Article: Thoughts On Brian Dozier

[T_J]

 

I disagree.  38 HR can play at every single position on the diamond including DH.  Not only could Dozier potentially move to first or third, but certainly many of the others you mentioned could also move first or third.  How long will Cano and Kisler stay up the middle in your eyes?
 

 

I think you're missing the point. I am saying that Dozier-by himself- will not bring in an ace or even cusp prospects that project as front of the rotation starters. If the Twins want to get those types, Dozier will not be a centerpiece in the trade. He might be involved, but to get those types of pitchers, you need to send back prospects. That's why it will have to be a three team type trade. 

[Jham]

 

Kinsler is tied for 1st in DRS for MLB 2Bs and Cano is 3rd.  Might be awhile for them to drop off enough to be considered a detriment at 2B.

 

Referring only to age, not effectiveness!!  

[jimmer]

 

Referring only to age, not effectiveness!!  

Yeah, but they are so very good even at their age the drop might take a bit.

 

And no Pedroia then?  Dozier is about to join the 30 yo club too.

 

In any event,  I think there's a market for him.  I also think there's no way he gets traded this offseason.

[Willihammer]

Sorry for the derailment but hole crap Ian Kinsler... HoFer?

[Jham]

 

I think you're missing the point. I am saying that Dozier-by himself- will not bring in an ace or even cusp prospects that project as front of the rotation starters. If the Twins want to get those types, Dozier will not be a centerpiece in the trade. He might be involved, but to get those types of pitchers, you need to send back prospects. That's why it will have to be a three team type trade. 

Maybe I am.  Still think you're wrong.  Span brought back Alex Meyer who projected as a 1-3 type.  Revere brought May who was projected as a 2-4.  Yoenis Cespedes netted Michael Fulmer.  Corey Kluber was had for Jake Westbrook (similar to big Erv).  

You stated that Dozier couldn't be the centerpiece of an impact trade.  That there was no way we could get close to what we consider fair return.  I think most of us would be happy turning Dozier over for a good 2.  Which for us would be an ace.  Not to mention the fact that we have quite a few prospects to sweeten the pot.  Duffey, May, Stewart, Jay, and numerous others further away are arms we probably aren't married to if the deal was right.  Bottom line, Dozier is movable, and we don't need another team to add prospects.

[Jham]

 

Yeah, but they are so very good even at their age the drop might take a bit.

 

And no Pedroia then?  Dozier is about to join the 30 yo club too.

 

In any event,  I think there's a market for him.  I also think there's no way he gets traded this offseason.

 

My point is, having another 2nd baseman on the team wouldn't prevent someone from grabbing Dozier's now 39 HR. No one's adding Dozier for his glove! Dozier can play 3rd or 1st, maybe even OF, or if you like him better, move your 2B over or into the OF.  Whether he's traded depends a lot on the new regime, and teams' need to add offense in general.  There shouldn't be a more "gettable" slugger this off season.  

[T_J]

 

Maybe I am.  Still think you're wrong.  Span brought back Alex Meyer who projected as a 1-3 type.  Revere brought May who was projected as a 2-4.  Yoenis Cespedes netted Michael Fulmer.  Corey Kluber was had for Jake Westbrook (similar to big Erv).  

You stated that Dozier couldn't be the centerpiece of an impact trade.  That there was no way we could get close to what we consider fair return.  I think most of us would be happy turning Dozier over for a good 2.  Which for us would be an ace.  Not to mention the fact that we have quite a few prospects to sweeten the pot.  Duffey, May, Stewart, Jay, and numerous others further away are arms we probably aren't married to if the deal was right.  Bottom line, Dozier is movable, and we don't need another team to add prospects.

 

The mass amounts of quality 2nd basemen this off season-not based on historic trades- plus the glut of quality starting pitching in free agency means that Dozier is not nearly as valuable as you think he is this off season. No rational thinking baseball executive would part with a front line starter or even a cusp type with high projections. Not without getting some high end prospects back. Duffey, May, Stewart are not going to sweeten anything. As they stand right now-this off season- they have little to no value. We are talking Gordon. Diaz, Gonslaves, Jay, Romero types and that might bring one front end starter with Dozier added in. 

 

Basically, Dozier will be a Minnesota Twin come next season and I am fine with that. He is having a great season and is a solid player. He just isn't that much better than what other teams already have as in-house options. 

[snepp]

 

A faux pas, I completely forgot about Altuve somehow.

 

I understand, I still forget the Astros are in the AL.

[7r4de me]

If FOs around the league like polanco half as much as TD people I say trade polanco and keep dozier. Does no one see the error in constantly chasing the almighty prospect? Guys who never live up to their potential are a dime a dozen. I see everyone saying we need to trade dozier so we can upgrade our horrendous pitching. How recently was everyone saying these same pitchers were amazing prospects? How many star prospects have we had the last several years that didn't pan out--how many currently in the system not materializing?

 

At some point people need to gain their sanity and stop trading a bird in the hand for two in the bush. Let someone else make the mistake of thinking every single player in our farm is the next trout/kershaw.

 

to build a championship team you need a good mix of vets and young talent. In 2 years dozier is more likely to still be good and polanco is more likely to still be learning the game (or in AAA for the 10th time, haha. That's not funny)

 

Keep dozier please. Don't trade him for a bag of chips like some people were suggesting a couple months ago.

 

Other random thoughts:

Ugh I HATE the royals!!!!

Can someone please tell me what we got for Arica?! I assume just a little cash but I can't find it anywhere! And for that matter, what we got for Jamey Carroll--that one has been haunting me for years haha! Prolly just a steak dinner...

[Boom Boom]

It's a remarkable run.

 

Maybe next year Dozy can hit some before the team plummets into the irrelevance abyss.

[Platoon]

The Twins need pitching, and more than one. The only two ways to get the type of pitchers they need is trade a high end veteran, or a high end MLB prospect. Our list of high end veterans is not a list, it's a name. (Sanatanas age and contract won't bring much, he's a wash) As for prospects you probably could include Sano, Buxton, Kepler, and Polanco. On a sliding scale. I believe Sano and Buxton still have high MLB interests. Kepler will have admirers, likely more than we think. Polanco? He won't bring what Dozier would, but on this team he would fill our needs well. He likely can play second, better than SS, he seems a very solid hitter, and we really don't need power, we have plenty of that profile player. And he will be here when we are relevant (maybe) again. Notice I did not include the FA market. While the options above are open for debate, there is little need to include irrational fantasy in that discussion,

[gil4]

 

It's a problem for the Twins that there seems to be a glut of outstanding second-basemen right now. There are a lot of teams whose best player (or close to best) plays 2B. Altuve, Pedroia, Kipnes, Cano, Kinsler, are all excellent with the bat, and that's just the American League. Has there ever been a time with more outstanding offensive talent at this traditionally defensive position?

 

Alomar, Knoblauch, Baerga, and Biggio were all playing at a high level at the same time.   Two HoF, Knoblauch looked like he was on that track for a while, and Baerga was probably #2 on the list before he aged 10 years overnight.  I'm not sure this list is better, but they are at least comparable.

[DocBauer]

NOT saying don't trade Dozier if you could really add a #2 type starter, or a top, top prospect ready to burst on the scene, plus someone else to balance the trade.

 

And maybe I'm selfish about BD or short-sighted, but as much as we need pitching, especially SP, and as much as I like Polanco as a young talent, I'm still not sure if losing Dozier's bat, and replacing him with a high end starter gets us to where we need to go.

 

It might a lot, don't get me wrong, but whether it's our current coaching staff, bad luck, whatever, Berrios finding himself would be huge. May could really help, IMO, and Gonsalves could be ready...along with Mejia...at some point in 2017. And you can also mix in, of course, Santana and Gibson along with maybe Santiago, for now.

There is a big part of me that says this is smarter in a 2017 approach.

 

BD won't turn 30 until after the season starts. He's not old. He made some nice adjustments this season. He is cost controlled, could possibly be resigned,(just not another big long term deal please), and would probably have mid-season trade value next year.

[dxpavelka]

 

This is awfully cynical. His overall stats from last whole year and this whole year are still quite good by themselves. No player is exactly as good every game of the year, this isn't a video game, we are talking about a human being. Does Dozier appear more streaky than other players? Sure. But who cares?

July 2015 thru May 2016 with no month higher than a .216 average is not streaky it's lousy.

 

[stringer bell]

 

July 2015 thru May 2016 with no month higher than a .216 average is not streaky it's lousy.

As I said earlier, take a look at Robbie Cano from mid 2014 until July 1st 2015. I can't be sure on the exact interval, but he was lousy for most of a year (doing this from memory). Bad slumps happen to good players. For a long time, the longest position player hitless streak by a Twin belonged to a pretty good hitter-Butch Wynegar.

 

I think minor injuries figure into diminished performance, as well. I don't believe Dozier was completely healthy at the conclusion of last year.

 

[jimmer]

Dozier is now 8th in the majors in WAR for position players.  He's 6th in the AL, right behind the big 5 who keep being mentioned for AL MVP: Trout, Altuve, Donaldson, Betts and Machado.

[wsnydes]

 

As I said earlier, take a look at Robbie Cano from mid 2014 until July 1st 2015. I can't be sure on the exact interval, but he was lousy for most of a year (doing this from memory). Bad slumps happen to good players. For a long time, the longest position player hitless streak by a Twin belonged to a pretty good hitter-Butch Wynegar.

 

I think minor injuries figure into diminished performance, as well. I don't believe Dozier was completely healthy at the conclusion of last year.

I believe Robbie Cano had a sports hernia during this time that wasn't dealt with until after the season, IIRC.

[Joe A. Preusser]

July 2015 thru May 2016 with no month higher than a .216 average is not streaky it's lousy.

Uh, yeah. My point was that his 2015 numbers overall were still good. And his 2016 numbers overall are almost MVP worthy. There are peaks and valleys in any players' seasons. Would you honestly not take his exact 2016, or even his exact 2015 season every year?

[TheLeviathan]

 

Uh, yeah. My point was that his 2015 numbers overall were still good. And his 2016 numbers overall are almost MVP worthy. There are peaks and valleys in any players' seasons. Would you honestly not take his exact 2016, or even his exact 2015 season every year?

 

Depends what I'm taking in it's place I suppose.  Guys that are this feast or famine aren't ones I feel very comfortable building a team around.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

Guys who seem to be so streaky that they ebb and flow every half season are naturally going to book end bad/good half seasons from time to time.

 

As Levi has pointed out, he's not comfortable building around a player that streaky and that's fine.

 

But using Dozier's Arbitrary Date 2015-Arbitrary Date 2016 as proof of anything seems disingenuous.

 

Seasons are natural cutoff points. Five years from now, no one is going to remember Dozier's 07/15-05/16 but they'll remember his 2015 and 2016 seasons as complete units (one pretty good, the other outstanding).

[TheLeviathan]

 

Guys who seem to be so streaky that they ebb and flow every half season are naturally going to book end bad/good half seasons from time to time.

 

As Levi has pointed out, he's not comfortable building around a player that streaky and that's fine.

 

But using Dozier's Arbitrary Date 2015-Arbitrary Date 2016 as proof of anything seems disingenuous.

 

Seasons are natural cutoff points. Five years from now, no one is going to remember Dozier's 07/15-05/16 but they'll remember his 2015 and 2016 seasons as complete units (one pretty good, the other outstanding).

 

Why does it matter how people remember his seasons in five years?  

 

We spent the first two months of this season with a sub .600 Dozier hitting in prime positions in the lineup.  We spent the last three months (when we were fringe contenders) with a slightly better, but still pretty bad, Brian Dozier hitting in those same spots.

 

I don't think anyone has shown evidence either way, so I'm going to go with what is the most intuitive: feast or famine guys are probably less valuable than guys less prone to erratic production.  But I'd be really curious to get an answer on that.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I agree in that I suspect steady performers are more valuable than feast or famine guys. I'm not really arguing with you.

 

I'm just tired of people constantly trotting out random dates to skew an argument, completely ignoring the fact he didn't even play baseball for five months in between those dates.

 

Dozier's struggles early this season were a problem. It impacted wins. His late 2015 struggles were also a problem, as the team was in contention.

 

But I fail to see how the two are connected other than they happened to the same player, a guy who went straight-up MVP style immediately afterward.

[Jham]

I would be very puzzled if it made a difference when a player hit.  Does it make a difference when a team wins?  Other than the playoffs of course!

[TheLeviathan]

 

I would be very puzzled if it made a difference when a player hit.  Does it make a difference when a team wins?  Other than the playoffs of course!

 

My theory would be that when guys are feasting, their huge surge in production has a less meaningful impact on wins and losses because some of that surge is probably surplus that doesn't really decide games.  But long stretches of awful play can have an impact.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I agree in that I suspect steady performers are more valuable than feast or famine guys. I'm not really arguing with you.

I'm just tired of people constantly trotting out random dates to skew an argument, completely ignoring the fact he didn't even play baseball for five months in between those dates.

Dozier's struggles early this season were a problem. It impacted wins. His late 2015 struggles were also a problem, as the team was in contention.

But I fail to see how the two are connected other than they happened to the same player, a guy who went straight-up MVP style immediately afterward.

 

Any time period we choose to judge a player is arbitrary.  If we choose April to September, it just seems more significant because that's one 162 game season stretch.  But really, how different is that than me saying April 2015-September 2016?  It's still random with the most notable trend being it's the same baseball player.  

 

While I don't deny I want to arbitrarily pick a stretch of consistently bad play that crossed seasons, it's no different than you.  You just want to cut those dates apart arbitrarily.  When Danny Santana sucks in 2016 like he did in 2015, we don't cut those dates apart because the season ended, we look at the whole of the data.  Hell, if we didn't use cross-seasonal data to analyze players it'd be rather silly. Baseball reference could really simplify their site too!

[Brock Beauchamp]

The key difference being that there is a five month gap to rest/get healthy/whatever in between seasons.

 

Never mind that actual team wins are accumulated and counted per season.

 

Or that, when using a season of data, I'm not picking and choosing when to start/stop counting to slant an argument.

 

They're not really the same thing at all. One is a natural, logical cutoff and the other is entirely determined by the person making the argument.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The key difference being that there is a five month gap to rest/get healthy/whatever in between seasons.

Never mind that actual team wins are accumulated and counted per season.

Or that, when using a season of data, I'm not picking and choosing when to start/stop counting to slant an argument.

They're not really the same thing at all. One is a natural, logical cutoff and the other is entirely determined by the person making the argument.

 

Team wins don't really matter much to me when I'm evaluating trends in a hitter's results.  If we want to extrapolate that to team success that's another matter.  That five month gap can mean a lot or mean nothing and for many (most?) players it generally means nothing.  

 

I could just as easily argue that a logical cut-off of evaluation could be between adjustments by Dozier.  We make similar cut offs when we judge young players (like we are with Buxton).  The truth is, that five month gap is arbitrary as a cut-off for player production.  We use it for convenience sake, not because it has any special meaning.  (Unless there is a specific reason to believe it does, like injury rehab)

 

We also make many cases for player evaluation based on cutting off statistical analysis at various points.  We talk all the time about things like "Since June 1st Brian Dozier has slashed...."  or "Since being moved to the top of the order" or "Pre-allstar".  All of these are arbitrary.  It doesn't invalidate them.  Short of taking the whole players career into focus, we're always relying on arbitrary time frames.  That isn't a valid argument against a statistical study, especially if it takes a large, time consistent sample size.

Edited September 8, 2016 by TheLeviathan

[Willihammer]

 

My theory would be that when guys are feasting, their huge surge in production has a less meaningful impact on wins and losses because some of that surge is probably surplus that doesn't really decide games.  But long stretches of awful play can have an impact.

He did start the year in a slump, and the Twins got off to a horrid start. On the other hand he hit 13HRs in August and the Twins still had a losing record.

I do not think one man decides most games either way.

[TheLeviathan]

 

He did start the year in a slump, and the Twins got off to a horrid start. On the other hand he hit 13HRs in August and the Twins still had a losing record.

I do not think one man decides most games either way.

 

I tend to agree, but that's why I don't think a feast or famine player is as good as a consistent one.  A lineup of consistent players gives your more than one person who are liable to produce for you over the course of every game of a season.  As opposed to hoping a rotating bunch of hot hands can make up for the rest of their teammates.

[Willihammer]

 

I tend to agree, but that's why I don't think a feast or famine player is as good as a consistent one.  A lineup of consistent players gives your more than one person who are liable to produce for you over the course of every game of a season.  As opposed to hoping a rotating bunch of hot hands can make up for the rest of their teammates.

This theory just doesn't seem to bear out in reality. Not for this year's Twins anyway.

April: 7-17; Dozier: .617

May 8-19: Dozier: .632

June 10-17; Dozier: .1.163

July: 15-11; Dozier: .824

Aug: 9-20; Dozier: 1.072

Sept: 2-4; Dozier: 1.724