Game Recap: Cleveland 4, Twins 1

[cHawk]

2 hours ago, bighat said:

It's similar to when the Vikings have a dominant drive in the first quarter then settle for a field goal.

Don't remind me about that game this past year against the Colts...

[Mahoning]

2 hours ago, TheBoofIsLoose said:

Well, he has a .668 OPS and an 81 OPS+ which means that Kirilloff and Larnach are hitting better than him in every category except RBI, so it's fair to say the corner outfield spots are doing well in the interim. Plus we got to see classic Eddie when he was thrown out walking back to second on an admittedly boneheaded play. Honestly who would you rather have in LF, Rosario or Larnach? The answer seems pretty straightforward. I agree that it seemed people were too eager to get rid of him and I like Eddie as a player and he seems like a good person, but this narrative that he was an irreplaceable bat and clubhouse leader just doesn't make sense.

Small sample sizes for Larnach (who also blundered on the bases) and Kiriloff. Eddie is on pace to drive in 100 (again!) To me that counts more that OPS, etc. In ballgames runs count, OPS doesn't. The Twins, ostensibly, were built to win THIS YEAR. Replacing a known run-producer with two unproven (and still unproven) rookies seems inconsistent with that (now failed) approach. It's unlikely that between the two of them Kiriloff and Larnach will match Eddie this year.   

[Mike Sixel]

59 minutes ago, Mahoning said:

Small sample sizes for Larnach (who also blundered on the bases) and Kiriloff. Eddie is on pace to drive in 100 (again!) To me that counts more that OPS, etc. In ballgames runs count, OPS doesn't. The Twins, ostensibly, were built to win THIS YEAR. Replacing a known run-producer with two unproven (and still unproven) rookies seems inconsistent with that (now failed) approach. It's unlikely that between the two of them Kiriloff and Larnach will match Eddie this year.   

Who would Eddie be driving in, on this team? I mean....he's on pace for 100 because he hits in the prime RBI spot for a good hitting team....not because he's a better hitter than those two. 

[USAFChief]

2 hours ago, cHawk said:

"Not surprising."

Wordy.

[Platoon]

Aggravating!

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

Who would Eddie be driving in, on this team? I mean....he's on pace for 100 because he hits in the prime RBI spot for a good hitting team....not because he's a better hitter than those two. 

Can't argue that point but we also know that RBI is not a great measure.  By every other measure OBP (301) OPS (.668) wRC+ 82 he is a below average hitter playing a position typically played by above average hitters.  If the Twins signed a corner OFer with this line people would be pissed.

[Mike Sixel]

2 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Can't argue that point but we also know that RBI is not a great measure.  By every other measure OBP (301) OPS (.668) wRC+ 82 he is a below average hitter playing a position typically played by above average hitters.  If the Twins signed a corner OFer with this line people would be pissed.

We agree on that....I'm pushing back on the "RBI are a measure of how good a hitter he is"....

To BE CLEAR.....no one is saying RBI don't matter. No one. Not one person. What some are saying is the RBI are a function of the other hitters around you, and opportunity......and that if you want to know how good a hitter someone is, you should look at other things. 

I remember people saying Mauer wasn't a good hitter because he didn't have enough RBI....when you looked at the stats, he actually hit BETTER with people on base than the bases empty, but he didn't have many opportunities given where he hit in the order, and the hitters in front of him......

No one is saying RBI don't matter. People are saying something totally different than that.....

None of that is aimed at MLR......btw. He and I agree on this, though I guess that would be hard to tell sometimes

[Major League Ready]

7 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

We agree on that....I'm pushing back on the "RBI are a measure of how good a hitter he is"....

To BE CLEAR.....no one is saying RBI don't matter. No one. Not one person. What some are saying is the RBI are a function of the other hitters around you, and opportunity......and that if you want to know how good a hitter someone is, you should look at other things. 

I remember people saying Mauer wasn't a good hitter because he didn't have enough RBI....when you looked at the stats, he actually hit BETTER with people on base than the bases empty, but he didn't have many opportunities given where he hit in the order, and the hitters in front of him......

No one is saying RBI don't matter. People are saying something totally different than that.....

None of that is aimed at MLR......btw. He and I agree on this, though I guess that would be hard to tell sometimes

Do you like wRC+ or prefer to look at a wider cast of stats?

[h2oface]

5 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

Trying to understand....are people saying the player should have run through the stop sign the coach put up? That's what people want?

If it is Diaz, yes.   He should not be at third base anyway. He holds fast runners and sends guys like Sano. I think he is terrible. Some have been running through his signs......

I just think Diaz needs replaced. He makes bad decisions. We need a coach there that is creating runs instead of stopping them or sending the slow runners and holding the fast ones. Holding Larnach on that freak wild pitch play was brutal, and cost us a run.

[Mike Sixel]

4 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Do you like wRC+ or prefer to look at a wider cast of stats?

I'm too lazy to look at much more than wRC+.....I know given my posting volume that might be hard to believe......but that stats enough for me 90% of the time. If the Twins were to trade for someone, I'd probably look at what makes that up some.....

[h2oface]

7 hours ago, Dodecahedron said:

Yes, yes.  No one here could have predicted that doing an intentional walk so that you can face Rosario would not work out well.  Nope.  No one.  Total surprise.

If only we had a scouting report on the guy.  It's not like he's on a 12-game hitting streak with a .333 average during that time.  Can anyone pull up his hitting numbers for the past few years, especially late in games where the score is close?  I can't find them.  Analytics is hard, and this guy is very mysterious.

Ah well, sometimes baseball just gets ya!  In totally shocking ways of course.  If only we had a crystal ball or some dang documentation on this hitter.  Bad luck strikes again, I totally side with Baldelli on this one because this Rosario guy just came out of nowhere.  Rosario who?  No one in Twins territory has ever heard of this guy.  I can't find anything about him at all.  We'll get 'em next time!

Thank you. I brought up his last 30, 15 and 7 day average and OBP in the game thread claiming he has been hot..... and received the almighty OPS in response during that period, which was .759 or something (which, btw, is still higher than all but Larnach, Donaldson, and Cruz from yesterday's Twins lineup). Some are posting his OPS for the year here, too, which is in the .600s. I believe the best managers pay more attention to the last week and the more recent sss performance than a yearly stat predictor or career stat. I am not saying Eddie should still be on this team, I am saying that to walk the bases loaded with 1 out to get to pitch to him was a poor decision (screamed in real time, and not hindsight - a double play set up with a runner on first already). Average matters. Singles matter. RBI matter, and they have the element of opportunity, sure, but that is when some players perform, and that is why they have a lot of RBI. 

I believe the ongoing RBI discussion is driven by the statement that "RBI and average are a meaningless and useless stat " and not they, in themselves, are useless or meaningless. Kind of the same thing, but not quite. I will not be a part of the movement to devalue either. Hits are always good, and especially with RISP. Some hit all solo homers, and some hit homers (or singles or doubles etc) with runners on, and runs, in the end, is the most important stat. Scoring them, and not giving them up. 

[chpettit19]

17 hours ago, h2oface said:

"Eddie Rosario broke the game open in his return to target field with a 2 RBI single followed by another RBI single from Bobby Bradley to give Cleveland a 4-1 lead that would hold through the end of the game."

Not that it matters, but Bradley's was a ground out and Polanco decided to let the run score and throw it to first for the second out (Rosario was running and the double play ball was mute). Common decision, but I always hate not making the play at home (Ramirez is no speedster) and getting the runner out. Maybe he scores anyway, but it is the 8th inning and being 2 runs down is way better than 3.

For what it's worth Ramirez is 78th percentile in sprint speed, so he's certainly not slow.

[Dodecahedron]

12 minutes ago, h2oface said:

I believe the ongoing RBI discussion is driven by the statement that "RBI and average are a meaningless and useless stat " and not they, in themselves, are useless or meaningless. Kind of the same thing, but not quite. I will not be a part of the movement to devalue either. Hits are always good, and especially with RISP. Some hit all solo homers, and some hit homers (or singles or doubles etc) with runners on, and runs, in the end, is the most important stat. Scoring them, and not giving them up. 

Bill James first offered up the idea that RBIs are pointless, which caused quite an uproar at the time.  However, James frequently cited RBIs then and he continues to cite them now.  I would say RBIs are a big part of his thinking, actually.  Even if that's not true, to say James does not consider RBIs is just not true.

As always, context is important.  James was pointing out that someone won the MVP award who should not have, apparently based on RBIs alone.  I believe this was Thurman Munson in 1976.  In any case, as sabermetrics took off decades later, James's essay on RBIs was taken out of context. 

James was right.  In Munson's case, if you are batting 3rd on a team that has a team OPS+ of 111, you're going to get 100 RBIs.  RBIs are meaningless in this case.  There were 4 or 5 other players on that team who would have achieved this milestone had they been in the right place in the batting order.

[chpettit19]

8 hours ago, Mahoning said:

Countless times I have read the local experts asserting with confidence that Rosario would be easy to replace. Well, he is playing for a team with a poor offense and has 41 RBI -- more than any Twin. SO EASY to replace, and yet the Twins have not replaced him. Good for Eddie -- he went to an organization than knows how to win. 

You wouldn't consider Kirilloff or Larnach as replacements for Rosario?

[Dodecahedron]

4 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

You wouldn't consider Kirilloff or Larnach as replacements for Rosario?

Would you?  Neither of them were on the opening day roster.  Rosario was replaced by Cave and/or Garlick.  Arraez was already here.  

[Major League Ready]

21 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

You wouldn't consider Kirilloff or Larnach as replacements for Rosario?

Rosario has been good for 10 days.  The rest of the year he has sucked by ever measure except RBI.  He hits 4th and he has played almost every game.  Cleveland has played 72 games or 44.44% of the season which means he is on place for 92 not 100 RBI and that's not even close to the top of the league for a corner OFer.  Add to that the stupid base running mistakes and I am extremely happy to have Larnach or Kirilloff in LF.  Actually, I would prefer to have Rob Refsnyder or Garlick and $10M to spend on free agents it's not even close.  Also, the retort that Larnach and Kirilloff were not on the opening day roster is an absolute failure to accept common sense.  The team knew they were both ready and either one would be available for 90+% of the season.  

[howeda7]

8 minutes ago, Dodecahedron said:

Would you?  Neither of them were on the opening day roster.  Rosario was replaced by Cave and/or Garlick.  Arraez was already here.  

Both in terms of payroll and indirectly on the field, Rosario was essentially replaced by Simmons, who has been mostly a bust. I think it's fair to say they'd have been better off with Rosario in LF and Arreaz/Polanco up the middle.

[Major League Ready]

7 minutes ago, howeda7 said:

Both in terms of payroll and indirectly on the field, Rosario was essentially replaced by Simmons, who has been mostly a bust. I think it's fair to say they'd have been better off with Rosario in LF and Arreaz/Polanco up the middle.

Even If I could convince myself defense does not matter, I would still take Larnach ever day of the week.  With Rosario's recent hot streak he has now produced .2 wins above replacement.  Failure to move on from mediocre players like Rosario is a great recipe for mediocrity or failure.  Ask yourself what Tampa would have do\ne with Rosario and the answer is he would have been gone before this year.

[Dodecahedron]

1 minute ago, howeda7 said:

Both in terms of payroll and indirectly on the field, Rosario was essentially replaced by Simmons, who has been mostly a bust. I think it's fair to say they'd have been better off with Rosario in LF and Arreaz/Polanco up the middle.

Maybe.  I admit I have a Rosario bias.  I would have kept him for another year, if possible, but even I admit his time left in a Twins uniform was running out.  

People keep throwing around that he is not worth $10M.  Fine, but he's not making $10M.  We may as well say he's not worth $100M, which would be correct too.  Some fans decided over the offseason that $10M is what he would cost and did not let later facts budge them from that narrative.  

[h2oface]

41 minutes ago, Dodecahedron said:

Bill James first offered up the idea that RBIs are pointless, which caused quite an uproar at the time.  However, James frequently cited RBIs then and he continues to cite them now.  I would say RBIs are a big part of his thinking, actually.  Even if that's not true, to say James does not consider RBIs is just not true.

As always, context is important.  James was pointing out that someone won the MVP award who should not have, apparently based on RBIs alone.  I believe this was Thurman Munson in 1976.  In any case, as sabermetrics took off decades later, James's essay on RBIs was taken out of context. 

James was right.  In Munson's case, if you are batting 3rd on a team that has a team OPS+ of 111, you're going to get 100 RBIs.  RBIs are meaningless in this case.  There were 4 or 5 other players on that team who would have achieved this milestone had they been in the right place in the batting order.

I feel, to assume that a different player would hit the same as said player in the more pressure packed opportunity, is folly. Maybe they would, but so many don't. So many can get hits with no pressure added, and then not deliver when it would count more.

[Dodecahedron]

4 minutes ago, h2oface said:

I feel, to assume that a different player would hit the same as said player in the more pressure packed opportunity, is folly. Maybe they would, but so many don't. So many can get hits with no pressure added, and then not deliver when it would count more.

That sounds like a Bill James quote right there. 

Take a look at the 76 Yankees team.  They were solid, especially for a year that was down offensively.  James pointed out there were at least half a dozen players who were more deserving of the MVP that year.  A straight up sort by bWAR identifies ten.  Munson wasn't even the best player on that squad.

Of course, it could be that baseball writers fell in love with Munson's personality.  

[h2oface]

9 minutes ago, Dodecahedron said:

That sounds like a Bill James quote right there. 

Take a look at the 76 Yankees team.  They were solid, especially for a year that was down offensively.  James pointed out there were at least half a dozen players who were more deserving of the MVP that year.  A straight up sort by bWAR identifies ten.  Munson wasn't even the best player on that squad.

Of course, it could be that baseball writers fell in love with Munson's personality.  

Ha! I have never even heard of Bill James and really don't see his 1976 or so essay as part of the recent discussion here on TD. But thanks for mentioning him. Interesting.

[howeda7]

1 hour ago, Dodecahedron said:

Maybe.  I admit I have a Rosario bias.  I would have kept him for another year, if possible, but even I admit his time left in a Twins uniform was running out.  

People keep throwing around that he is not worth $10M.  Fine, but he's not making $10M.  We may as well say he's not worth $100M, which would be correct too.  Some fans decided over the offseason that $10M is what he would cost and did not let later facts budge them from that narrative.  

I don't think that moving on from Rosario was an indefensible move. But some players are worth more than their stats, and he might have been one of them. Since he's having a down year, I wouldn't be opposed to bringing him back on a cheap 1-2 year deal as a roving 4th OF'er and using Larnach/Kepler in the DH spot.

[howeda7]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

Even If I could convince myself defense does not matter, I would still take Larnach ever day of the week.  With Rosario's recent hot streak he has now produced .2 wins above replacement.  Failure to move on from mediocre players like Rosario is a great recipe for mediocrity or failure.  Ask yourself what Tampa would have do\ne with Rosario and the answer is he would have been gone before this year.

I'd take Larnach too, but I don't see that as a binary choice. As long as you're not over-paying him, I don't see how he leads to "mediocrity or failure". They tried to trade him. There was no interest.

[Otto von Ballpark]

11 hours ago, Mahoning said:

Countless times I have read the local experts asserting with confidence that Rosario would be easy to replace. Well, he is playing for a team with a poor offense and has 41 RBI -- more than any Twin. SO EASY to replace, and yet the Twins have not replaced him.

Above the game logs at Baseball Reference is a nice summary of RBI opportunities:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.fcgi?id=rosared01&t=b&year=2021

RBIs

in 278 PAs	41
Actual Runners on Base	165 (85-54-26)
Avg. MLBer w/ 278 PAs	31
Avg. Runners on Base	167 (84-54-28)

Rosario has done well this year in RBI, with +10 over the average player. But note that, despite being on a poor hitting team, his RBI opportunities are about the same as an average player too. That's probably due to batting 4th/5th behind a good hitter or two (and the poor Cleveland hitters may be failing in their own RBI opportunities and leaving those baserunners for other players like Rosario?).

FWIW, Kirilloff has the exactly the same positive RBI rate, with average opportunity, just in fewer PA:

RBIs

in 161 PAs	24
Actual Runners on Base	98 (47-35-16)
Avg. MLBer w/ 161 PAs	18
Avg. Runners on Base	96 (49-31-16)

Larnach on the other hand has a low RBI total compared to average, but even more opportunities than average too. Not a large sample yet, of course:

RBIs

in 152 PAs	12
Actual Runners on Base	116 (57-41-18)
Avg. MLBer w/ 152 PAs	17
Avg. Runners on Base	91 (46-29-15)

[Otto von Ballpark]

2 hours ago, Dodecahedron said:

People keep throwing around that he is not worth $10M.  Fine, but he's not making $10M.  We may as well say he's not worth $100M, which would be correct too.  Some fans decided over the offseason that $10M is what he would cost and did not let later facts budge them from that narrative.  

The Twins best chance of keeping Rosario was to offer him arbitration, and his estimated arb award was $10 mil.

It's possible that Rosario would have signed with us for $8 mil after we non-tendered him, but it's also possible that may not have been enough to top an $8 mil offer from Cleveland, if he felt insulted by our non-tender and/or could see the writing on the wall here with Kirilloff and Larnach.

[chpettit19]

3 hours ago, Dodecahedron said:

Maybe.  I admit I have a Rosario bias.  I would have kept him for another year, if possible, but even I admit his time left in a Twins uniform was running out.  

People keep throwing around that he is not worth $10M.  Fine, but he's not making $10M.  We may as well say he's not worth $100M, which would be correct too.  Some fans decided over the offseason that $10M is what he would cost and did not let later facts budge them from that narrative.  

The $10m came from pretty widely accepted estimates of his likely arbitration number. And every team in the league chose not to claim him and have to pay him that. So there's certainly "facts" to back up that narrative. As for Kirilloff and Larnach not being his replacement, that's a stretch in facts for you to stick to your narrative. Is your argument that the Twins had no plans to call either of them up this year? Kirilloff and Larnach were always the replacement plan for Rosario. And it is undoubtedly working out quite well as they're both hitting better than him, even with his recent supernova hot streak.

[Major League Ready]

12 hours ago, Dodecahedron said:

Maybe.  I admit I have a Rosario bias.  I would have kept him for another year, if possible, but even I admit his time left in a Twins uniform was running out.  

People keep throwing around that he is not worth $10M.  Fine, but he's not making $10M.  We may as well say he's not worth $100M, which would be correct too.  Some fans decided over the offseason that $10M is what he would cost and did not let later facts budge them from that narrative.  

What he got in free agency is absolutely irrelevant.  $10M is a very fair estimate for what he would have got in arbitration which is what he would have cost had we kept him.  Trying to make a case for a guy playing barely above replacement is a product of only see what you want to see.  Bias is a powerful retardant for the accepting the truth even when it's this obvious.  Sorry for the tone but I am sick of hearing about Eddie Rosario when we have two replacements that are both looking like cornerstones for the franchise.  The wisdom in moving on should now be painfully obvious.

[Dodecahedron]

It seems strange to be "sick of" talking about a baseball topic when it's fairly simple to not talk about it.  It seems doubly strange to be unable to respond in a civil manner.  Angry over people saying Rosario doesn't suck?  Alright.  Thank the administrators for enabling the ignore user function in the portal.