree on paper his number have been less than stellar. It's a fair point and the author isn't wrong for stating that. My initial post was concerned more on perspective of these articles and the fact that they're written (by and large) solely from the box score point of view.

 

There are other things surrounding Hicks' game this year that show promise, and I'd go as far to say he hasn't been bad at the plate. He's making changes, and while the changes haven't resulted in better marks in the box score, he's looking better.

 

I'm just weary of the "this won't last" tone, definitive tone, without the author (any national author) actually looking at everything within context. It'd be nice to read some of these stories after an author has actually watched the team play - hopefully, they'll keep winning and that will come to fruition.

 

 

I'm just weary of the "this won't last" tone, definitive tone, without the author (any national author) actually looking at everything within context. It'd be nice to read some of these stories after an author has actually watched the team play - hopefully, they'll keep winning and that will come to fruition.

 

I've watched them play and even I'm a bit wary of it continuing.  This team is "finding a way to win" which I've always thought is baseball jargon for "they're not that good, but damned if they don't keep lucking their way to wins"

 

They don't have to apologize for good luck, but it's also hard to count on.  The problem is that many of these articles don't point out that sometimes a string of good luck can turn into real results.  Confidence and those intangibles might start to turn the tide of the stats and make it less about luck soon enough.  But that remains to be seen, however the foundation for sustained success is shaky.  That's a fair argument and well defended with this team's peripherals.  

There is a new article up, very instructive on the odds of this continuing with the underlying numbers.

 

I've watched them play and even I'm a bit wary of it continuing.  This team is "finding a way to win" which I've always thought is baseball jargon for "they're not that good, but damned if they don't keep lucking their way to wins"

 

They don't have to apologize for good luck, but it's also hard to count on.  The problem is that many of these articles don't point out that sometimes a string of good luck can turn into real results.  Confidence and those intangibles might start to turn the tide of the stats and make it less about luck soon enough.  But that remains to be seen, however the foundation for sustained success is shaky.  That's a fair argument and well defended with this team's peripherals.  

 

The WhiteSox won a world series lucking their way to wins. 

 

The WhiteSox won a world series lucking their way to wins. 

 

Absolutely!  I've always said the 2005 White Sox were by far the best example of a whole bunch of lucky stuff coming together in one totally unrepeatable fashion.  That's an excellent example.

Think maybe being tied for the best ERA in the AL and 2nd in DRS helped the W Sox be competitive enough to make the playoffs and win the World Series that year?

 

Think maybe being tied for the best ERA in the AL and 2nd in DRS helped the W Sox be competitive enough to make the playoffs and win the World Series that year?

 

I'm sure it helped... then again, half of their guys were playing way over their heads... which is why it worked for them.

I think part of the "luck" has been created by the Twins aggressiveness especially in the early innings.  I'm not sure how that aggressiveness figures into the statistics or into how it disheartens the opponent.

 

Think maybe being tied for the best ERA in the AL and 2nd in DRS helped the W Sox be competitive enough to make the playoffs and win the World Series that year?

 

Their performance was fine, as diehard points out it was the sheer number of career years at the same time.  If you look back at that team, there are very few guys that ever approached that level of production again in their careers.  

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-mlb-oakland-athletics-flashy-nihilism-billy-beane/

 

Another article by the same author. Same premise, opposite conclusion: the stats say the A's shouldn't be this bad; therefore they are unlucky. The author seems to prefer a world where games are played on paper.

 

The A's are 3-15 in one run games. Was it unlucky they traded away late inning hero Josh Donaldson or failed to have an adequate backup for their closer? Oh yeah, closers are overrated, and I'm sure some algorithm showed Brett lawrie would be better than Donaldson.

As an editor, I would have saved the world and the Grantland a lot of grief by simply deleting the first three paragraphs of that dismissive article. Unneccessary opinionating, unfair characterization. Poof, into the trash.

 

Now, for his half-assed analysis. Aaron Hicks is one good example, though in each of his examples he failed to notice factors that commenters here have been discussing for many weeks.

 

People here know why Aaron Hicks was sent down, right? He had a few problems, but most of it came down to becoming more focused and engaged in the game, learning to play not like an employee, but a real player. We started hearing about his improvements at the plate a few weeks before Rosario was called up. Higher batting average, more power, stealing bases, better defense. When Hicks finally got back up, clearly he was a different player. The "light" had been switched on. This doesn't mean that Hicks suddenly became an all-star, but it does mean that he's capable of major improvements.

 

The synergistic effect of having Torii Hunter in RF alongside Hicks and Rosario cannot be overestimateed. Hunter is the epitome of a star player that rose through the Twins minor league system, so his word is gospel to young players. That little jump-bump the outfielders do after winning a game? I can't imagine a more powerful motivator for a young player to feel that he has earned that bit of praise from Hunter. Both Hicks and Rosario clearly would do almost anything to get a "good play" from Torii. The result of that is a remarkably good outfield.

 

Baseball is a very emotional game, and right now the Twins are riding a wave of motivation without desperation. They know they are not expected to win the division, but guys like Hunter and Molitor are letting them in on a great secret: You can do it if you play smart, pressure baseball. People outside the fanbase are missing out on the changes not just in the player makeup of the team, but also in the kind of baseball they play.

 

Let's hope the Twins keep surprising people, all through the season.

Uh, HIcks has been terrible at the plate. Is that even debatable?

 

And no, the author does not prefer games be played on paper. Do you really believe that?

 

Uh, HIcks has been terrible at the plate. Is that even debatable?

 

And no, the author does not prefer games be played on paper. Do you really believe that?

I think I have seen other opinions expressed; maybe just my wild imagination.

 

And people; this is the 21st century! Nobody plays games on paper anymore; baseball is an MMORPG. Sheesh.

Regarding Hicks, I'm a general believer that when process improves the results will follow. But of course numbers.

Process surely helps, but Butera probably had a good process at the plate. Talent matters in a physical sport, sometimes process just isn't enough.

 

The article said that Hicks has been (past tense, right?) terrible. I guess if you look at his numbers, what is the debate about that comment? I'm willing to listen, if someone can provide me evidence that he has been anything else as a hitter.

I wouldn't go so far as to call Hicks terrible, as it doesn't accurately represent the development he seems to be showing since the return to Minnesota. He's swinging at just 22% of pitches outside the zone. That's not a huge departure from previous seasons but... This year, he's swinging at 73% of pitches in the zone, a 13% improvement over 2014. His contact rate and a few other metrics haven't changed noticeably. This tells me that unlike Rosario, Hicks is not guessing at pitches. He knows when it's in the zone and swings. He knows when it's not in the zone and takes. That's a very promising sign.

 

Extreme SSS warning: it's possible that this altered approach is paying dividends already. Versus RHP, he has a .650 OPS, compared to just .560 versus LHP.

 

In short, Aaron Hicks is trying a new approach. It hasn't netted him great results yet but he has a better chance of becoming a productive MLB player now than he has at any time since 2013. He's more aggressive and he's making contact against RHP, striking out just six times in 41 PAs. Those were the two biggest flaws in Aaron's game going into this season.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to call Hicks terrible, as it doesn't accurately represent the development he seems to be showing since the return to Minnesota. He's swinging at just 22% of pitches outside the zone. That's not a huge departure from previous seasons but... This year, he's swinging at 73% of pitches in the zone, a 13% improvement over 2014. His contact rate and a few other metrics haven't changed noticeably. This tells me that unlike Rosario, Hicks is not guessing at pitches. He knows when it's in the zone and swings. He knows when it's not in the zone and takes. That's a very promising sign.

 

 

Personally, I never thought pitch recognition or strike zone discipline were the issues.  It's the fact he can't get the ball out of the infield when he makes contact.

 

Until that changes I could really care less about any of his plate discipline metrics.

 

Personally, I never thought pitch recognition or strike zone discipline were the issues.  It's the fact he can't get the ball out of the infield when he makes contact.

 

Until that changes I could really care less about any of his plate discipline metrics.

That's possible but when combined with his other metrics, I have hope that his approach will net results at some point, hopefully the near future.