Terry Ryan interview on Fangraphs

[old nurse]

If an 8th Round pick becomes even a big league utility player, that was a successful draft pick. I don't understand what some above expect. As others have said, if you get 2 big league contributors per draft, you're doing well... I read comments saying that the Twins need to be better than everyone else. OK... Do they need to be 10% better? If so, that means that if they have 2.2 players per draft get to the big leagues. That would be one player every five drafts. I don't know how to measure "better."

 

Again, 8th round picks that get to the big leagues are huge successes. 12th round picks that get to AAA are huge successes! Successes can't be solely measured by big leaguers either.

Of the 40 player that have played for the Twins so far this year there were 17 that a were drafted or signed by the Twins and 8 that were received in trade for prospects , somebody like what you drafted better than what they drafted. There are currently 9 players who have played in the majors that came up through the Twins . There were 5 minor leaguers the Twins traded for, come up with the Twins , and are still in the majors.

The Twins talent evaluators picked 38 players who played some time in the Twins minor leagues, and snatched a Santana, who put some time in this year in the majors. That would probably put them in the middle of the pack in terms of developing players. Do they need to be better? If the Twins do not continue to trade established players and prospects for prospects that work out to some degree they will have to get better at drafting.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The facts are that hitting fastballs in fastball counts is one of the easier things to do as a major league hitter. The difficulty is putting pitchers in positions where have to throw a fastball which only happens if players have a solid approach at the plate. In the end, it comes down to recognizing the situation you are in and executing accordingly. Willingham is good at this which is why he drives in runs and hits home runs. Twins hitters IN GENERAL are not. They work counts and take pitches to get into these situations, and then seem surprised when they get the pitch they should be expecting. I agree this may come down to this team not having very good hitting talent, but this wasn't the case when our team was being called piranhas and we were competitive 5 or so years ago. Now, we are rolling over and hitting into double plays or hitting high pop fly outs.

The 2006 Twins were 3rd in MLB in GIDP and 4th in 2007. I stopped looking at that point.

 

The 2006 Twins batted .006 higher with RISP than they did overall. The 2012 Twins are batting .001 higher.

 

I could go on all day. Players and teams end up playing to their talent level with or without runners on base. By the end of a season, the stats tend to progress/regress to the mean.

 

The Twins offense is a mid-pack offense. They play like a mid-pack offense.

 

For all the love of those damned "piranhas" the best Twins offense of the past 20+ years was the 2010 team by a large margin.

[bird]

DPJ,

 

You accused roger of pouring syrup on **** and calling it pancakes for making a solid argument that the last five drafts are better tha most of you think. Your retort? Pretty much pouring **** on ice cream and calling it a sundae. But there are two distinct questions, really. First, what is the comparative quality level of the system. And second, are the Twins any good at evaluating and drafting players? If you fail to acknowledge that there is an appreciable disadvantage to drafting in the second half, and often bottom third, in the draft order for a decade, then you might conclude that the Twins, with a system most pundits rank as barely in the top half of its peers, are crappy drafters. I think the pundits are right in ranking the system where they have, and that many of you think it's much worse. I think the system may instead be slightly better than most pundits because of the east coast effect and the top ten draftee effect. And I think the Twins are better than average as drafters.

[twinswon1991]

You have to be careful calling a draftee successful just because they made the bigs. The Twins have been a terrible team for 2+ years now and it is doubtful that guys like Dozier, Blacky, Plouffe, Devries, Parmelee, Butera, and others would ve played an inning for a .500 team this year. Plouffe never gets that 2nd or 3rd chance to go off for a good team which is fortunate for both him and the Twins.

[DPJ]

DPJ,

 

You accused roger of pouring syrup on **** and calling it pancakes for making a solid argument that the last five drafts are better tha most of you think. Your retort? Pretty much pouring **** on ice cream and calling it a sundae. But there are two distinct questions, really. First, what is the comparative quality level of the system. And second, are the Twins any good at evaluating and drafting players? If you fail to acknowledge that there is an appreciable disadvantage to drafting in the second half, and often bottom third, in the draft order for a decade, then you might conclude that the Twins, with a system most pundits rank as barely in the top half of its peers, are crappy drafters. I think the pundits are right in ranking the system where they have, and that many of you think it's much worse. I think the system may instead be slightly better than most pundits because of the east coast effect and the top ten draftee effect. And I think the Twins are better than average as drafters.

Two major league starters in Revere and Diamond (and it might be a little early to already call them that) in the last handful of years isn't good. That's not having a thinner pool of talent to work with cause they're drafting later in the first, it's called poor talent evaluation. The Twins have done a very poor job in the draft over the last couple seasons, some bad lucky with injures but that's part of the game.

 

If the Twins had done a better job of infusing this team with cheap young talent we wouldn't be seeing the 100 million dollar abomination we are today.

[Badsmerf]

You have to be careful calling a draftee successful just because they made the bigs. The Twins have been a terrible team for 2+ years now and it is doubtful that guys like Dozier, Blacky, Plouffe, Devries, Parmelee, Butera, and others would ve played an inning for a .500 team this year. Plouffe never gets that 2nd or 3rd chance to go off for a good team which is fortunate for both him and the Twins.

Maybe not for a team like that, but definitely for someone else.

[bird]

Nope, DJP, it IS because of having a thinner pool of talent to work with. And it IS because you refuse to give an ounce of credit to them for, among others, Plouffe and Dozier (both starters along with Revere and Diamond) , and any of the other dozen contributors from AAA so far this year. Or any OTHER starter "in the last handful of years", like Span or Burnett. The opposite is true: they are VERY GOOD talent evaluators and have done a VERY GOOD job in the draft over the past couple of years, although this has yet to be proven out for your view or mine.

[DPJ]

Nope, DJP, it IS because of having a thinner pool of talent to work with. And it IS because you refuse to give an ounce of credit to them for, among others, Plouffe and Dozier (both starters along with Revere and Diamond) , and any of the other dozen contributors from AAA so far this year. Or any OTHER starter "in the last handful of years", like Span or Burnett. The opposite is true: they are VERY GOOD talent evaluators and have done a VERY GOOD job in the draft over the past couple of years, although this has yet to be proven out for your view or mine.

How do you reason getting 2 viable MLB starters (and once again I'll say it's maybe still early to call Revere and Diamond that) outta the last 6 years of drafts very good talent evaluation?

[twinsarmchairgm]

How do you reason getting 2 viable MLB starters (and once again I'll say it's maybe still early to call Revere and Diamond that) outta the last 6 years of drafts very good talent evaluation?

You said in your own post that we cannot comment on anyone newer then 2010 so the 6 year sample you are looking at is 2004-2010 so you would have to add Garza, Plouffe, Perkins, Swarzak, Slowey, and Duensing to players who have been major league contributors over the last six years and it's still too early to write off Parmelee, Benson, Hicks, Wimmers, Gibson, and Michael to say they are bad drafters.

[twinswon1991]

You said in your own post that we cannot comment on anyone newer then 2010 so the 6 year sample you are looking at is 2004-2010 so you would have to add Garza, Plouffe, Perkins, Swarzak, Slowey, and Duensing to players who have been major league contributors over the last six years and it's still too early to write off Parmelee, Benson, Hicks, Wimmers, Gibson, and Michael to say they are bad drafters.

Umm....I dare you to try to find a team with a worst draft record from 2004-2010. ZERO all-star players and zero players that can view viewed as foundation players going forward. Plouffe has been hot but is hardly a for sure bet. Perk appears to be a good RP but they are a dime a dozen. Garza is a good player but the Twins are such good talent evaluators (like you say) that they traded him for Delmit Young! The rest of the players you listed would be totally off the radar in any organization other than the depleted Twins organiation. Wow, they sure are great talent evaluators!

[old nurse]

Umm....I dare you to try to find a team with a worst draft record from 2004-2010. ZERO all-star players and zero players that can view viewed as foundation players going forward. Plouffe has been hot but is hardly a for sure bet. Perk appears to be a good RP but they are a dime a dozen. Garza is a good player but the Twins are such good talent evaluators (like you say) that they traded him for Delmit Young! The rest of the players you listed would be totally off the radar in any organization other than the depleted Twins organiation. Wow, they sure are great talent evaluators!

Two different GM's in that time period. Smith made trades Ryan never would have. Ryan did a better job of finding other team's players to take part as the foundation.

 

Since you would want to be comparing Ryan's drafts and not Smith drafts to other teams you would have to look at 2004-2007 for teams that stunk at drafting. First team to look at, the Mets. Second the Cubs. The Oakland drafts in that time period were nothing to brag about.

[DPJ]

Since you would want to be comparing Ryan's drafts and not Smith drafts to other teams you would have to look at 2004-2007 for teams that stunk at drafting. First team to look at, the Mets. Second the Cubs. The Oakland drafts in that time period were nothing to brag about.

Ryan and Smith's drafts are the same cause neither of them are drafting anyone.

 

It's all Johnson running that show.

[chopper0080]

The 2006 Twins were 3rd in MLB in GIDP and 4th in 2007. I stopped looking at that point.

 

The 2006 Twins batted .006 higher with RISP than they did overall. The 2012 Twins are batting .001 higher.

 

I could go on all day. Players and teams end up playing to their talent level with or without runners on base. By the end of a season, the stats tend to progress/regress to the mean.

 

The Twins offense is a mid-pack offense. They play like a mid-pack offense.

 

For all the love of those damned "piranhas" the best Twins offense of the past 20+ years was the 2010 team by a large margin.

So, in the end, it is almost purely a talent issue then. Good to know.

 

We really need Morneau to bounce back next year. Looking at our lineup, him hitting again would make a world of difference. Hey, maybe a David Ortiz farewell tour could be in the works for Minnesota. (I doubt it, but it might be worth the 13 mil).

[Paul]

That's my bone to pick with those who "laced 'em up". They think the stat geeks only look at fangraphs and don't actually watch the games. Stats are part of the story. A more reliable part of the story than any "well, when I played" antecdote someone who laced them up can offer.

 

Also, what exactly is a vacuum of understanding? Is it a Kirk Van Houten lyric?

First, let me say I'm not trying to insult or injure you or anyone.

 

"That's my bone to pick with those who "laced 'em up". They think the stat geeks only look at fangraphs and don't actually watch the games."

 

Apparently you're talking about me. If you are, you are wrong. I am certain you look at fangraphs AND watch the games. (I've only seen 5 or 6 games this year so I'm sure you are much better informed on the current state of the Twins than I am.)

 

"Stats are part of the story. A more reliable part of the story than any "well, when I played" antecdote someone who laced them up can offer."

 

 

I agree 100% with this statement. But the phrase "laced 'em up" is not referring to anecdotes. It's referring to empirical data. Something, I believe, most scientists weigh a little more heavily than some local baseball stat guys. Why is it so hard for some to understand that experience informs. There are thousands of finer points and subtleties in the simplest of endeavors. I understand that the baker, mechanic, roofer, carpenter, accountant, doctor, banker, lawyer and stat geek know more about baking, fixing cars, roofing, building houses, accounting, healing, banking, law and stats than I do. Why do some not understand this? Especially with something as complicated as baseball?

 

"Also, what exactly is a vacuum of understanding?"

 

I'm guessing this is a rhetorical question. If I'm wrong I'd recommend the "World Book" dictionary. (You might also want to look up the word "figurative".)

 

"Is it a Kirk Van Houten lyric?"

 

I'm guessing this is also a rhetorical question. I am unfamiliar with the reference. Let me know if you consider it pertinent to our discussion and I will research it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I agree 100% with this statement. But the phrase "laced 'em up" is not referring to anecdotes. It's referring to empirical data. Something, I believe, most scientists weigh a little more heavily than some local baseball stat guys. Why is it so hard for some to understand that experience informs. There are thousands of finer points and subtleties in the simplest of endeavors. I understand that the baker, mechanic, roofer, carpenter, accountant, doctor, banker, lawyer and stat geek know more about baking, fixing cars, roofing, building houses, accounting, healing, banking, law and stats than I do. Why do some not understand this? Especially with something as complicated as baseball?

If I was asking about a hitting stance, the proper grip on a two-seam fastball, or how to swing a bat, I'd absolutely ask a baseball "professional". It's what they do for a living and they certainly know more about it than I do.

 

On the other hand, the "laced 'em up" comment came during a somewhat abstract argument on the concept of "clutch hitting". That's not a tangible thing that can be taught or even observed and then declared as truth and most of people siding with "clutch hitting exists" rely completely on anecdotal data to confirm their bias. The same way I wouldn't ask a baker about the molecules and atomic structure of yeast, I wouldn't ask a baseball "professional" about conceptual theory in the sport. It's not "in their wheelhouse", for lack of a better term. I also wouldn't ask a home builder about architectural theory and the physics that go along with complex load-bearing structures. They probably wouldn't have much of a clue about how it works, despite the fact that they build houses every day. The same goes for the mechanic. He can certainly repair an engine but can he design one?

 

These professionals have limited scope in their experience. While they certainly know their trade very well, they should not necessarily be relied upon for the more abstract, peripheral aspects of their career choice. And that's why some of us took umbrage to the "laced 'em up" comment. The conversation itself wasn't even really about baseball; it was about how humans deal with pressure situations and whether it's humanly possible to "step up their game" in a tangible, scientifically observable manner.

[Paul]

If I was asking about a hitting stance, the proper grip on a two-seam fastball, or how to swing a bat, I'd absolutely ask a baseball "professional". It's what they do for a living and they certainly know more about it than I do.

 

On the other hand, the "laced 'em up" comment came during a somewhat abstract argument on the concept of "clutch hitting". That's not a tangible thing that can be taught or even observed and then declared as truth and most of people siding with "clutch hitting exists" rely completely on anecdotal data to confirm their bias. The same way I wouldn't ask a baker about the molecules and atomic structure of yeast, I wouldn't ask a baseball "professional" about conceptual theory in the sport. It's not "in their wheelhouse", for lack of a better term. I also wouldn't ask a home builder about architectural theory and the physics that go along with complex load-bearing structures. They probably wouldn't have much of a clue about how it works, despite the fact that they build houses every day. The same goes for the mechanic. He can certainly repair an engine but can he design one?

 

These professionals have limited scope in their experience. While they certainly know their trade very well, they should not necessarily be relied upon for the more abstract, peripheral aspects of their career choice. And that's why some of us took umbrage to the "laced 'em up" concept. The conversation itself wasn't even really about baseball; it was about how humans deal with pressure situations and whether it's humanly possible to "step up their game" in a tangible, scientifically observable manner.

Thank you for your reply, and especially for the tone of your words.

 

First, let me save you the trouble of reviewing my comments and again clearly state my position on the clutch thing. As I recall we are basicly in agreement.

 

I believe what the observer sees as "stepping up" in high pressure situations is in reality not stepping up, but rather "not stepping back" with the competition. In other words, some people handle pressure better than others. Ask the carpenter if the boss has a guy he would call on to get the job done under an unreasonable deadline. Ask the baker if he's got a guy he can count on under any circumstances.

 

This is what you are asking the BB player. Do you see that some players are better in the clutch for some reason? Not about the molecules and atomic structure of a bat. Or the load bearing physics of leather from various locations on the cow or kangaroo. Or the magnus effect on the ball. Or asking him to design a new and better pitching machine. I'm guessing you'd be hard pressed to find any pros that would say no.

 

It's my postion that this is most definitely tangible and can be taught and observed. It's as tangible as happiness. As confidence. As certainty. As knowing. It comes from reps. Drilling. Experience. Learning to deal with the endocrinological issues of pressure. In fact, because baseball is a game of mistakes, it seems to me that that might just be the major focus.