Young Twins and their exit velos

[chpettit19]

Fangraphs had a blog today about rookies and their exit velocities. The short version is that rookies with 300+ balls in play give us a really good look at what type of hitter they will be for their careers (unless you're Vlad Jr). Rookies with that many batted ball data points generally don't raise their exit velocities, or hard hit rates, significantly in future years, and their wRC+ is pretty closely tied to their exit velocities and hard-hit rates. Basically the harder you hit the ball the better hitter you'll be (shouldn't be too surprising of an idea).

The above chart shows a player's exit velocities and how it correlates to wRC+ (sample size of 620 players with 400 batted balls in play). Middle row is the average wRC+ for a player with that average exit velo (top row), and the bottom row is the % of hitters with that exit velo who were at or above league average as a hitter (wRC+ 100 or better).

The young Twins players we're all hoping become the new core have the following average exit velos:
Jose Miranda- 89.3 (354 batted balls), 42.4 hard hit%
Trevor Larnach- 90.0 (263 batted balls over the last 2 years), 42.2 hard hit%
Nick Gordon- 90.8 (455 batted balls over the last 2 years), 45.7 hard hit% (I may have to change my guess on what kind of player he can be)
Alex Kirilloff- 90.3 (274 batted balls over the last 2 years), 44.5 hard hit% (super encouraging to me knowing he was doing that with a bum wrist)
Ryan Jeffers- 89.0 (346 batted balls over the last 3 years), 43.1 hard hit%
Gilberto Celestino- 87.3 (281 batted balls over the last 2 years), 34.3 hard hit%

Wallner, Lewis, and Contreras all have fewer than 40 batted balls so I didn't include their numbers.

Another interesting piece of data from that article was how unique Arraez is. He doesn't hit the ball super hard, but he also rarely hits the ball super soft. He's able to be as good as he is with as low an average exit velo as he has (88.3, 28.6 hard hit%) because he's always in at least medium contact range, and rarely in the low range. I found that fascinating as well.

What do you guys think? Does this encourage your view of the future core? Discourage you? Don't care cuz it's all that nonsense, "new school" analytics crap? I found it interesting. And that chart certainly looks like it's awfully clear that hitting the ball hard is a major plus.
 

[danielp19653]

I find it encouraging, I think it reinforces the idea that the talent we have at the upper end of the farm system is there but other issues have blocked it's arrival. Aside from Miranda every player up there has had some injuries prevent them from fully establishing themselves but all have shown stretches of being able to play at a starter level or better. Assuming the twins injury luck gets better with a new trainer and the first normal off-season in years it'll be fun to watch them all get some playing time together.

[Trov]

I get the study, but as you point out Arraez is an outlier, and shows bit of the flaw in the exit velo versus overall output.  A guy like Arraez may not crush the ball, but he generally hits line drives, which in my opinion, is better metric as to what kind of a hitter they will be.  If a hitter can hit line drives, one it will generally be hard enough to get hits.  Now, the harder you hit them the more likely they will be for extra bases, which is where the wRC really measures success.  The main issue I have, is guys like Sano and Gallo have high hard hit rates, but also strike out at crazy high rates as well.  I do not care about strike outs in certain situations, as there is no difference in a K when no one is on base versus a weak fly or ground out.  However, there are times where strike outs are just killers. 

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, Trov said:

I get the study, but as you point out Arraez is an outlier, and shows bit of the flaw in the exit velo versus overall output.  A guy like Arraez may not crush the ball, but he generally hits line drives, which in my opinion, is better metric as to what kind of a hitter they will be.  If a hitter can hit line drives, one it will generally be hard enough to get hits.  Now, the harder you hit them the more likely they will be for extra bases, which is where the wRC really measures success.  The main issue I have, is guys like Sano and Gallo have high hard hit rates, but also strike out at crazy high rates as well.  I do not care about strike outs in certain situations, as there is no difference in a K when no one is on base versus a weak fly or ground out.  However, there are times where strike outs are just killers. 

I don't think 1 out of 620 (could be 2 guys if Kwan maintains his production) is really a flaw. It's 1 guy out 620.

Line drives are certainly important, too. Launch angle is another thing that's tracked very closely. And exit velo and launch angle are combined to create the "barrels" stat to show who makes the best contact in baseball. What makes Arraez unique is that he is able to make weaker contact, but still hit line drives. Typically weak contact creates pop ups or grounders. And we've seen stretches where Arraez is just a hair off and he's not a very useful hitter because he's hitting too many grounders and pop ups, and his lack of exit velo makes those really easy outs. That's what makes him unique. It's quite impressive to be able to do what he does. Not an easy thing to reproduce, thus he's 1 out of 620. Very small margin of error when you rely on having to be super precise with your launch angle, when a guy who hits the ball much harder has a larger margin of error with their launch angle.

As for the Sano/Gallo vs Arraez type hitter debate, it's interesting, and I get both sides. wRC+ is an "overall" approach, not an at bat by at bat approach. There are certainly times when a strikeout is killer. That's an at bat by at bat look at things, though. What wRC+, and similar stats, are trying to do is measure your contributions overall. So it's trying to balance out all the lack of BA and contact with the superior contact they make over the course of a seaon, or career. 1 out, tying run on 3rd, bottom of the 9th and Gallo Ks? Killer. 2 outs, nobody on, down by 1 in the bottom of the 9th and Arraez hits a single? Not killer by any means, but certainly not as useful as a Gallo HR. They're trying to show that Arraez hitting a ton of singles, but not getting out as much is good, but Gallo striking out a bunch while also hitting 40 bombs is also good. You can be good in multiple ways over the course of a season. For the record, I hate the 3 true outcome style of play. I'd much rather watch Arraez hit than Sano. But I can accept that the Sano types have their value even if they're not fun to watch.

[Parfigliano]

Wonder what a guy like Carew had for an exit velo?

[chpettit19]

5 minutes ago, Parfigliano said:

Wonder what a guy like Carew had for an exit velo?

My guess is that Carew, Gwynn, Rose, etc would all have exit velos around the same as Arraez. They weren't guys trying to murder the ball all the time, and were more about just making solid contact and placing it where they ain't.

Ichiro was well beyond his prime by the time we got this technology in place, but on 849 batted balls between 2015 and 2019 he had an average exit velo of 82.9. Max of 106.9 which is quite impressive. But at that point of his career he was no longer as adept at squaring the ball up and avoiding the super low exit velos like Arraez is right now, and the Carew types were. Which is why he struggled so much. He could still hit it incredibly hard when he squared it up, but he squared it up less and less by 2015.

[Battle ur tail off]

2 hours ago, Trov said:

I get the study, but as you point out Arraez is an outlier, and shows bit of the flaw in the exit velo versus overall output.  A guy like Arraez may not crush the ball, but he generally hits line drives, which in my opinion, is better metric as to what kind of a hitter they will be.  If a hitter can hit line drives, one it will generally be hard enough to get hits.  Now, the harder you hit them the more likely they will be for extra bases, which is where the wRC really measures success.  The main issue I have, is guys like Sano and Gallo have high hard hit rates, but also strike out at crazy high rates as well.  I do not care about strike outs in certain situations, as there is no difference in a K when no one is on base versus a weak fly or ground out.  However, there are times where strike outs are just killers. 

Yes, thus the difference between baseball now vs. baseball 20-30 years ago. Hitting the ball for extra bases is now much more sought after than is putting it in play or piling up numbers of hits. This results in more strikeouts, more walks, less fielding plays that need to be made, less action on the bases(stealing, bunting, moving runners, etc) and generally makes for a much more boring brand of baseball IMO.

 

[dex8425]

51 minutes ago, Battle ur tail off said:

Yes, thus the difference between baseball now vs. baseball 20-30 years ago. Hitting the ball for extra bases is now much more sought after than is putting it in play or piling up numbers of hits. This results in more strikeouts, more walks, less fielding plays that need to be made, less action on the bases(stealing, bunting, moving runners, etc) and generally makes for a much more boring brand of baseball IMO.

 

Harder to pile up hits when most pitchers now are throwing upper 90's with wicked off-speed and don't face a lineup more than twice. Pitchers are trained from a young age to throw gas, spin the ball more, and get strikeouts, not to throw sinkers to get ground balls.

Can hitters adjust to hitting sliders and top of the zone 4 seamers and if so, will we see fewer pitches designed simply to miss bats? IDK. 

[Parfigliano]

1 hour ago, Battle ur tail off said:

Yes, thus the difference between baseball now vs. baseball 20-30 years ago. Hitting the ball for extra bases is now much more sought after than is putting it in play or piling up numbers of hits. This results in more strikeouts, more walks, less fielding plays that need to be made, less action on the bases(stealing, bunting, moving runners, etc) and generally makes for a much more boring brand of baseball IMO.

 

When the Twins gonna get on the more walks?

[chpettit19]

28 minutes ago, Parfigliano said:

When the Twins gonna get on the more walks?

They were 10th in baseball in BB% last year, FYI.

[Twodogs]

43 minutes ago, dex8425 said:

Harder to pile up hits when most pitchers now are throwing upper 90's with wicked off-speed and don't face a lineup more than twice. Pitchers are trained from a young age to throw gas, spin the ball more, and get strikeouts, not to throw sinkers to get ground balls.

Can hitters adjust to hitting sliders and top of the zone 4 seamers and if so, will we see fewer pitches designed simply to miss bats? IDK. 

But isn't it a lot easier for a pitcher to miss bats if the hitters are all swinging out of their shoes?  I'm pretty sure Tony Gwynn would be just fine and hitting all of these pitchers that are throwing upper 90's.  I mean if Luis Arraez can do it, pretty sure Gwynn would also.  Could you imagine if Luis Arraez had to face Maddux who could throw the ball 4 - 5 inches off the outside of the plate and still get a strike called?  I mean at least now, that they post the strike zone most umps at least call the inside and outside pretty close to the zone.  I think there is a lot more at play here than just hitting analytics.  They are nice to study, and if two players being equal I'd take the one who hits harder.  There are a lot of pitchers who throw slower than Pagan, but they perform better than Pagan.  I'd rather have the guy that performs better.  Now if the other pitcher performed close to or the same as Pagan then I'd take the guy who throws harder.  I think the same should apply with hitting. 

By the way, I don't have the data.  But I wonder what Buxton's exit velo was in his first 300 AB's and where it's at now?  Just curious.

[chpettit19]

8 minutes ago, Twodogs said:

But isn't it a lot easier for a pitcher to miss bats if the hitters are all swinging out of their shoes?  I'm pretty sure Tony Gwynn would be just fine and hitting all of these pitchers that are throwing upper 90's.  I mean if Luis Arraez can do it, pretty sure Gwynn would also.  Could you imagine if Luis Arraez had to face Maddux who could throw the ball 4 - 5 inches off the outside of the plate and still get a strike called?  I mean at least now, that they post the strike zone most umps at least call the inside and outside pretty close to the zone.  I think there is a lot more at play here than just hitting analytics.  They are nice to study, and if two players being equal I'd take the one who hits harder.  There are a lot of pitchers who throw slower than Pagan, but they perform better than Pagan.  I'd rather have the guy that performs better.  Now if the other pitcher performed close to or the same as Pagan then I'd take the guy who throws harder.  I think the same should apply with hitting. 

By the way, I don't have the data.  But I wonder what Buxton's exit velo was in his first 300 AB's and where it's at now?  Just curious.

We've evolved far beyond simply pitch velocity. We know, and have for a long time, that simply throwing hard isn't enough. We're talking spin rates, axis, release points, etc. now. No 1 batted or thrown ball data point is going to predict anything 100%. But that exit velocity chart speaks volumes, doesn't it? It's not simply because they hit the ball hard that they're productive, but, generally speaking, in order to hit the ball hard you have to hit it on the barrel squarely. Exit velo may be 1 data point, but in order to achieve that you have to do other things well. Just because someone can swing hard doesn't mean they can square the ball up. There's a lot more that goes into achieving the exit velocities.

If you're hitting a lot of pop ups and grounders you're likely not getting a lot of hits. You're also not hitting the ball hard. It's not because you physically lack the ability to hit the ball 110 mph, it's because you can't square it up frequently enough to make it matter. The batted and thrown ball data is simply the next step beyond "the performance" of a player. It's compiled to show how players achieve what they did. Joe Ryan doesn't throw hard, but he's got a very unique plane to his fastball so it's much more effective than someone like Pagan's who throws way harder, but has no deception (or control). Stuff+, Location+, and Pitching+ are fascinating tools (to some of us at least) that look at what makes someone like Pagan terrible even though he looks like he should be good.

As for Buxton his early numbers looked like this:
2015: 87 batted balls- 86.4 avg exit velo, 106.6 max, 21.8 hardhit%, 2.2 barrels/PA%
2016: 187 batted balls- 89.5, 111.3, 31.6, 3
2017: 319 batted balls- 88.1, 110.9, 32, 3.5

His last 2 years look like this:
2021: 173 batted balls- 92.5, 115.6, 53.8, 12.2
2022: 225 batted balls- 92.9, 113.5, 50.2, 9.7
 

[h2oface]

1 hour ago, dex8425 said:

Harder to pile up hits when most pitchers now are throwing upper 90's with wicked off-speed and don't face a lineup more than twice. Pitchers are trained from a young age to throw gas, spin the ball more, and get strikeouts, not to throw sinkers to get ground balls.

Can hitters adjust to hitting sliders and top of the zone 4 seamers and if so, will we see fewer pitches designed simply to miss bats? IDK. 

It sounds like you think that the great pitchers and hitters in the 50s and 60s and 70s and before would just be inept in today's game. I don't buy it.

[Twodogs]

3 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

We've evolved far beyond simply pitch velocity. We know, and have for a long time, that simply throwing hard isn't enough. We're talking spin rates, axis, release points, etc. now. No 1 batted or thrown ball data point is going to predict anything 100%. But that exit velocity chart speaks volumes, doesn't it? It's not simply because they hit the ball hard that they're productive, but, generally speaking, in order to hit the ball hard you have to hit it on the barrel squarely. Exit velo may be 1 data point, but in order to achieve that you have to do other things well. Just because someone can swing hard doesn't mean they can square the ball up. There's a lot more that goes into achieving the exit velocities.

If you're hitting a lot of pop ups and grounders you're likely not getting a lot of hits. You're also not hitting the ball hard. It's not because you physically lack the ability to hit the ball 110 mph, it's because you can't square it up frequently enough to make it matter. The batted and thrown ball data is simply the next step beyond "the performance" of a player. It's compiled to show how players achieve what they did. Joe Ryan doesn't throw hard, but he's got a very unique plane to his fastball so it's much more effective than someone like Pagan's who throws way harder, but has no deception (or control). Stuff+, Location+, and Pitching+ are fascinating tools (to some of us at least) that look at what makes someone like Pagan terrible even though he looks like he should be good.

As for Buxton his early numbers looked like this:
2015: 87 batted balls- 86.4 avg exit velo, 106.6 max, 21.8 hardhit%, 2.2 barrels/PA%
2016: 187 batted balls- 89.5, 111.3, 31.6, 3
2017: 319 batted balls- 88.1, 110.9, 32, 3.5

His last 2 years look like this:
2021: 173 batted balls- 92.5, 115.6, 53.8, 12.2
2022: 225 batted balls- 92.9, 113.5, 50.2, 9.7
 

Oh for sure the info is very useful, but someone like Arraez can barrel the ball up and hit line drives and not necessarily have a high exit velo.  Sometimes I think that there might be more Arraez type players out there, but because some people, who never played the game, look at these types of numbers and simply just pass up guys like Arraez.  So because many guys like Arraez never get a chance MLB might be missing out on the next potential .400 hitter?

Plus, it appears that with Buxton at least, players can significantly improve on these numbers.  If that's the case, a guy like Arraez, not saying that he actually will, but a guy like him could eventually change his profile.  A guy like Arraez could end up, later in his career, hitting 20 home runs because he has the ability to barrel up the ball very well but not hit it super hard.  Maybe 3 - 4 years from now he will still be a .300 hitter with 20 bombs.  I just feel that sometimes these numbers get in the way, because some dude like Oswaldo Arcia hits the ball with a ton of exit velo and he gets a bunch of chances while a guy that profiles like an Arraez type continues to get passed up. I hope that's not the case, but I feel as baseball has more and more people running the day to day operations that never really played I can see them looking at something like this and using it as their only qualifier of who is a good hitter. 

 

Just my take, the info is very informative and interesting.   

[chpettit19]

28 minutes ago, Twodogs said:

Oh for sure the info is very useful, but someone like Arraez can barrel the ball up and hit line drives and not necessarily have a high exit velo.  Sometimes I think that there might be more Arraez type players out there, but because some people, who never played the game, look at these types of numbers and simply just pass up guys like Arraez.  So because many guys like Arraez never get a chance MLB might be missing out on the next potential .400 hitter?

Plus, it appears that with Buxton at least, players can significantly improve on these numbers.  If that's the case, a guy like Arraez, not saying that he actually will, but a guy like him could eventually change his profile.  A guy like Arraez could end up, later in his career, hitting 20 home runs because he has the ability to barrel up the ball very well but not hit it super hard.  Maybe 3 - 4 years from now he will still be a .300 hitter with 20 bombs.  I just feel that sometimes these numbers get in the way, because some dude like Oswaldo Arcia hits the ball with a ton of exit velo and he gets a bunch of chances while a guy that profiles like an Arraez type continues to get passed up. I hope that's not the case, but I feel as baseball has more and more people running the day to day operations that never really played I can see them looking at something like this and using it as their only qualifier of who is a good hitter. 

 

Just my take, the info is very informative and interesting.   

They don't have these kinds of numbers to look at for as many of the minor leaguers (although it's expanding rapidly). I do agree that there's likely some Arraez types, and even Joe Ryan types, that are lost in the cracks of the minors because they don't hit the ball a mile or throw 100 mph. But I think they're fewer than you'd expect. There's certainly more to it than suggesting that since an elite prospect like Buxton can bounce back to where you'd expect him in exit velos, anyone can do it. There's a reason Arraez is 1 of 620, though. But there's also a whole bunch of minor leaguers that we've all looked at their super low ERAs, or super high BAs, over the years and questioned why they weren't getting a shot only to see them get a shot and immediately realize why they weren't getting a shot. I think you're short changing the process here a lot. There's far more that goes into deciding to promote minor leaguers than batted ball data or batting averages.

I also think it's quite unfair to suggest the people running day to day operations don't really understand what you're saying because they "never really played." I'd say most people would list Andrew Friedman at, or near, the top of baseball execs. He's been leading the charge with these types of data sets for years. He played a couple injury riddled years at Tulane. Does that count as "really playing?" And these guys are all baseball lifers. They played growing up, but weren't talented enough to make it a career playing. They'd blow your mind with their baseball knowledge. Do they sometimes let the numbers blind other parts of the game? 100%, but so do guys like Sam Fuld who GMed the Phillies to the World Series this year based on the same sort of numbers and processes.

These decisions aren't just made by looking at spreadsheets. They're combined with scouting reports, and real human pieces (clubhouse fit/personality, etc. Although, Falvine clearly got blinded by the numbers on Donaldson in this sense). Statcast data is simply 1 part of it. Yes, you get extra chances if you show the extremes of the physical attributes. That's the same in every sport. But that's not just data, that's also in the scouting. Bat speed is scouted. Scouts have been eyeballing exit velos for decades. We're just putting high-tech equipment in more places to get exact numbers now. Pitch velo has been eye balled, then gunned, for decades. We're just adding spin, etc. to it now. These aren't new ideas, just new ways of quantifying the old ideas. Babe Ruth got his first job in baseball cuz when he hit the ball it came off his bat in a different way. He had more exit velocity. They just had a human with eyes saying "yeah, that's way better than that other guy," and not radars and cameras.

[Parfigliano]

8 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

They were 10th in baseball in BB% last year, FYI.

10th is..(****) 

[Parfigliano]

Exit velocity gets Twins Joey Gallow.  

[chpettit19]

4 minutes ago, Parfigliano said:

10th is..(s#!+) 

How high do they have to be to be considered "getting on the more walks?" 

[Twodogs]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

These decisions aren't just made by looking at spreadsheets. They're combined with scouting reports, and real human pieces (clubhouse fit/personality, etc. Although, Falvine clearly got blinded by the numbers on Donaldson in this sense). Statcast data is simply 1 part of it

Yeah that's all I care about.  Sometimes when this data is all you see or hear about then I start to think that's all they are looking at.  And sometimes when you see decisions that have been made then you start to wonder if it is all they are looking at.  So if they are looking at the whole player every time then that is perfect.  Hopefully they do that.  Also yes, if someone played college baseball they are very knowledgeable about the game.  I respect anyone who has played at the college level.  

[chpettit19]

2 minutes ago, Twodogs said:

Yeah that's all I care about.  Sometimes when this data is all you see or hear about then I start to think that's all they are looking at.  And sometimes when you see decisions that have been made then you start to wonder if it is all they are looking at.  So if they are looking at the whole player every time then that is perfect.  Hopefully they do that.  Also yes, if someone played college baseball they are very knowledgeable about the game.  I respect anyone who has played at the college level.  

I think the current regime is too data driven on some in game type decisions, but I can promise you they're looking at far more than just exit velocities and spin rates when it comes to player acquisitions. The amount of work, and research, that goes into these players is insane. I think it's probably pretty close to something you'd be alright with based on our back and forth here.

Their scouts are still super important. They have "investigators" who do checks into their personal lives and relationships. They're using more "old school" slash line stats like BA and OBP along with the new ball data stuff. They've got all sorts of ballpark data that goes into things as well. It's crazy, and incredibly in depth. But it's also all very private as each FO thinks they've created the best way to judge talent and don't want it to get out. Lot's of NDAs signed in the baseball biz.

[terrydactyls]

With all that data, all the research, "investigators", scouts, etc., the Twins still signed guys like Happ, Shoemaker, and Smith.  Sure seems like an old fashion eye test would have netted better results.

[bap3141]

23 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Fangraphs had a blog today about rookies and their exit velocities. The short version is that rookies with 300+ balls in play give us a really good look at what type of hitter they will be for their careers (unless you're Vlad Jr). Rookies with that many batted ball data points generally don't raise their exit velocities, or hard hit rates, significantly in future years, and their wRC+ is pretty closely tied to their exit velocities and hard-hit rates. Basically the harder you hit the ball the better hitter you'll be (shouldn't be too surprising of an idea).

The above chart shows a player's exit velocities and how it correlates to wRC+ (sample size of 620 players with 400 batted balls in play). Middle row is the average wRC+ for a player with that average exit velo (top row), and the bottom row is the % of hitters with that exit velo who were at or above league average as a hitter (wRC+ 100 or better).

The young Twins players we're all hoping become the new core have the following average exit velos:
Jose Miranda- 89.3 (354 batted balls), 42.4 hard hit%
Trevor Larnach- 90.0 (263 batted balls over the last 2 years), 42.2 hard hit%
Nick Gordon- 90.8 (455 batted balls over the last 2 years), 45.7 hard hit% (I may have to change my guess on what kind of player he can be)
Alex Kirilloff- 90.3 (274 batted balls over the last 2 years), 44.5 hard hit% (super encouraging to me knowing he was doing that with a bum wrist)
Ryan Jeffers- 89.0 (346 batted balls over the last 3 years), 43.1 hard hit%
Gilberto Celestino- 87.3 (281 batted balls over the last 2 years), 34.3 hard hit%

Wallner, Lewis, and Contreras all have fewer than 40 batted balls so I didn't include their numbers.

Another interesting piece of data from that article was how unique Arraez is. He doesn't hit the ball super hard, but he also rarely hits the ball super soft. He's able to be as good as he is with as low an average exit velo as he has (88.3, 28.6 hard hit%) because he's always in at least medium contact range, and rarely in the low range. I found that fascinating as well.

What do you guys think? Does this encourage your view of the future core? Discourage you? Don't care cuz it's all that nonsense, "new school" analytics crap? I found it interesting. And that chart certainly looks like it's awfully clear that hitting the ball hard is a major plus.
 

Definitely encouraging for a few of those guys, although there are many things that can break a player's hitting career beyond hitting the ball hard -- health, for one. I think approach at the plate is just as important.

Funny about Arraez, but makes sense. He's a unicorn in today's game. I think Tony Gwynn would have also been one of those low exit velocity guys too, but I could be wrong. Ichiro, also.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Reptevia]

Miguel Sano and Joey Gallo. 

[chpettit19]

3 hours ago, terrydactyls said:

With all that data, all the research, "investigators", scouts, etc., the Twins still signed guys like Happ, Shoemaker, and Smith.  Sure seems like an old fashion eye test would have netted better results.

I mean they were able to trade Happ. Is the requirement for success 100% or can we accept that literally every team makes bad signings and trades?

World Series champs Houston Astros started 2022 with Jason Castro on their roster. Him of the -.6 bWAR and 11 OPS+ in 2022.  Oh shoot, look at that terribly run team having Niko Goodrum on their opening day roster, too. He had a -9 OPS+. That's not a typo. He went negative he was so bad.

That terribly run team they played in the World Series? Paid Didi Gregorius $15.25 million for -.4 bWAR and 60 OPS+ as their opening day SS. They paid Jeurys Familia $6 million for -.7 bWAR. Those silly guys had Kyle Gibson and his 5.05 ERA and .7 bWAR on their opening day roster.

Too bad they didn't have any data, research, investigators, or scouts, huh? Perspective is interesting...

[chpettit19]

5 minutes ago, Reptevia said:

Miguel Sano and Joey Gallo. 

3 all star games and 2 gold gloves between them. Almost like the baseball industry thought they've had some value during their careers. Silly Twins.

[terrydactyls]

39 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I mean they were able to trade Happ. Is the requirement for success 100% or can we accept that literally every team makes bad signings and trades?

World Series champs Houston Astros started 2022 with Jason Castro on their roster. Him of the -.6 bWAR and 11 OPS+ in 2022.  Oh shoot, look at that terribly run team having Niko Goodrum on their opening day roster, too. He had a -9 OPS+. That's not a typo. He went negative he was so bad.

That terribly run team they played in the World Series? Paid Didi Gregorius $15.25 million for -.4 bWAR and 60 OPS+ as their opening day SS. They paid Jeurys Familia $6 million for -.7 bWAR. Those silly guys had Kyle Gibson and his 5.05 ERA and .7 bWAR on their opening day roster.

Too bad they didn't have any data, research, investigators, or scouts, huh? Perspective is interesting...

I'm pretty sure you just proved my point.  Even though all the metrics you quoted were horrible, someone in the organization ignored them and relied on instinct instead.  Thanks.

[chpettit19]

3 minutes ago, terrydactyls said:

I'm pretty sure you just proved my point.  Even though all the metrics you quoted were horrible, someone in the organization ignored them and relied on instinct instead.  Thanks.

I don't follow. I don't see how you get to someone ignoring metrics and following instinct. Do you believe the Phillies and Astros had metrics predicting that those players would be that bad and ignored them and went with instinct instead?

My point is that literally every team signs guys every bit as bad as the Twins do. There's only so many above average players in baseball. The Twins problem is 2 fold. They haven't developed any front line pitching, or star position players that can stay healthy. They've developed major league talent on the mound and in the field, but no Bregman, Tucker, Alvarez type healthy position players or Valdez, Urquidy, Garcia type starters. Every team misses on trades and signings. Every single one. The difference is that when the Astros miss on Goodrum and Castro it's not that big of a deal because they have homegrown stars. The Twins don't. 

Happ, Shoemaker, Smith, etc. are misses for sure. The metrics didn't predict they'd be great. They weren't expecting that out of any of them. They were expecting them to be serviceable until a young guy took their spot. Unfortunately, none of the young arms were healthy, or performing,  as Happ and Shoemaker collapsed. The Twins failures are pitching development and healthy position players. Not their judgements on guys like Happ, Shoemaker, and Smith. Those types of signings are made by every team every year. And fail with every team every year. It's why nobody builds a team through free agency.

[Riverbrian]

9 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

My point is that literally every team signs guys every bit as bad as the Twins do. There's only so many above average players in baseball. The Twins problem is 2 fold. They haven't developed any front line pitching, or star position players that can stay healthy. They've developed major league talent on the mound and in the field, but no Bregman, Tucker, Alvarez type healthy position players or Valdez, Urquidy, Garcia type starters. Every team misses on trades and signings. Every single one. The difference is that when the Astros miss on Goodrum and Castro it's not that big of a deal because they have homegrown stars. The Twins don't. 

This is exactly what I believe.

It isn't hard to come to the same conclusion.

Just look at other teams. It isn't hard to find each teams mistakes. Look at the bottom of the stats and there they are. The numbers you find at the bottom of the stats were not the expected numbers. 

Superstars? Where are ours. I've been asking this question for quite some time. If the organization isn't going to sign a free agent superstar or (struggle to sign a free agent superstar)... you have to grow your own. We haven't grown our own. Once again... look at the other teams. Almost every other team has grown a superstar... the Twins haven't and it has been a real long time. Where is our Manny Machado (Orioles), Betts (Red Sox). Where is that player that we can trade for the Padres Farm system? Where is that guy who spends 6 years with the club and signs a 200 million dollar plus deal because other teams really really want him? Brian Dozier and Trevor Plouffe couldn't find work when they reached free agency.  

Don't get me wrong... I'll give Buxton superstar status but his contract doesn't suggest superstar. 

According to baseballtradevalues. Brooks Lee who we just drafted is our most valuable asset. Where are our Spencer Striders, Vlad Jr, Ronald Acuna, Juan Soto. 

I support the front office because I believe they are heading the right direction but development will be the primary gauge between good front office and not good front office. 

Well stated chpettit19 as usual. 

[dex8425]

19 hours ago, h2oface said:

It sounds like you think that the great pitchers and hitters in the 50s and 60s and 70s and before would just be inept in today's game. I don't buy it.

This could be a great debate topic. I don't think they would be inept, but athletes today are stronger, faster, and more powerful than athletes of 70 years ago and that's not debatable. Look at the track and field, marathon world records, xc skiing speeds,  pitching velocity, and lifting world records. Athletes today have access to better training methods, nutrition, etc. Nolan Ryan made headlines because he was one of the first pitchers to regularly lift weights. Coaches told him not to. Now everybody in baseball lifts. I think if you took Bob Gibson and he grew up today, that he could be a great pitcher. But take 1960's Bob Gibson and put him in today's game...it's a different game. I don't think he would be as great now as he was then. In the end that doesn't matter because you have to compare all these players relative to their era. That's why Babe Ruth was the greatest baseball player of all time-he was simply superhuman compared to his peers. 

Do you really think Babe Ruth would hit 60 home runs in today's game? He faced pitchers who threw fastballs in the mid 80's and played in small ballparks. I do think 1978 Nolan Ryan would still make hitters look silly today though.

[tarheeltwinsfan]

On 12/19/2022 at 10:07 PM, chpettit19 said:

Fangraphs had a blog today about rookies and their exit velocities. The short version is that rookies with 300+ balls in play give us a really good look at what type of hitter they will be for their careers (unless you're Vlad Jr). Rookies with that many batted ball data points generally don't raise their exit velocities, or hard hit rates, significantly in future years, and their wRC+ is pretty closely tied to their exit velocities and hard-hit rates. Basically the harder you hit the ball the better hitter you'll be (shouldn't be too surprising of an idea).

The above chart shows a player's exit velocities and how it correlates to wRC+ (sample size of 620 players with 400 batted balls in play). Middle row is the average wRC+ for a player with that average exit velo (top row), and the bottom row is the % of hitters with that exit velo who were at or above league average as a hitter (wRC+ 100 or better).

The young Twins players we're all hoping become the new core have the following average exit velos:
Jose Miranda- 89.3 (354 batted balls), 42.4 hard hit%
Trevor Larnach- 90.0 (263 batted balls over the last 2 years), 42.2 hard hit%
Nick Gordon- 90.8 (455 batted balls over the last 2 years), 45.7 hard hit% (I may have to change my guess on what kind of player he can be)
Alex Kirilloff- 90.3 (274 batted balls over the last 2 years), 44.5 hard hit% (super encouraging to me knowing he was doing that with a bum wrist)
Ryan Jeffers- 89.0 (346 batted balls over the last 3 years), 43.1 hard hit%
Gilberto Celestino- 87.3 (281 batted balls over the last 2 years), 34.3 hard hit%

Wallner, Lewis, and Contreras all have fewer than 40 batted balls so I didn't include their numbers.

Another interesting piece of data from that article was how unique Arraez is. He doesn't hit the ball super hard, but he also rarely hits the ball super soft. He's able to be as good as he is with as low an average exit velo as he has (88.3, 28.6 hard hit%) because he's always in at least medium contact range, and rarely in the low range. I found that fascinating as well.

What do you guys think? Does this encourage your view of the future core? Discourage you? Don't care cuz it's all that nonsense, "new school" analytics crap? I found it interesting. And that chart certainly looks like it's awfully clear that hitting the ball hard is a major plus.
 

I remember watching Nick Gordan take batting practice at spring training several years ago. He was even skinnier then than his is now and he was hitting the balls so hard that I commented to a stranger standing next to me that Gordan had deceptive power for such a small player. Even so, I am amazed at these stats which have Gordan as ranking as the young player on the Twins who hits the ball the hardest. Amazing.