Article: Gleeman and the Geek Episode 75: Sabermetric Twins and Drunk Voting

[Parker Hageman]

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?r=1283-Gleeman-and-the-Geek-Episode-75-Sabermetric-Twins-and-Drunk-Voting

[Wookiee of the Year]

Best line of the podcast goes to Parker Hageman at 1:04:55, concerning Joe Mauer: "He was fueled by all the booze that happened." I guess I missed the Twins Daily headline in May, "Mauer's Booze-Fueled Return to Greatness."

 

Amazingly, my wife has a long tradition of asking people, "Who are you voting for to win the Superbowl?" If memory serves, it was a slip of the tongue years ago, and now it's just an inside joke that she's in on, too. (No, her name's not Traci.)

 

I'll also mention that I'd previously heard of Parker's interview with Rob Antony but never actually read it before, so I went ahead and hunted it down. It's fascinating reading almost 3 years later, including interesting discussions of assessing players for multi-year contracts (with a specific discussion of Nick Blackburn) as well as Pitch F/X (in light of Parker's recent Goin interview), but the piece that jumped out to me most was this one from Antony, on what the Twins look for in a shortstop: "[Hardy] may not have the range he did when he was 24 at 27 now. He makes all the plays, he has enough arm and gets the ball. Our theory has always been: Make the routine plays – don’t beat yourself - and if you don’t get to a ball or two that is offset when you make all the plays. There are guys that may have 15-20 errors, a lot of them are routine errors. We’d rather have the guy that when there is a groundball to short, that’s an out. That type of thing. We scout that way, we look at it that way and we make our decisions that way." Is that not a description of the anti-Florimon?

[ThePuck]

Best line of the podcast goes to Parker Hageman at 1:04:55, concerning Joe Mauer: "He was fueled by all the booze that happened." I guess I missed the Twins Daily headline in May, "Mauer's Booze-Fueled Return to Greatness."

 

Amazingly, my wife has a long tradition of asking people, "Who are you voting for to win the Superbowl?" If memory serves, it was a slip of the tongue years ago, and now it's just an inside joke that she's in on, too. (No, her name's not Traci.)

 

I'll also mention that I'd previously heard of Parker's interview with Rob Antony but never actually read it before, so I went ahead and hunted it down. It's fascinating reading almost 3 years later, including interesting discussions of assessing players for multi-year contracts (with a specific discussion of Nick Blackburn) as well as Pitch F/X (in light of Parker's recent Goin interview), but the piece that jumped out to me most was this one from Antony, on what the Twins look for in a shortstop: "[Hardy] may not have the range he did when he was 24 at 27 now. He makes all the plays, he has enough arm and gets the ball. Our theory has always been: Make the routine plays – don’t beat yourself - and if you don’t get to a ball or two that is offset when you make all the plays. There are guys that may have 15-20 errors, a lot of them are routine errors. We’d rather have the guy that when there is a groundball to short, that’s an out. That type of thing. We scout that way, we look at it that way and we make our decisions that way." Is that not a description of the anti-Florimon?

 

So they don't care about range? I'll take a shortstop with 20 errors over a shortstop with 10 errors if his range allows him to get to 100 more balls a season and convert them to outs. They judge defense by errors...explains a lot.

 

Oh, and Hardy has great range...not sure what Anthony was seeing in Hardy that made him make a backhanded slap about Hardy's range

[ashbury]

So they don't care about range? I'll take a shortstop with 20 errors over a shortstop with 10 errors if his range allows him to get to 100 more balls a season and convert them to outs. They judge defense by errors...explains a lot

 

In fairness to Antony, that's not exactly what he was saying. Many plays can be below-par and not show up as an error. Turning a routine DP, versus a slight bobble or a poor pivot, for instance.

 

Now, with a young player, I'd personally prefer the guy with huge range who is prone to errors, because I figure the latter piece is teachable but the former is not so much. But it's not crazy-talk to look for a don't-beat-yourself player - that assumes the already high standard of a MLB middle infielder. I haven't looked at zone ratings and the like for a while now, but gaining 100 more outs a season seems really hard, compared to that standard.

[ThePuck]

In fairness to Antony, that's not exactly what he was saying. Many plays can be below-par and not show up as an error. Turning a routine DP, versus a slight bobble or a poor pivot, for instance.

 

Now, with a young player, I'd personally prefer the guy with huge range who is prone to errors, because I figure the latter piece is teachable but the former is not so much. But it's not crazy-talk to look for a don't-beat-yourself player - that assumes the already high standard of a MLB middle infielder. I haven't looked at zone ratings and the like for a while now, but gaining 100 more outs a season seems really hard, compared to that standard.

 

Far enough, even if it's 50 (which I think is low), it's still a plus of 40 outs. It's all about overall production. People talk about Jeter. He doesn't make errors, but he also doesn't get to a bunch of balls he should. That's been noticeable just by watching the Yankees games over the years and the numbers back it up. He makes the plays he gets to...he's sure handed (and he's situationally smart)....but he gives up a bunch of outs (to his left especially).

 

It still sounds like they don't care as much about range as making sure the guy can make a play on the balls he can get to. Maybe I'm misreading it, but I don't think so.

[ashbury]

Far enough, even if it's 50 (which I think is low), it's still a plus of 40 outs. It's all about overall production. People talk about Jeter. He doesn't make errors, but he also doesn't get to a bunch of balls he should. That's been noticeable just by watching the Yankees games over the years and the numbers back it up. He makes the plays he gets to...he's sure handed (and he's situationally smart)....but he gives up a bunch of outs (to his left especially).

 

It still sounds like they don't care as much about range as making sure the guy can make a play on the balls he can get to. Maybe I'm misreading it, but I don't think so.

 

It still not 50-10=40. Getting a fielder's choice instead of a DP, not making the tag on a good throw to second to allow a steal, etc, will rack up missed outs and extra bases gained. I already said that I'm personally in the "give me range" camp, but I think the Steady Eddies of the world are of value too, and an assistant GM who likes them shouldn't be branded as deficient.

[ThePuck]

It still not 50-10=40. Getting a fielder's choice instead of a DP, not making the tag on a good throw to second to allow a steal, etc, will rack up missed outs and extra bases gained. I already said that I'm personally in the "give me range" camp, but I think the Steady Eddies of the world are of value too, and an assistant GM who likes them shouldn't be branded as deficient.

 

then adding on to the range side...stopping a ball going up the middle into the OF (even if an out isn't made) which keeps the guy running from 2nd from scoring. Often those fielder's choices you mentioned wouldn't have been even one out from a guy with minimal range.

 

I'd rather have my stead eddies at 2B, I'll take the rangy guy at shortstop who might boot a few more balls but gets to a lot more.(and the 50 is likely still low :-))

 

Enjoyed the discussion.