Article: Out Of Options But Not Out Of The Plans

[stringer bell]

I thought Nuñez played pretty well in the infield last year. He didn't play much second base, but he was satisfactory at short and third.

[DJL44]

I think Nunez is naturally a third baseman, just like Trevor Plouffe. Neither player has the range needed for SS or 2B. The Twins don't really have a backup infielder they would use to replace any of the infield starters on defense. The starters are generally average to above average defenders and the backups are below average defenders.

 

The only positions you might see a substitution for defense are RF (Sano), C (Suzuki) or 1B (Mauer).

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Now that the Twins are winning, I have no problem with going with whoever they think will pitch better at any particular time in the season. 

The Twins were winning last April when they made the decision to go with vets?  Throughout 2014?  The vet preference isn't some new thing based on their place in the standings, it's their default mode.

 

Sorry, didn't mean to bring it up again, but when you stated a concern about Tonkin is that he hasn't had "any real consistent, extended time" in MLB, well there's just no excuse for still having a concern like that after the stretch of seasons the Twins have had, and with our bullpen composition in those seasons.

 

Not that I think Tonkin is any great shakes, and in fact I doubt the Twins are concerned about his experience either -- I think they've long viewed him as another fairly fungible 40-man insurance guy, closer to Darnell, Strong, etc. than any real part of our future.  Just so happens he's survived his option years.

 

Which leads me back again to TR's quote that "all three of those guys have a spot on this club if they just come in and earn it."  It doesn't really mean anything without defining what "earn it" means, and in Tonkin's case in particular, it is probably a prohibitively high performance standard.

[jun]

 

It makes absolutely zero sense to move Santana to the outfield. Why would Ryan do that? They have Rosario, Sano, Arcia, and soon Buxton and Kepler coming to the outfield. Why oh why do they need Santana there? Whereas in the infield their only backup is Nunez. I know that these comments by Ryan might be just that: comments. But one of the many jobs of a GM (and admittedly not the most important one) is to sound like you know what you are doing. It would be one thing to say Santana is going to be getting ready to play some outfield, which makes sense, but that's not what he said.

Because Santana cannot make routine play at short. It's just that simple. When that happens, it also gets to his head. He could not hit for average anymore. Santana also has little power.

[stringer bell]

I think Nunez is naturally a third baseman, just like Trevor Plouffe. Neither player has the range needed for SS or 2B. The Twins don't really have a backup infielder they would use to replace any of the infield starters on defense. The starters are generally average to above average defenders and the backups are below average defenders.

 

The only positions you might see a substitution for defense are RF (Sano), C (Suzuki) or 1B (Mauer).

They've never taken Mauer out for defense (Or baserunning for that matter) and will never replace a catcher solely for defense. The only defensive switch would be to remove Sano.

[bird]

OK Spy. You're the manager in February 2015. You have to work with what is presented to you when pitchers and catchers report. You can cut anyone you want, completely or off the 40-man to make room for someone else in the system, but you can't trade for anyone new. 

 

Tell me who you're going to bring north with the club. If you find a bunch of young players you want to argue were ready to rock and roll, who are they? Be prepared for some criticism regarding your judgment however. 

 

I just don't think you can make a blanket statement about there being a veteran's preference. Aren't the decisions much more a function of who is ready to contribute? Isn't it likely that every prospect's fate is determined individually on merit? Don't you think that Allen and Paulie were really hoping for Pressly, Meyer, May, Graham, Tonkin, and the other youngsters in camp to show them something? 

 

You don't generally acquire youth via free agency, or even through trades really.  I'd submit to you that characterizing the Twins as having a vetoeran's presence is inaccurate despite the fact that they've installed a lot of veterans in the myriad of holes on the roster during the lean years. It just happened because they lacked young talent that was ready to contribute. And if they had a jones for veterans, how do we explain Arcia, Santana, Buxton, Rosario, and others?

[HitInAPinch]

 

But the eye test when its a guy posting on a blog doesn't really outweigh statistics. If a veteran scout or Twins coach said, "Danny Santana hits better when he plays OF" then I would say, "Hey that's interesting and potentially valid." But no scout or coach has said that because that's crazy talk. If you can find anything about where a guy plays in the field affecting his hitting, please post it.

 

The 3 games is a small sample. Just like Danny Santana's 2014, which was inflated by his high BABIP and the newness factor - but not by how far from the dugout he ran when the Twins took the field.

Heck, I don't know why teams have scout at all!  Because they can always call you and ask for the statistics.  Done with you.

[Otto von Ballpark]

bird, all I meant to say was if a lack of opportunity thus far is an issue when evaluating Tonkin now, as Seth suggested, that is a problem of the Twins own making. That's all. Not saying Tonkin was ready to be a star, not commenting on other positions, etc.

Edited February 11, 2016 by spycake

[Thrylos]

Talking about Polanco as a utility player, is like talking about Buxton as a 4th outfielder.  Nuts.

 

The kid has a premier hit tool.  People forget that he played in the GCL as a 16 year old and that he just turned 22.

 

He does have Carlos Correa - type potential (less power, more speed, pretty much same defense) and can bee a perennial .800-.850 OPS SS hitter.   

 

I just do not get the hate.  If he was in another organization he was going to be in the majors for good last season...

[ThejacKmp]

 

Heck, I don't know why teams have scout at all!  Because they can always call you and ask for the statistics.  Done with you.

 

I assume this means you couldn't find any evidence?

 

Teams have scouts for very good reasons - they are vital to the business. But those scouts aren't you or me for a reason. You and I have no dependable "eye test" capabilities because it takes years and years in the field to build those up. However, you and I can sit down with stats and make some compelling points with little to no training beyond our high school math skills. That's why stats are more reliable on blogs (but not in real life, where they are just half of the equation).

 

I cringe whenever I see someone in these forums relying on the "eye test" - it just means they can't be bothered to go find evidence. And it usually means that there isn't any evidence because they're just BSing.
 

[dxpavelka]

 

Pretty sure you wouldn't have heard crickets if Danny Santana had even come close to repeating his historic .405 BABIP in 2015..

Guess we'll never know......   It's still a mostly useless stat...

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Guess we'll never know......   It's still a mostly useless stat...

Turned out to be more useful than, say, Danny Santana's 2014 batting average.

[DJL44]

 

Talking about Polanco as a utility player, is like talking about Buxton as a 4th outfielder.  Nuts.

 

I just do not get the hate.

 

On the contrary, I think the Twins could use a player who can play multiple positions and contribute at all of them. Placido Polanco is a good example of this, as are Ben Zobrist and Mark Loretta. With benches as short as they are having a player with defensive versatility who can switch hit is a plus. If the Twins trade Plouffe and put Sano at 3B this will become even more important.

[jimbo92107]

I like Michael Tonkin, and I think he can be a solid middle reliever for some team, but I don't see how he will survive with so many other high quality arms around and behind him. Pressly, Graham, May, and then a guy like Burdi coming up with blowtorch heat and a wipe out slider... Unless Tonkin develops impeccable control, I don't see where he fits for long.

 

For Arcia, this is make or break spring training. He's got to put it all together right now, or the Twins will cut bait and go with other guys. My excuse for him last year was that his early hip injury kept bothering him all season. No more excuses. No more room.

 

Danny Santana should make this team as a super-U guy, unless Joe Benson starts hitting like a first round draft pick, which is unlikely at this point. Speaking of which, wasn't Santana supposed to learn how to hit by now? I hate to tell Molly, but teaching a guy your hitting style doesn't make him as talented as you.

[Danchat]

 

Talking about Polanco as a utility player, is like talking about Buxton as a 4th outfielder.  Nuts.

 

The kid has a premier hit tool.  People forget that he played in the GCL as a 16 year old and that he just turned 22.

 

He does have Carlos Correa - type potential (less power, more speed, pretty much same defense) and can bee a perennial .800-.850 OPS SS hitter.   

 

I just do not get the hate.  If he was in another organization he was going to be in the majors for good last season...

I know Polanco has some pretty good potential to be a major league starter. I just don't see an opening because he seems like a 2B due to his arm strength. Dozier's kinda blocking him... I wonder if the Twins could trade him for something good.

[jorgenswest]

The Yankees DFA'd Nunez because he couldn't play 2B and fill a utility role. He may have improved his SS play from the poor level but it isn't possible to use metrics to support an improvement. The sample size for his offensive statistics are not enough to support improvement either. His strike out rates and walk rates with the Twins are in line with his career numbers. His ground all rate is up and his line drive and fly ball rates are down. That may indicate a change in approach leading to a better batting average. If the Twins believe he is a different player based on a partial year of slash numbers and UZR, they have little understanding of the sample necessary for those offensive and defensive numbers to be reliable.

Edited February 12, 2016 by jorgenswest

[dxpavelka]

 

Turned out to be more useful than, say, Danny Santana's 2014 batting average.

Danny Santana's 2014 batting average was extremely useful--In 2014.  We all forget that last year's performance means exactly jack **** this year.

[Thrylos]

 

I know Polanco has some pretty good potential to be a major league starter. I just don't see an opening because he seems like a 2B due to his arm strength. Dozier's kinda blocking him... I wonder if the Twins could trade him for something good.

 

Sure, I'd love it if the Twins trade Dozier for something good.  They got to sell high

[Danchat]

 

Sure, I'd love it if the Twins trade Dozier for something good.  They got to sell high

I was referring to Polanco being traded, but Dozier is trade-able too. I did just get a brand new Dozier jersey, so I would like it if they didn't.

[spinowner]

 

On the contrary, I think the Twins could use a player who can play multiple positions and contribute at all of them. Placido Polanco is a good example of this, as are Ben Zobrist and Mark Loretta. With benches as short as they are having a player with defensive versatility who can switch hit is a plus. If the Twins trade Plouffe and put Sano at 3B this will become even more important.

You're describing Eduardo Escobar.

[Bob Sacamento]

 

Guess we'll never know......   It's still a mostly useless stat...

Useless stat?  I don't think you understand the stat at all then.  Batting Average of Balls In Play which is literally what it means is the players batting average when walks, strikeouts, homeruns  (BABIP = (H – HR)/(AB – K – HR + SF)) are taken out of the batting average calculation.  The average BABIP is .300 and the best way to look at it is a measurement of luck or unlucky.  Only the really good hitters are able to carry a BABIP of .300 or over sustainably.  So anyone who follows BABIP would know that Danny Santana's 2014 .405 BABIP meant he was REALLY LUCKY and wasn't going to repeat or come close to those numbers that he posted.

[dxpavelka]

 

" The average BABIP is .300 and the best way to look at it is a measurement of luck or unlucky."   Good luck with that.  Might as well try to predict what his fortune cookie is going to say.  Bottom line is that you CAN'T take walks, strikeouts & home runs out of the equation and even if you could, why the hell would you want to.  You might as well tell folks that his batting average in at bats that he gets a single in is 1.000.

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Bottom line is that you CAN'T take walks, strikeouts & home runs out of the equation and even if you could, why the hell would you want to.

No one is taking them out of the equation in determining the player's overall contributions or value.  It's only taking them out to help answer a very specific question: how likely is it that this player can repeat the portion of his contributions/value derived from batting average?  Success due to BABIP has less predicting power than success via walks, limiting strikeouts, or home runs.  A ton of Santana's success in 2014 was due to BABIP.  Thus, it was very relevant in projecting his performance for 2015.  Had Santana drawn more walks, struck out fewer times, or hit more home runs in 2014, his chances for success in 2015 would have been much better.

[DJL44]

I think Escobar is considered a better fielder than Polanco, which is why he goes into spring training as the starting shortstop. I agree that Escobar is a useful player to have on your team.

[dxpavelka]

 

No one is taking them out of the equation in determining the player's overall contributions or value.  It's only taking them out to help answer a very specific question: how likely is it that this player can repeat the portion of his contributions/value derived from batting average?  Success due to BABIP has less predicting power than success via walks, limiting strikeouts, or home runs.  A ton of Santana's success in 2014 was due to BABIP.  Thus, it was very relevant in projecting his performance for 2015.  Had Santana drawn more walks, struck out fewer times, or hit more home runs in 2014, his chances for success in 2015 would have been much better.

Still calling bull****.  NOTHING Santana or any other player does in one year has anything to do with what he does in a subsequent year.  Those things may have an impact on how a few stat geeks perceive his chances of success but they have absolutely no bearing on his actual success.  Had Santana drawn more walks, struck out fewer times or hit more home runs in 2014, his success rate in 2015 would have had nothing to do with his BABIP and everything to do with the fact that he was a better ball player than he was being given credit for.  How would you have explained if he HAD done those things in 2014 but not in 2015? 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Still calling bull****.  NOTHING Santana or any other player does in one year has anything to do with what he does in a subsequent year.  Those things may have an impact on how a few stat geeks perceive his chances of success but they have absolutely no bearing on his actual success.  Had Santana drawn more walks, struck out fewer times or hit more home runs in 2014, his success rate in 2015 would have had nothing to do with his BABIP and everything to do with the fact that he was a better ball player than he was being given credit for.  How would you have explained if he HAD done those things in 2014 but not in 2015? 

What's to call bull on?  BABIP is among the factors to consider when trying to project future performance from past performance.  There's nothing controversial about that, I am sure teams use it all the time.  If you are just looking for a "stat geek" thing to pick on, there are a lot better targets than this application of BABIP.

[nicksaviking]

 

Still calling bull****.  NOTHING Santana or any other player does in one year has anything to do with what he does in a subsequent year.  Those things may have an impact on how a few stat geeks perceive his chances of success but they have absolutely no bearing on his actual success.  Had Santana drawn more walks, struck out fewer times or hit more home runs in 2014, his success rate in 2015 would have had nothing to do with his BABIP and everything to do with the fact that he was a better ball player than he was being given credit for.  How would you have explained if he HAD done those things in 2014 but not in 2015? 

 

So Santana's .405 BABIP was flukey, but it in no way helps to explain the drop off in production in 2015 and nothing can? Even though nearly everyone predicted that Santana would drop off in 2015 due to his extremely high BABIP everyone was just a lucky guesser?

 

Because there really isn't any other measure that takes into account "Texas Leaguers", "Seeing-eye Singles" and other various other hits that a fielder probably should have turned into an out but didn't, BABIP is a pretty strong tool for determining if a player had more than his fair share of these during the year. Obviously those kinds of hits are based more on luck than skill, and luck shouldn't be an expectation.

[dxpavelka]

 

So Santana's .405 BABIP was flukey, but it in no way helps to explain the drop off in production in 2015 and nothing can? Even though nearly everyone predicted that Santana would drop off in 2015 due to his extremely high BABIP everyone was just a lucky guesser?

 

Because there really isn't any other measure that takes into account "Texas Leaguers", "Seeing-eye Singles" and other various other hits that a fielder probably should have turned into an out but didn't, BABIP is a pretty strong tool for determining if a player had more than his fair share of these during the year. Obviously those kinds of hits are based more on luck than skill, and luck shouldn't be an expectation.

Don't need to be a stat geek or BAPIP disciple to predict that a guy who 43 points higher as a rookie than his MILB career average and had an OPS a hundred points higher than his minor league average would most likely suffer some regression.  If somebody wants to prove their genius tell me what he's going to do THIS year.  I'm going with a .270 average and an OPS just north of .700.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Don't need to be a stat geek or BAPIP disciple to predict that a guy who 43 points higher as a rookie than his MILB career average and had an OPS a hundred points higher than his minor league average would most likely suffer some regression.

But not all equal AVG and OPS figures are created equal. With fewer strikeouts and a lower BABIP, it would have been possible for Santana to have the exact same AVG and OPS in the exact same number of plate appearances in 2014. But that would have been evidence of a real change in skill (reduced strikeouts) rather than luck (abnormally high average on balls in play) and would have projected better going forward. So there is value in digging deeper beyond just AVG and OPS, and I see no problem with including BABIP in that deeper analysis. Heck, you yourself referenced OPS in your evaluation of Santana, another stat introduced by "stat geeks" 30 some years ago.

[nicksaviking]

 

Don't need to be a stat geek or BAPIP disciple to predict that a guy who 43 points higher as a rookie than his MILB career average and had an OPS a hundred points higher than his minor league average would most likely suffer some regression.  If somebody wants to prove their genius tell me what he's going to do THIS year.  I'm going with a .270 average and an OPS just north of .700.

 

What are you talking about? Why does someone have to predict the future to justify the use of BABIP?

 

Also, I don't understand why using OPS to make a projection is fair game but BABIP isn't.