I’ve been wondering, how much effect (if any) will the shift ban have on Kepler’s offensive output next season? I would think that it should help some.

Thoughts?

I believe he could improve some and be an asset, so I'm between #1 & #2. Yet I think he could help a team like CO more. If we can get a quaity SP in exchange, I'd be in for trading him. But I wouldn't trade him just to trade him.

I don't look at 2019 as an aberration. I think it was simply his peak. And the 2019 baseball didn't hurt him any either.

A 2B at the edge of the grass in the hole between 1B and 2B would only have a few steps more to take  to snag the ball, so a few more might drop in. I don’t know if the home run swing causes him to hit so many ground balls at the hole. A more line drive swing might fix it 

27 minutes ago, Doctor Gast said:

I believe he could improve some and be an asset, so I'm between #1 & #2. Yet I think he could help a team like CO more. If we can get a quaity SP in exchange, I'd be in for trading him. But I wouldn't trade him just to trade him.

Benintendi only brought back suspects when he was traded from Boston. He is a similar to better offense, probably not the defense than Kepler. Why on earth would anyone five up a quality starting pitcher, a rare commodity, for a corner outfielder that is about an average hitter like Kepler

2019 Kepler will not be returning to Target Field...Something better offensively then 2022 hopefully will.

It will help him some.  It certainly can't hurt.  Maybe a Kepler for Marquez trade with the Rockies Doc Gast ?  Maybe expand the deal and get a RH hitting OF'er (Connor Joe?) back as well.  With Kepler, Wallner, Kirilloff and Larnach I just can't see all four staying.  One or two could be moved.  Colorado has had success with other former Twins (Morneau, Cuddy) so why not make a trade for Max.  

I look forward to following his career wherever we trade him. 

I went with B, but C kinda fits too. I think a few more of his infield hits will drop for singles when they can’t shift him, but he won’t see any more homers and 2019 version of the Manfred ball inflated Kep’s power. Overall I don’t think it’ll be a big boost for him.

I do not believe the rules will help him at all.  The rule will still allow for the second baseman to play well in the hole, just not start in the OF, but I do not believe that he was robbed of solid base hits that where taken away because the second baseman was playing in the OF.  Maybe like 5 over the season.  Most of the ground balls he hit that way where weakly hit anyways. 

I didn't vote because I was looking for the "I don't know but it better help" option. 

1 hour ago, Nine of twelve said:

I don't look at 2019 as an aberration. I think it was simply his peak. And the 2019 baseball didn't hurt him any either.

Okay, so then what is your answer to the question of the OP? Will the shift help, no change, I don’t know?

9 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

I didn't vote because I was looking for the "I don't know but it better help" option. 

Okay … I added an ‘I don’t know option’ but not exactly as you put it because it’s my poll ?

It almost has to, doesn't it?  The question will be how much.  

Kepler should not bat leadoff, in general, or be a #3-5 hitter, in general. He should hit lower in the lineup and be rested against LHP as much as possible. But despite his inconsistencies, he's basically a league average hitter for his career. So he's never been bad as a producer, just never/seldom been a very good one.

The change in shift should help, it's just hard to know how much. Another 10 hits? 20? But continuing to hit weak grounder toward the 1B-2B hole won't allow for any improvement. 

Note: I'm not sure Kepler is traded anywhere with current youth/injury questions in the OF. (But again, they absolutely MUST add a decent RH OF). But were he moved, I love the Colorado idea for Marquez. I'd love to see what he might do with a change of scenery. 

It shouldn't hurt, but it won't help shift his balls over the fence. I'd promote the removal of the shift as a particular benefit to his game and try to trade him; I'm ready to see the young guys with higher ceilings.

 

2 hours ago, DocBauer said:

I love the Colorado idea for Marquez. I'd love to see what he might do with a change of scenery. 

Question, why would Colorado trade their 2nd best pitcher (15 million this year and either 16 million next year or 2.5 buyout) for Max Kepler (8.5 this year and either 10 million or 1 buyout)

Would it just be money savings or do they have pitchers ready to take over his 181.2 innings? I am curious I don't know?

Also where would he slot in the Twins rotation? Mahle, Ryan, Gray, Marquez? Leaving all the rookie types to fight for the scraps? (Ober, Winder, SWR, Varland)

IMO it seems more likely they trade away a Gray then bring another guy in, but I don't know.

 

1 hour ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Question, why would Colorado trade their 2nd best pitcher (15 million this year and either 16 million next year or 2.5 buyout) for Max Kepler (8.5 this year and either 10 million or 1 buyout)

Would it just be money savings or do they have pitchers ready to take over his 181.2 innings? I am curious I don't know?

Also where would he slot in the Twins rotation? Mahle, Ryan, Gray, Marquez? Leaving all the rookie types to fight for the scraps? (Ober, Winder, SWR, Varland)

IMO it seems more likely they trade away a Gray then bring another guy in, but I don't know.

 

I don't think Colorado would do it either, unless it was indeed part of a dump of sorts. But it's an idea brought up in this thread, and another before, so I offered up a thought. 

I do wonder if Colorado should rebuild  and maybe the Twins could help them with that and maybe Kepler could be part of a deal.

In general, I'm a bit ambivalent about adding a SP. On paper, I really like our top 5 with some young depth that needs opportunity, and will probably get it. But if I'm the GM...maybe even a little worried about my job after a pair of bad seasons...I almost have to approach 2023 with the idea that at least one of my SP will have a devastating injury. And as a result, I'm thinking it might be nice to have too many options vs too few. I don't want a repeat of last year. And I do find Marquez to be an intriguing option if they go that route. But I don't see Kepler as a #1 piece in any kind of deal. And I'm not sure he's going anywhere in 2023 other than the Twins OF.

But that's all off original topic.

Claim here that Kepler had lost the second most hits since 2020. Further claim that it cost him 50 points in batting average.

The 50 seems way too high but even if it just half of that he is a much more valuable player.

I don’t think it shows up in trade value until he actually performs so I wouldn’t trade him.

Who wants to place a bet against this statement: In Kepler's walk year, he will suddenly discover how to hit the ball to the opposite field and raise his batting average 35 points above his career average and he'll hit 20 HR's and steal 10 bases, and he'll get a Covid vaccine. 

2 hours ago, tarheeltwinsfan said:

Who wants to place a bet against this statement: In Kepler's walk year, he will suddenly discover how to hit the ball to the opposite field and raise his batting average 35 points above his career average and he'll hit 20 HR's and steal 10 bases, and he'll get a Covid vaccine. 

Which is his walk year, 2023 or 2024?  The team holds a $10M option for 2024 with a $1M buyout.  So if he lights it up in 2023 in anticipation this could be his last season with the team, the team will exercise the option and it won't have been his walk year after all.  Catch-22!

4 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

Claim here that Kepler had lost the second most hits since 2020. Further claim that it cost him 50 points in batting average.

The 50 seems way too high but even if it just half of that he is a much more valuable player.

I don’t think it shows up in trade value until he actually performs so I wouldn’t trade him.

Spray chart shows a lot of ground balls in the infield. They wouls still be outs because the 2B still wouldn’t have to move far

47 minutes ago, old nurse said:

Spray chart shows a lot of ground balls in the infield. They wouls still be outs because the 2B still wouldn’t have to move far

I think they did that work with the tracking data for each ball in play.

11 hours ago, jorgenswest said:

I think they did that work with the tracking data for each ball in play.

Let me try again. The work is  flawed because the 2B can still play in the hole, just not short  outfield. The shift is not banned completely. Where Kepler hit the ball the 2b still can be there. ,  Now if there were 9 red dots on the field  stating this is where a fielder has to start every play they could be right. Celestino would also yarn be a ..400 hitter because they couldn’t play in

1 hour ago, old nurse said:

Let me try again. The work is  flawed because the 2B can still play in the hole, just not short  outfield. The shift is not banned completely. Where Kepler hit the ball the 2b still can be there. ,  Now if there were 9 red dots on the field  stating this is where a fielder has to start every play they could be right. Celestino would also yarn be a ..400 hitter because they couldn’t play in

I guess it would help if there was a study with data to contradict and show that it will be little benefit to Kepler. There is a study in the Athletic which also points to a Kepler being among a handful that will benefit both with the 2B on the infield and hits up the middle.

Do you think there will benefit to some players but not Kepler? Do you think it won’t have any impact for any player?

17 hours ago, ashbury said:

Which is his walk year, 2023 or 2024?  The team holds a $10M option for 2024 with a $1M buyout.  So if he lights it up in 2023 in anticipation this could be his last season with the team, the team will exercise the option and it won't have been his walk year after all.  Catch-22!

I was thinking the same thing. It would be fun to establish an honest population of players who play in true “walk years” and then compare their performance to player not in walk years, or more ho-hum team option walk years, or against their own record prior to the walk year. 

Are walk years a thing? (Judge was in a true walk year; Buxton did not have a walk year but did perform well for the 61 games he played before his extension; and so on.) Do team option walk years or the year ahead of the option year dampen motivation to perform? Will Kepler do something different this offseason, will he play just well enough to be extended again on another lukewarm contract, or will he wait until next offseason and hope his option is picked up and then get motivated? You are a statistician—how am I doing?  Somewhere in there is I think an interesting research question that maybe has already been answered over at Fangraphs or somewhere else. Not sure.

Someone might come back with: “are you saying that players don’t try to be good until they are up for free agency?” but no I don’t think that’s what I’m saying. I don’t think Judge was holding anything back in earlier seasons. 

38 minutes ago, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

I was thinking the same thing. It would be fun to establish an honest population of players who play in true “walk years” and then compare their performance to player not in walk years, or more ho-hum team option walk years, or against their own record prior to the walk year. 

Are walk years a thing? (Judge was in a true walk year; Buxton did not have a walk year but did perform well for the 61 games he played before his extension; and so on.) Do team option walk years or the year ahead of the option year dampen motivation to perform? Will Kepler do something different this offseason, will he play just well enough to be extended again on another lukewarm contract, or will he wait until next offseason and hope his option is picked up and then get motivated? You are a statistician—how am I doing?  Somewhere in there is I think an interesting research question that maybe has already been answered over at Fangraphs or somewhere else. Not sure.

Someone might come back with: “are you saying that players don’t try to be good until they are up for free agency?” but no I don’t think that’s what I’m saying. I don’t think Judge was holding anything back in earlier seasons. 

I located a 2006 study that addresses the question of player performance during a walk year.

https://sabr.org/journal/article/do-players-outperform-in-a-walk-season/

The conclusion is a small positive correlation for hitters, a small negative correlation for pitchers.

The author directly addresses the question of option years in contracts, pointing out an aspect I didn't think through on my own, that it creates a bias because teams will pick up the option when the player has a good year, leaving an over-representation of players having bad years in the free agent pool.

Another complicating effect is that before the walk year, salary arbitration has already incentivized the player for a few seasons.

Here's another, even older slightly, article that found a positive correlation for hitters.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/columns/story?id=1608344

Both authors are pretty well known in the baseball analytics world of that era, so there might be some cross-pollination of ideas between those two writers that led to the articles.

The following more-recent article references the older work and points to related things like performance after signing a free agent contract.

https://www.bleachernation.com/cubs/2021/02/15/the-cubs-have-so-many-impactful-players-heading-into-a-walk-year-does-it-matter/

I haven't done more than skim any of these recommended links.

 

On 10/22/2022 at 8:50 AM, jorgenswest said:

I guess it would help if there was a study with data to contradict and show that it will be little benefit to Kepler. There is a study in the Athletic which also points to a Kepler being among a handful that will benefit both with the 2B on the infield and hits up the middle.

Do you think there will benefit to some players but not Kepler? Do you think it won’t have any impact for any player?

Baseball has done many changes with analytics.  Swing for the fences, Launch angle revolution. Normal swing even with 2 strikes, Shifting on 1/6 of the plays.  Through all of that BABIP does as it always has and floats between .290 and .300.  It has been .290 the last couple of years, but it has been down there before. Might it help Kepler with no shift. Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the range the fielders have. There should be some improvement, but if Kepler went back to being more of a line drive hitter would probably do him more good

 

This is from an Analyst article in August 2022.   Kepler should see some improvement.  It basically says Kepler's avg would go from 2020 to today would go from .220 to .270, a 50 point increase.  If that were the case, we would be talking extension, not trade bait.  You have to keep him to see if he rebounds.

https://theanalyst.com/na/2022/08/who-figures-to-benefit-the-most-if-the-defensive-shift-is-banned/

On 10/21/2022 at 6:26 AM, Squirrel said:

I’ve been wondering, how much effect (if any) will the shift ban have on Kepler’s offensive output next season? I would think that it should help some.

Thoughts?

If you are worried about where the infielders are, then you are not getting enough lift on the ball.  He'll improve marginally because a few balls will squirt through the infield, but that isn't going to increase his value much.