In Defense of the Twins Front Office

[TNtwins85]

Well, when you lose a full season of development you’re probably gonna lose a year of development. It’s amazing our prospects are where they are at this point. How long did we let TR kick the can down the road with his old school thinking when Oakland and Boston were heavy in metrics in the early 2000’s? Give it another 3-5 years to let the system come through then judge. I do get annoyed and think TR is like the wizard of oz when we’re signing the happs and shoemakers of the world. And it seems gardy is on the bench giving Derek law and beau burrows innings. I think that’s just how baseball is because every team does that. I think people get stuck in an echo chamber when it comes to their teams. I think we’re getting there though. Give it time.  Let their “recruiting” classes become upperclassmen and then decide whether the plan succeeded or failed. Let’s just hope they don’t draft a 1B or corner OF with the top 10 pick they’re getting next year. Unless he’s the next spencer torkelson. The system has changed a few mediocre draftees into fieldable players. Let’s get a few more through and see what happens

[gunnarthor]

1 hour ago, h2oface said:

The offense is fine? Have you seen the batting averages of the lineups these days. Low .200s or less except for a couple players..... It certainly isn't "fine", and could be a ton better, especially if they are to compete for the playoffs.

They've been a bit unlucky when it comes to runs but they have a 107 OPS+, a stat I like, which is tied for 6th in baseball. And TF tends to favor pitchers (which makes our pitching woes even worse) but they have a good enough offense, even with the injuries, struggles and rookies learning on the job.

[USAFChief]

39 minutes ago, ashbury said:

We're getting hung up on a fuzzy term, 'fine'.  MLB average R/G is 4.49, AL average is a tick higher at 4.55, and the Twins have 4.60.  Top teams are above 5.00. Well above.

If 'fine' is meant to suggest a .500 record is the goal, then sure the offense is fine and the defense/pitching is what's dragging us down below that humble benchmark.

But for me the aim is pennant contention and hopefully being able to go deep in the post-season and maybe even win it all.  The offense is not 'fine' by that kind of standard. 

There is NO phase of the game right now that is satisfactory toward what the FO has stated to be their goal, sustainable success.

They've also subtracted the best hitter from the offense in Cruz. 

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

On 8/10/2021 at 7:29 PM, Greglw3 said:

You said Rosario had a decent bat but I think that .270+ with 61 XBH and 32 home runs while leading the greatest HR hitting team in baseball history with 109 RBIs is an excellent hitter. I’m from the old school. I started following the Twins in 1964 and still Believe RBIs are very important. Maybe Justin Morneau took that myth on in a broadcast when he said, "then who’s going to drive the runners in?"

Some players have a knack for clutch hitting and Eddie is one of them.

I was hoping I'd never have to post this damned chart again now that Rosario is almost a season removed from this team but I guess it needs to be posted one more time.

"Eddie Rosario is clutch" is mostly a made-up narrative just like the other "player x is clutch" statements of the past 50 years.

True clutchness over a long career is exceptionally rare. IIRC, Tony Gwynn is one of the only examples of it actually happening, though I'd have to look that up to confirm.

Clutch Stats

I	Split	G	GS	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	TB	GDP	HBP	SH	SF	IBB	ROE	BAbip	tOPS+
	2 outs, RISP	277		335	309	113	76	14	2	11	105	10	2	25	61	.246	.304	.411	.715	127	0	1	0	0	9	3	.274	86
	Late & Close	352		481	443	70	123	28	5	17	78	9	2	26	98	.278	.317	.479	.796	212	8	1	8	3	6	1	.320	105
	Tie Game	514		802	757	86	201	44	3	29	114	11	6	33	150	.266	.294	.446	.741	338	10	1	3	8	4	5	.294	90
	Within 1 R	691		1595	1495	217	412	82	12	66	238	25	13	77	301	.276	.309	.479	.788	716	18	1	10	12	8	11	.304	102
	Within 2 R	741		2113	1976	290	551	107	18	83	302	35	14	103	389	.279	.312	.477	.789	943	27	2	12	20	11	12	.307	103
	Within 3 R	751		2454	2299	335	621	123	19	93	337	39	18	120	469	.270	.304	.462	.766	1061	30	2	12	21	12	14	.300	97
	Within 4 R	758		2695	2521	367	685	132	21	102	367	46	21	137	506	.272	.307	.462	.769	1165	34	2	12	23	15	15	.301	98
	Margin > 4 R	245		441	423	62	125	17	2	24	67	2	1	13	80	.296	.315	.515	.831	218	5	1	0	4	0	3	.313	112
	Ahead	484		1231	1152	186	330	59	13	50	193	23	13	63	199	.286	.321	.490	.811	565	17	1	3	12	8	10	.306	108
	Behind	475		1103	1035	157	279	46	7	47	127	14	3	54	237	.270	.304	.464	.768	480	12	1	6	7	3	3	.306	97

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 8/11/2021.

[Brock Beauchamp]

BTW, Tony Gwynn was indeed clutch. 116 tOPS+ with 2 out, RISP which is insane for a guy who had a career 132 OPS+. To be 16% better in that situation over a career is bonkers.

 

Clutch Stats

I	Split	G	GS	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	TB	GDP	HBP	SH	SF	IBB	ROE	BAbip	tOPS+
	2 outs, RISP	823		974	795	465	255	49	9	16	311	56	3	176	41	.321	.446	.465	.911	370	0	3	0	0	104	10	.324	116
	Late & Close	1305		1768	1551	250	547	82	10	28	234	71	21	184	88	.353	.418	.473	.890	733	42	2	13	18	87	31	.357	111
	Tie Game	2069		3546	3189	381	1041	192	29	48	349	109	46	297	156	.326	.381	.450	.831	1435	101	4	24	32	92	55	.329	96
	Within 1 R	2269		5938	5397	748	1781	310	47	80	588	204	93	444	272	.330	.379	.449	.828	2425	151	13	35	49	131	81	.334	96
	Within 2 R	2358		7606	6910	1007	2320	406	65	106	816	252	111	573	332	.336	.385	.459	.844	3174	188	16	42	65	159	102	.339	99
	Within 3 R	2391		8634	7827	1150	2637	472	73	119	953	283	117	672	375	.337	.387	.461	.849	3612	211	17	44	74	185	111	.340	100
	Within 4 R	2410		9272	8412	1246	2824	494	79	128	1022	304	122	718	400	.336	.386	.459	.845	3860	232	20	45	77	195	121	.339	99
	Margin > 4 R	599		960	876	137	317	49	6	7	116	15	3	72	34	.362	.409	.455	.865	399	27	4	0	8	8	18	.368	105
	Ahead	1351		3086	2754	565	946	165	28	36	396	108	54	284	115	.344	.403	.463	.866	1275	60	10	11	27	100	38	.346	105
	Behind	1548		3600	3345	437	1154	186	28	51	393	102	25	209	163	.345	.382	.463	.846	1549	98	10	10	26	11	46	.349	99

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 8/11/2021.

 

[gunnarthor]

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

BTW, Tony Gwynn was indeed clutch. 116 tOPS+ with 2 out, RISP which is insane for a guy who had a career 132 OPS+. To be 16% better in that situation over a career is bonkers.

 

Clutch Stats

I	Split	G	GS	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	TB	GDP	HBP	SH	SF	IBB	ROE	BAbip	tOPS+
	2 outs, RISP	823		974	795	465	255	49	9	16	311	56	3	176	41	.321	.446	.465	.911	370	0	3	0	0	104	10	.324	116
	Late & Close	1305		1768	1551	250	547	82	10	28	234	71	21	184	88	.353	.418	.473	.890	733	42	2	13	18	87	31	.357	111
	Tie Game	2069		3546	3189	381	1041	192	29	48	349	109	46	297	156	.326	.381	.450	.831	1435	101	4	24	32	92	55	.329	96
	Within 1 R	2269		5938	5397	748	1781	310	47	80	588	204	93	444	272	.330	.379	.449	.828	2425	151	13	35	49	131	81	.334	96
	Within 2 R	2358		7606	6910	1007	2320	406	65	106	816	252	111	573	332	.336	.385	.459	.844	3174	188	16	42	65	159	102	.339	99
	Within 3 R	2391		8634	7827	1150	2637	472	73	119	953	283	117	672	375	.337	.387	.461	.849	3612	211	17	44	74	185	111	.340	100
	Within 4 R	2410		9272	8412	1246	2824	494	79	128	1022	304	122	718	400	.336	.386	.459	.845	3860	232	20	45	77	195	121	.339	99
	Margin > 4 R	599		960	876	137	317	49	6	7	116	15	3	72	34	.362	.409	.455	.865	399	27	4	0	8	8	18	.368	105
	Ahead	1351		3086	2754	565	946	165	28	36	396	108	54	284	115	.344	.403	.463	.866	1275	60	10	11	27	100	38	.346	105
	Behind	1548		3600	3345	437	1154	186	28	51	393	102	25	209	163	.345	.382	.463	.846	1549	98	10	10	26	11	46	.349	99

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 8/11/2021.

 

Joe Mauer's stats will shock you then.

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 minute ago, gunnarthor said:

Joe Mauer's stats will shock you then.

Holy ****, how did I never notice that before? I knew Joe did well in certain situations but a tOPS+ of 129... wow...

[Major League Ready]

13 hours ago, ashbury said:

We're getting hung up on a fuzzy term, 'fine'.  MLB average R/G is 4.49, AL average is a tick higher at 4.55, and the Twins have 4.60.  Top teams are above 5.00. Well above.

If 'fine' is meant to suggest a .500 record is the goal, then sure the offense is fine and the defense/pitching is what's dragging us down below that humble benchmark.

But for me the aim is pennant contention and hopefully being able to go deep in the post-season and maybe even win it all.  The offense is not 'fine' by that kind of standard. 

There is NO phase of the game right now that is satisfactory toward what the FO has stated to be their goal, sustainable success.

Your are absolutely right that the offense is not championship caliber this year.  However, if we are to interpret exactly what was meant by Falvey's statement we would have needed to ask a couple follow-up questions.  For example, does this mean it's realistic you can put a contending team on the field every year?  Does this mean you will overcome injuries and will never have FAs that just don't work out?   Does this mean that you will find pitching in years even when 90% of the available pitching fails?

They promised to manage toward a GOAL of sustainability.  It's just not remotely reasonable to expect any mid market team to put a true contender on the field EVERY year.  They have put systems in place and made personnel decisions consistent with the stated goal if we can accept goals are not reached 100% of the time in professional sports.  For fans to get so bent about a bad year to the degree some have here is IMO naive.  Literally two-thirds of the teams in baseball are out or long-shots for the post season and it's early August.  Are all of those organizations incompetent?  Lots of things have gone wrong this year but let's not say "but you promised" by posting this type if PR statement as if they were solemn promises to contend every year.

We actually might be witnessing a turn around with some sustainability right now.  The farm system just got a jolt with some  players with the potential to be impactful for several years.  Let's get bent out of shape if the team is bad for the next 4 or 5 years as some are predicting here.  I am going to first judge if the team get better over the course of the last couple months.  Then, next year, I will expect multiple pitchers to assimilate to the ML level.  If so, they will be building sustainable success.  If not, I will be calling for their dismissal as well.  

[sjunisu]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

Your are absolutely right that the offense is not championship caliber this year.  However, if we are to interpret exactly what was meant by Falvey's statement we would have needed to ask a couple follow-up questions.  For example, does this mean it's realistic you can put a contending team on the field every year?  Does this mean you will overcome injuries and will never have FAs that just don't work out?   Does this mean that you will find pitching in years even when 90% of the available pitching fails?

They promised to manage toward a GOAL of sustainability.  It's just not remotely reasonable to expect any mid market team to put a true contender on the field EVERY year.  They have put systems in place and made personnel decisions consistent with the stated goal if we can accept goals are not reached 100% of the time in professional sports.  For fans to get so bent about a bad year to the degree some have here is IMO naive.  Literally two-thirds of the teams in baseball are out or long-shots for the post season and it's early August.  Are all of those organizations incompetent?  Lots of things have gone wrong this year but let's not say "but you promised" by posting this type if PR statement as if they were solemn promises to contend every year.

We actually might be witnessing a turn around with some sustainability right now.  The farm system just got a jolt with some  players with the potential to be impactful for several years.  Let's get bent out of shape if the team is bad for the next 4 or 5 years as some are predicting here.  I am going to first judge if the team get better over the course of the last couple months.  Then, next year, I will expect multiple pitchers to assimilate to the ML level.  If so, they will be building sustainable success.  If not, I will be calling for their dismissal as well.  

How about this as middle ground - I don't think most of the critical posters here (including myself) are demanding the duo be fired this offseason.  I personally am willing to give them 1 more season to show significant improvement (this includes being at least a game or two over .500, a rapidly improving rotation and bullpen, position player improvement, managerial decisions, etc...)  As I stated in a previous post, this will probably need to include adding at least 1 big bat, and probably 2 pitchers the quality of Berrios (since even with him achoring this staff it was horrible).  Then with the prospects acquired as well as in the system already, can backfill other rotation slots, maybe a couple bullpen slots, and a utility slot.  I am very skeptical this will occur given the history of this FO and signing higher-end pitchers (maybe the big bat slot will get filled but even that is 50/50).  If they follow their 5 yr history and sign below-average starters and hope to fill rest with prospects, they will not meet my original expectation and at that point I will be calling for their removal.  Is giving them 6 yrs an acceptable amount of time (certainly is to me)?

[ashbury]

5 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Let's get bent out of shape if the team is bad for the next 4 or 5 years 

Wow. Yeah, I think you might be able to scrape together a majority view, in that scenario.

I can't believe you'd really set that low of a bar in any other business, or that long a timeline.

Me, I haven't called for firings at the top. I have said that I now think the topic is on the table, for the first time. By that I mean that something additional could push me over, such as some kind of fatuous new 5-year rebuilding plan now that we're approaching the 5-year anniversary of their tenure - we're past the trading deadline and that hasn't happened thank goodness.  At the other end of the spectrum, I would sit still for a complete "stay the course" approach on their part, but then the results at the end of 2022 (not 4 or 5 more years) could not be like this again. Something in the middle, such as mostly standing pat with the process but deciding that the pitching coach's "best if used by date" has expired and thanking him for his contributions these past seasons, might impress me more that the higher-ups are holding everyone to a high standard.

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, ashbury said:

Wow. Yeah, I think you might be able to scrape together a majority view, in that scenario.

I can't believe you'd really set that low of a bar in any other business.

Me, I haven't called for firings at the top. I have said that I now think the topic is on the table, for the first time. By that I mean that something additional could push me over, such as some kind of fatuous new 5-year rebuilding plan now that we're approaching the 5-year anniversary of their tenure - we're past the trading deadline and that hasn't happened thank goodness.  At the other end of the spectrum, I would sit still for a complete "stay the course" approach on their part, but then the results at the end of 2022 (not 4 or 5 more years) could not be like this again. Something in the middle, such as mostly standing pat with the process but deciding that the pitching coach's "best if used by date" has expired and thanking him for his contributions these past seasons, might impress me more that the higher-ups are holding everyone to a high standard.

Taken alone that statement is pretty dumb.  In the context of my post it's basically hyperbole and the rest of my post makes that pretty clear.  Removing the rest of my post from this quote is a deliberately misrepresentative and you are better than that.

I have consistently stated the same basic message message as you have above which is let's see at the end of 2022 if this team is improved and more importantly positioned for sustained success.  I have never even hinted they should have several years to get back on track and the remainder of the post you failed to include makes this quite clear.  Not cool!

[h2oface]

2 hours ago, ashbury said:

Wow. Yeah, I think you might be able to scrape together a majority view, in that scenario.

I can't believe you'd really set that low of a bar in any other business.

Me, I haven't called for firings at the top. I have said that I now think the topic is on the table, for the first time. By that I mean that something additional could push me over, such as some kind of fatuous new 5-year rebuilding plan now that we're approaching the 5-year anniversary of their tenure - we're past the trading deadline and that hasn't happened thank goodness.  At the other end of the spectrum, I would sit still for a complete "stay the course" approach on their part, but then the results at the end of 2022 (not 4 or 5 more years) could not be like this again. Something in the middle, such as mostly standing pat with the process but deciding that the pitching coach's "best if used by date" has expired and thanking him for his contributions these past seasons, might impress me more that the higher-ups are holding everyone to a high standard.

I must be as dumb as you. But of course, I don't think you are dumb, or the way you communicated was dumb. Well thought out and to the point. We are allowed to break things down in discussion, Good points and post.

[Major League Ready]

6 hours ago, sjunisu said:

How about this as middle ground - I don't think most of the critical posters here (including myself) are demanding the duo be fired this offseason.  I personally am willing to give them 1 more season to show significant improvement (this includes being at least a game or two over .500, a rapidly improving rotation and bullpen, position player improvement, managerial decisions, etc...)  As I stated in a previous post, this will probably need to include adding at least 1 big bat, and probably 2 pitchers the quality of Berrios (since even with him achoring this staff it was horrible).  Then with the prospects acquired as well as in the system already, can backfill other rotation slots, maybe a couple bullpen slots, and a utility slot.  I am very skeptical this will occur given the history of this FO and signing higher-end pitchers (maybe the big bat slot will get filled but even that is 50/50).  If they follow their 5 yr history and sign below-average starters and hope to fill rest with prospects, they will not meet my original expectation and at that point I will be calling for their removal.  Is giving them 6 yrs an acceptable amount of time (certainly is to me)?

I definitely agree we should expect a team above 500 next year.  No doubt we should expect a better rotation but more importantly we need to see validation of prospect identification and development.  Same for the BP.  I also agree that it’s pointless to sign mediocre starters.  That would be very short-sighted given the number of SPs we have ready to be auditioned.  Where we disagree is that I would not try to fix everything in one off-season unless Ober / Jax and Ryan are really impressive for the remainder of the season.  At that point I would go after one of the high profile free agent SPs.  The reality is that in the past 20 years two elite free agent SPs have been signed by teams with roughly equivalent revenue to the Twins.  Therefore, an expectation they sign two is just not realistic.

The question we should be asking is not …. How do we contend for a WS next year?  We should be asking what is the best strategy to return to contention.  The best strategy for returning to contention is not consistent (at the moment) with a strategy focused on building a WS contender next year.  They need to almost completely rebuild the SP and BP.  They need to dedicate rotation spots to the numerous prospects that will be ready next year.  In other words, the fastest way to build a sustainable winner is to take the time necessary to develop our own pitching.  Having said this, I would much prefer pursuing one high end SP as opposed to filling the rotation with a couple Michael Pineda types even though that might net a few more win next year.
 

[gunnarthor]

I dunno. At the beginning of the year, I said Levine should be in the hot seat and I was pretty worried about how this season would play out. I thought we would be a playoff team but a complete pitching fiasco was not that improbable. I said then that it could wreck our season.

I think I've seen enough of Levine to move on from him. His trades have been pretty bad, his understanding of the talent in and outside the organization has been even worse. While his drafts aren't fully ready to grade, we can move on. I'll ok giving Falvey more time although I hope he rethinks this 5 inning pitching philosophy.

[Mike Sixel]

I do think it is fair to want them gone ..... and if they don't show MAJOR progress next year, I'll join the chorus.

I also think it is fair to look at how far the system has come, acknowledge Covid messed up last year (and their development of nearly every pitcher they've acquired), and give them another year to show that they can grow talent and acquire long term talent (I'm not interested in more 1 year deals).

[ashbury]

6 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Taken alone that statement is pretty dumb.  In the context of my post it's basically hyperbole and the rest of my post makes that pretty clear.  Removing the rest of my post from this quote is a deliberately misrepresentative and you are better than that.

I have consistently stated the same basic message message as you have above which is let's see at the end of 2022 if this team is improved and more importantly positioned for sustained success.  I have never even hinted they should have several years to get back on track and the remainder of the post you failed to include makes this quite clear.  Not cool!

You attempted a bit of satire in the middle of an otherwise serious paragraph - always a risky strategy, as I can attest from hard experience. But I figured the smiley face was enough of a clue that I had fielded your short-hop.  And I highlighted the one line because I didn't want misunderstanding about what I was reacting to. Then, the main body of my response was a pretty measured and temperate take, suggesting we're not actually that far apart.  You want to give them some rope; I'm willing to give some rope.

I'm just not willing to curtly dismiss with satire those who offer less rope than I do.

[Johnny Ringo]

If anyone watched the Field of Dreams game last night, we are now starting to see the White Sox fully assembled with Jimenez and Robert returning to the lineup. They are a machine from top to bottom. This is what a team looks like in 2021. Doesn't it end all discussion if the Twins' FO has done a "good" job? The White Sox must look in our dugout and just shake their heads. 

[Mike Sixel]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Ringo said:

If anyone watched the Field of Dreams game last night, we are now starting to see the White Sox fully assembled with Jimenez and Robert returning to the lineup. They are a machine from top to bottom. This is what a team looks like in 2021. Doesn't it end all discussion if the Twins' FO has done a "good" job? The White Sox must look in our dugout and just shake their heads. 

The white Sox started a rebuild seven years ago, by trading off guys like Berrios...... The Twins were in a different position when this FO took over. 

Were the Sox shaking their heads two years ago? 

Do people just think other teams are badly run and won't improve sometimes? 

[KirbyDome89]

21 hours ago, gunnarthor said:

I dunno. At the beginning of the year, I said Levine should be in the hot seat and I was pretty worried about how this season would play out. I thought we would be a playoff team but a complete pitching fiasco was not that improbable. I said then that it could wreck our season.

I think I've seen enough of Levine to move on from him. His trades have been pretty bad, his understanding of the talent in and outside the organization has been even worse. While his drafts aren't fully ready to grade, we can move on. I'll ok giving Falvey more time although I hope he rethinks this 5 inning pitching philosophy.

I remember an offseason thread where you were mocked, openly, for that suggestion. 

My question is how independently do Falvey and Levine act? I honestly have no idea. I do have a hard time imagining Falvey doesn't have his fingerprints all over the issues you listed. If only Levine is cut loose I'd see it more as a symbolic firing, similar to something along the lines of Wes Johnson losing his job, than a sign that things will truly change. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

4 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

My question is how independently do Falvey and Levine act? I honestly have no idea. I do have a hard time imagining Falvey doesn't have his fingerprints all over the issues you listed. If only Levine is cut loose I'd see it more as a symbolic firing, similar to something along the lines of Wes Johnson losing his job, than a sign that things will truly change. 

I don’t really have evidence to support this but I’ve always considered them largely working in tandem. 

[Greglw3]

On 8/11/2021 at 8:33 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

I was hoping I'd never have to post this damned chart again now that Rosario is almost a season removed from this team but I guess it needs to be posted one more time.

"Eddie Rosario is clutch" is mostly a made-up narrative just like the other "player x is clutch" statements of the past 50 years.

True clutchness over a long career is exceptionally rare. IIRC, Tony Gwynn is one of the only examples of it actually happening, though I'd have to look that up to confirm.

Clutch Stats

I	Split	G	GS	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	TB	GDP	HBP	SH	SF	IBB	ROE	BAbip	tOPS+
	2 outs, RISP	277		335	309	113	76	14	2	11	105	10	2	25	61	.246	.304	.411	.715	127	0	1	0	0	9	3	.274	86
	Late & Close	352		481	443	70	123	28	5	17	78	9	2	26	98	.278	.317	.479	.796	212	8	1	8	3	6	1	.320	105
	Tie Game	514		802	757	86	201	44	3	29	114	11	6	33	150	.266	.294	.446	.741	338	10	1	3	8	4	5	.294	90
	Within 1 R	691		1595	1495	217	412	82	12	66	238	25	13	77	301	.276	.309	.479	.788	716	18	1	10	12	8	11	.304	102
	Within 2 R	741		2113	1976	290	551	107	18	83	302	35	14	103	389	.279	.312	.477	.789	943	27	2	12	20	11	12	.307	103
	Within 3 R	751		2454	2299	335	621	123	19	93	337	39	18	120	469	.270	.304	.462	.766	1061	30	2	12	21	12	14	.300	97
	Within 4 R	758		2695	2521	367	685	132	21	102	367	46	21	137	506	.272	.307	.462	.769	1165	34	2	12	23	15	15	.301	98
	Margin > 4 R	245		441	423	62	125	17	2	24	67	2	1	13	80	.296	.315	.515	.831	218	5	1	0	4	0	3	.313	112
	Ahead	484		1231	1152	186	330	59	13	50	193	23	13	63	199	.286	.321	.490	.811	565	17	1	3	12	8	10	.306	108
	Behind	475		1103	1035	157	279	46	7	47	127	14	3	54	237	.270	.304	.464	.768	480	12	1	6	7	3	3	.306	97

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 8/11/2021.

Hey Brock, 

Thanks for the Bob Allison all rookie team card!!!

I had done a study of RBIs per 162 games for the full careers of Rosario and Cave since Cave started the season as his replacement. Eddie has averaged 92 RBI per 162 games for his entire career, rookie season until now.

This would seem high for a player with a slash line of .275/.308/.470.

Even this season with Cleveland, he has a projected RBI total of 88 (arbitrary 550 AB) with a .254/.296/.389 slash line. I take that to mean that he is driving in runs this year well above expectation if not factoring in some clutch hitting ability. The same would apply for the 92 RBI avg per 162 vs his career slash line. 

As a point of reference, Jake Cave for his career per 162 has averaged 56 RBIs.

Another point is why did the Atlanta Braves want to ride for him as a contending team for the playoffs.

I know I will never convince anyone who thinks Eddie wasn’t a good to very good player but we have to agree to disagree.

I just think he is and has been over his career such a vastly superior to Jake Cave that when they released Rosario and started the season with Cave as the everyday LF, I felt very disillusioned. In fact Eddie just blew Cave off the map on virtually all of the per 162 game stats with the possible exception of OPS, where Eddie was ahead.

I think part of the problem is that I draw a lot of my conclusions using the eye test and traditional statistics. Something magical happens when you watch a player virtually every day for a 162 game season. I think you get a pretty complete picture.

Another part of the problem is that I look at the stats that myself and all the other Twins fans since the 60s looked at for close to 6 decades and baseball fans in general had looked at for probably over 100 years until Bill James started doing his work. 

It seems the Rosario detractors tend to not regard RBIs highly, some are a no, even on batting average (Luis Arraez, Rod Carew .388). I looked at a 2019 WAR calc for Eddie Rosario and he was worth 3.2 WAR except it was changed to 0.9 due to defense. That seems ridiculous to me especially since he demonstrably won x games with his throwing arm. If Delmon Young had been changed from 3.2 to 0.9 solely due to defense, I might believe it.

 

Edited August 14, 2021 by Greglw3
minor edit

[KirbyDome89]

18 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I don’t really have evidence to support this but I’ve always considered them largely working in tandem. 

Same, I've always lumped them together. If we're at the point of cutting bait then keeping one and not the other doesn't seem to be in the best interest of the team.