Grading Terry Ryan

[Mike Sixel]

Is the team better? Are you confident they will seriously improve next year? Who that he acquired is going to make a major difference next year? How many awful years are you willing to put up with?

[drjim]

Have you read how they come up with the numbers?

 

Chief kind of stole my id here.

 

But I do know WAR comes from some formula involving k rate, bb rate, and either hr rate or fb rate. I can't remember if they adjust for leagues or park effects, but both of those would probably be minor enough not to impact my point all that much.

 

The dollar amount comes from WAR x the marginal value of a win, something like $4.5 mil or so.

 

WAR has its uses but definitely has limitations. I would look no further than these Marcum/Jackson results.

 

EDIT: I should add that formula defines the amount of runs an individual pitcher saves which is translated into wins. These wins are then taken above and beyond some mythical replacement player to fully determine wins above replacement. The definition of replacement is perhaps my biggest source of skepticism on the whole formula. And I also think there should be more space for margin of error, especially for the big group of players that are under 2 WAR.

[Kwak]

I can assure you that the owners are not happy with the season despite their profit. The key is winning enough to keep the fans in the dark about how much payroll they are cutting. Fans are pretty upset, not to mention players like Mauer who were given promises that the FO would try to build a winner.

 

I think you misunderstood. Plans would be submitted, reviewed, maybe amended and then approved. If the plan included a projected team W/L record--and it didn't include post season play--then having a few less wins isn't going to matter, especially if the "financials" are obtained. At the end of the season, very few GMs are replaced yet we know that 20 teams didn't get to post-season play and only 2 got to the Series.

[jokin]

Chief kind of stole my id here.

 

But I do know WAR comes from some formula involving k rate, bb rate, and either hr rate or fb rate. I can't remember if they adjust for leagues or park effects, but both of those would probably be minor enough not to impact my point all that much.

 

The dollar amount comes from WAR x the marginal value of a win, something like $4.5 mil or so.

WAR has its uses but definitely has limitations. I would look no further than these Marcum/Jackson results.

 

EDIT: I should add that formula defines the amount of runs an individual pitcher saves which is translated into wins. These wins are then taken above and beyond some mythical replacement player to fully determine wins above replacement. The definition of replacement is perhaps my biggest source of skepticism on the whole formula. And I also think there should be more space for margin of error, especially for the big group of players that are under 2 WAR.

 

Part of the introduction of the WAR concept for pitchers was to cut through the clutter revolving around "luck"- good or bad. Marcum and Jackson are examples of 2, who pitching in a different set of circumstances would prove to be close to the value set down in their production numbers. Jeremy Guthrie would be having a season that is the "good luck" antithesis of Marcum's and Jackson's- and Guthrie signed for a contract in the middle of these two. (Correia has been a little lucky, but not like Guthrie has).

 

I would have been very pleased had the Twins, besdies signing Correia, had also signed both Jackson and Correia- even knowing what we know now.

[drjim]

Part of the introduction of the WAR concept for pitchers was to cut through the clutter revolving around "luck"- good or bad. Marcum and Jackson are examples of 2, who pitching in a different set of circumstances would prove to be close to the value set down in their production numbers. Jeremy Guthrie would be having a season that is the "good luck" antithesis of Marcum's and Jackson's- and Guthrie signed for a contract in the middle of these two. (Correia has been a little lucky, but not like Guthrie has).

 

I would have been very pleased had the Twins, besdies signing Correia, had also signed both Jackson and Correia- even knowing what we know now.

 

I appreciate this argument. But isn't "luck" another way of saying a pitcher has no control once a fair ball is hit (aside from maybe a normalized fly ball rate)? I understand that taking into account every pitch ever thrown there might be an expected babip, but I would don't think that wiuld necessarily apply over the shorter samples we have experienced so far.

 

I grant that fip is most often the better indicator of future performance compared to era, but I would not grant it as a better measure of what actually did happen. Underlying stats or not a significant amount of tuns scored. I don't buy that can be explained away so easily by poor defense or "luck".

[old nurse]

If babip were luck, then over time for a hitter they should all approach near the same babip. That does not happen

[Brock Beauchamp]

If babip were luck, then over time for a hitter they should all approach near the same babip. That does not happen

 

Except for pitchers, it kinda does. One of the strange anomalies of baseball that nobody really understands.

 

Johan Santana career BABIP: .276

Jeff Gray career BABIP: .296

 

Not equal but considering the talent of the pitchers, not terribly far apart, either.

 

Numbers suggest that the batter has far more control over BABIP than the pitcher, barring weird exceptions like Nick Blackburn and Sean Bergman, two pitchers who spent a large portion of their careers throwing BP and getting shelled.

[jay]

Except for pitchers, it kinda does. One of the strange anomalies of baseball that nobody really understands.

 

I don't get this. Pitchers can consistently give up different batted ball profiles, just the same as batters hit for different batted ball profiles. That certainly influences the BABIP outcomes for both.

 

I do think we make the mistake of too commonly judging everyone off league average, when in reality, there are many ways to skin the cat. A higher BABIP doesn't necessarily doom me as a pitcher because it also depends on what else I can do. For most pitchers, they just have to be good at something to be reasonably successful, BABIP be damned.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Not sure if I missed it, but those arguing that this wasn't a good year for a splashy FA acquisition, and that 2016 (our next expected serious contention year) would be better: do you honestly expect the Twins to make a splashy FA acquisition in 2016? It seems they do not do this, at all, ever, simply based on principal, which on one hand is good because they don't make dumb expensive mistakes, but on the other hand it seems like they're not doing part of their jobs because there is talent and value available in the free agent market, and the vast majority of their competitors are taking advantage of it.

 

We had 9 season contention window from 2002-2010, and as far as I can tell, the only new players we acquired by free agency for more than the league average salary ($2.3-$3.3 mil over this period) were Livan Hernandez and Orlando Hudson (both 1 year, $5 mil). And I don't think we signed any free agent for more than 1 season. That's not simply being "selective" about FA acquisitions: that's refusing to participate in the FA market to improve your team.

 

The Twins aren't entirely alone in this (I think the A's, Padres, and Pirates have operated similarly in recent years, although the A's recently signed Cespedes on the international market), but the vast majority of MLB teams do not operate this way. Many like to blame the pre-2010 approach on the Metrodome, but it should be noted that Target Field and its guaranteed new revenue was approved all the way back in 2006. And little has changed since 2010 either -- Willingham's 3/21 and Correia 2/10 contracts are still incredibly pitiful for "most expensive new FA acquisitions in franchise history."

 

Sorry for the ramble, this may deserve its own study and post...

[jay]

Not sure if I missed it, but those arguing that this wasn't a good year for a splashy FA acquisition, and that 2016 (our next expected serious contention year) would be better: do you honestly expect the Twins to make a splashy FA acquisition in 2016? It seems they do not do this, at all, ever, simply based on principal, which on one hand is good because they don't make dumb expensive mistakes, but on the other hand it seems like they're not doing part of their jobs because there is talent and value available in the free agent market, and the vast majority of their competitors are taking advantage of it.

 

I'm not going to argue good year to do it or not, but I think the expectation comes from differences in our future payroll commitments. Coming into TF, the payroll was going to grow quickly without FAs just based on our commitments. Going into 2014/15, we'll have Mauer and a bunch babies, so there should theoretically be more of a possibility to do it (granted, just as there was this year).

[Brock Beauchamp]

I don't get this. Pitchers can consistently give up different batted ball profiles, just the same as batters hit for different batted ball profiles. That certainly influences the BABIP outcomes for both.

 

I do think we make the mistake of too commonly judging everyone off league average, when in reality, there are many ways to skin the cat. A higher BABIP doesn't necessarily doom me as a pitcher because it also depends on what else I can do. For most pitchers, they just have to be good at something to be reasonably successful, BABIP be damned.

 

No, a bad BABIP won't doom you as a pitcher... in the short term.

 

As we saw with Nick Blackburn, that rarely holds up over time. Johan Santana and pitchers of his calibre tend to do well because they put fewer balls in play and they don't issue free passes, two things that aren't shown in BABIP.

 

And, as you said, there's a difference in batted ball profiles. Johan isn't allowing good contact and he's not walking people so it's hard to score runs. If you're batting .280 and hitting singles with no one on base, it's pretty hard to score runs. If you're batting .280, getting a walk an inning, and hitting line drive gappers, you're gonna score runs.

 

But generally, every pitcher is going to give up hits on 27-30% of balls in play.

[ThePuck]

Except for pitchers, it kinda does. One of the strange anomalies of baseball that nobody really understands.

 

Johan Santana career BABIP: .276

Jeff Gray career BABIP: .296

 

Not equal but considering the talent of the pitchers, not terribly far apart, either.

 

 

 

Doesn't comparing relievers to starting pitchers in this instance give one a false comparison? Over 2000 innings compared to 140ish innings? Wouldn't that have to be taken into consideration when saying their BABIPs aren't too far apart.

[Guest USAFChief]

 

But generally, every pitcher is going to give up hits on 27-30% of balls in play.

 

I think selection bias comes into play here...only pitchers good enough to get a professional contract and then work their way through the minor leagues get to contribute to the "every pitcher" BABIP thing.

 

If pitchers have no control over balls in play, then theoretically you could put a pitching machine on the mound, throwing nothing but 75 MPH fastballs right down the middle, and they should give up hits on 27-30% of balls in play, no?

[Brock Beauchamp]

I think selection bias comes into play here...only pitchers good enough to get a professional contract and then work their way through the minor leagues get to contribute to the "every pitcher" BABIP thing.

 

If pitchers have no control over balls in play, then theoretically you could put a pitching machine on the mound, throwing nothing but 75 MPH fastballs right down the middle, and they should give up hits on 27-30% of balls in play, no?

 

Well, yeah. If you put a pitching machine on the mound (or a 14 year old kid), that BABIP will go up a bit (but probably not as much as you'd expect).

 

But that's not the discussion... The topic was originated by someone making the correlation that the same BABIP differences seen in hitters are found in pitchers as well.

 

And that's simply not the case. I even pointed out earlier that outliers like Sean Bergman and Nick Blackburn, two "batting practice" pitchers, can have a higher BABIP (but not even that much... around .315 IIRC). They're also quickly escorted out of the league if it stays that way for too long.

 

On the other hand, Adam Dunn and his 2012 .246 BABIP was considered a moderately good player. That same season, Joe Mauer posted a BABIP of .364 but wasn't that much better than Dunn overall (around .065 OPS points).

 

Fun fact: 2000 Barry Bonds posted a .271 BABIP and a 7.6 WAR. Lots of contact, lots of balls not in play.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Doesn't comparing relievers to starting pitchers in this instance give one a false comparison? Over 2000 innings compared to 140ish innings? Wouldn't that have to be taken into consideration when saying their BABIPs aren't too far apart.

 

You can do similar comparisons with other starters. I picked Gray simply because I hate him and he's awful.

 

I just randomly pulled a starter off the top of my head:

 

Gil Meche: career .291 BABIP.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I'm not going to argue good year to do it or not, but I think the expectation comes from differences in our future payroll commitments. Coming into TF, the payroll was going to grow quickly without FAs just based on our commitments. Going into 2014/15, we'll have Mauer and a bunch babies, so there should theoretically be more of a possibility to do it (granted, just as there was this year).

 

Well, that's just it -- in the run-up to Target Field, with more financial flexibility, they decided to re-sign players and not acquire any new free agents. This is consistent with what they did before, just that they retained a few extra of their own guys (or for a slightly longer term). For example, they extended Joe Nathan at a premium when they previously had let good relievers walk. Without looking anything up, I think they also extended Cuddyer and Morneau a few years extra, given previous precedent.

 

I guess they won't have many quality players to extend over the next few years, but I won't be holding my breath for a big FA acquisition. Their next one will basically be their first.

[howieramone1406390264]

Well, that's just it -- in the run-up to Target Field, with more financial flexibility, they decided to re-sign players and not acquire any new free agents. This is consistent with what they did before, just that they retained a few extra of their own guys (or for a slightly longer term). For example, they extended Joe Nathan at a premium when they previously had let good relievers walk. Without looking anything up, I think they also extended Cuddyer and Morneau a few years extra, given previous precedent.

 

I guess they won't have many quality players to extend over the next few years, but I won't be holding my breath for a big FA acquisition. Their next one will basically be their first.

I know I'm not. If the Twins money is burning a hole in somebody's pocket I would think Longoria contracts for Buxton and Sano.

[Kwak]

I think selection bias comes into play here...only pitchers good enough to get a professional contract and then work their way through the minor leagues get to contribute to the "every pitcher" BABIP thing.

 

If pitchers have no control over balls in play, then theoretically you could put a pitching machine on the mound, throwing nothing but 75 MPH fastballs right down the middle, and they should give up hits on 27-30% of balls in play, no?

 

Apparently that was "The Twins Way".

[Willihammer]

I guess they won't have many quality players to extend over the next few years, but I won't be holding my breath for a big FA acquisition. Their next one will basically be their first.

 

And if the Twins farm talent does break onto the scene in 2014 and 2015, propelling them into a playoff chase, then the excuse morphs from "gotta wait till the time is ripe" to "don't want to encumber a bunch of money on a FA when we have all these Arby years coming up on us."

 

That's where the whole discussion about Jr's inaction in the past two offseasons comes in. If he didn't make a splash then, then he's never going to do it. Certainly not if these prospects pan out as planned. And with the new TF and TV money coming in, you have to wonder if he's the right man for the job anymore.

[howieramone1406390264]

And if the Twins farm talent does break onto the scene in 2014 and 2015, propelling them into a playoff chase, then the excuse morphs from "gotta wait till the time is ripe" to "don't want to encumber a bunch of money on a FA when we have all these Arby years coming up on us."

 

That's where the whole discussion about Jr's inaction in the past two offseasons comes in. If he didn't make a splash then, then he's never going to do it. Certainly not if these prospects pan out as planned. And with the new TF and TV money coming in, you have to wonder if he's the right man for the job anymore.

I don't think it's mandatory, in fact it's the furthest thought from my mind. What's an excuse morph?

[TheLeviathan]

And if the Twins farm talent does break onto the scene in 2014 and 2015, propelling them into a playoff chase, then the excuse morphs from "gotta wait till the time is ripe" to "don't want to encumber a bunch of money on a FA when we have all these Arby years coming up on us."

 

That's where the whole discussion about Jr's inaction in the past two offseasons comes in. If he didn't make a splash then, then he's never going to do it. Certainly not if these prospects pan out as planned. And with the new TF and TV money coming in, you have to wonder if he's the right man for the job anymore.

 

Simply liking this post is insufficient. This gets +infinity.

 

I can understand and grant some rationales (as Brock and I discussed earlier) but I'm just so sick and tired of the excuses. It's nice to hear that most people here, even with different rationales, are on the "it's time to riot" bandwagon if we have another fruitless offseason. If you care about this team, you should care about them doing what it takes to field a winner. They have a resource to do that in vast abundance this coming offseason, largely built on our dedication as fans. It's about time we hold them accountable to using it, especially as their profits soar from a publicly financed park.

 

I look forward to seeing how this offseason plays out and how the excuses morph in the highly-likely event we don't utilize FA again. I just hope most posters here are consistent in their views when we cross that threshold.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I look forward to seeing how this offseason plays out and how the excuses morph in the highly-likely event we don't utilize FA again. I just hope most posters here are consistent in their views when we cross that threshold.

 

It's unlikely that they'll be consistent, just as the negative posters aren't consistent with their demands, either... If the Twins do something right, then the negative nellies just move the bar further along to continue complaining. The homers and negative people are little different, though at least the homers are slightly more palatable over the long run (excessive positivity is less grating than excessive negativity).

 

Given the way Buxton and Sano are progressing, it's time to start dabbling in the free agency market. As mentioned in another thread, Phil Hughes might be a good place to start. Or Josh Johnson. I'm still wary on offering five year deals to pitchers but the idea must be explored at some point.

 

At the very least, they need to find shorter term, older vets who aren't flat-out awful. This pitching staff cannot be competitive using only internal resources and that isn't going to change in the next 18 months.

[TheLeviathan]

At the very least, they need to find shorter term, older vets who aren't flat-out awful. This pitching staff cannot be competitive using only internal resources and that isn't going to change in the next 18 months.

 

Pfft, if there is anything being a Twins fan has taught me it's that good pitching comes down to two things:

 

1) Having a pulse and 2) having the willingness to keep going out there no matter how awful you pitch (or you reach 100 pitches)

 

Anything more is for those new-fangled, foil-hat wearing, "cybermatricians"

[ThePuck]

Pfft, if there is anything being a Twins fan has taught me it's that good pitching comes down to two things:

 

1) Having a pulse and 2) having the willingness to keep going out there no matter how awful you pitch (or you reach 100 pitches)

 

Anything more is for those new-fangled, foil-hat wearing, "cybermatricians"

 

Might I add...3)Walking a batter is a sin. and #4) a leadoff walk almost always scores, but somehow a leadoff hit doesn't.

[TheLeviathan]

Might I add...3)Walking a batter is a sin. and #4) a leadoff walk almost always scores, but somehow a leadoff hit doesn't.

 

True, I was trying to stay focused on a GM perspective. All we seem to hear is that they have to be "healthy" and "eat innings".

 

Which is like going out to find a house that is "built on land" and "has walls". Sort of, you know, forgets a lot of important stuff.

[jay]

It's unlikely that they'll be consistent

 

I'm not exactly sure who "they" are, but to expect people to hold the exact same opinion when the underlying factors are changing isn't reasonable.

 

I get the concern that upcoming arbitration years could be used as the next "excuse", but as others have noted... I can't see any reasons why a shorter-term, higher-dollar contract wouldn't fit in the big picture payroll plan either this offseason or no later than the one after.

[nicksaviking]

I'm not exactly sure who "they" are, but to expect people to hold the exact same opinion when the underlying factors are changing isn't reasonable.

 

I get the concern that upcoming arbitration years could be used as the next "excuse", but as others have noted... I can't see any reasons why a shorter-term, higher-dollar contract wouldn't fit in the big picture payroll plan either this offseason or no later than the one after.

 

I think everyone can agree on that. Not that I would actively seek one, but even a deal up to 5 years should still fit into that window as far as arbitration is concerned

[jay]

I think everyone can agree on that. Not that I would actively seek one, but even a deal up to 5 years should still fit into that window as far as arbitration is concerned

 

Right. I do worry TR won't do it this next offseason if he doesn't think it's time to gear up yet, but who knows. The downside of waiting is then a shorter term if/when it does happen and therefore, presumably, a smaller market and skill level of pitchers that would accept that.

[Dman]

And if the Twins farm talent does break onto the scene in 2014 and 2015, propelling them into a playoff chase, then the excuse morphs from "gotta wait till the time is ripe" to "don't want to encumber a bunch of money on a FA when we have all these Arby years coming up on us."

 

That's where the whole discussion about Jr's inaction in the past two offseasons comes in. If he didn't make a splash then, then he's never going to do it. Certainly not if these prospects pan out as planned. And with the new TF and TV money coming in, you have to wonder if he's the right man for the job anymore.

 

OK I just don't think the time is right to sign a big free agent pitcher just yet because I don't think this team is really ready to compete for the playoffs until probably 2016. Maybe just maybe things fall together and they are there 1 year earlier who knows but I don't see a reason to be good until the young players are in place.

 

In my opinion it makes more sense to get higher draft picks and more money for international prospects by being bad. Why spend in FA to be middle of the road? It serves no good purpose other than to have won a handful more games and you lose time on that pitchers arm losing anyway. I don't see value in FA right now I see the opposite.

 

I will agree with you that when the young guys are in place and payroll is low and they do nothing to fill the pitching hole in free agency then I will be done with this team. There will be no reason to watch or follow them if they are not going to go all in when they have the window to do it. TR does not have a good track record of going big in free agency but if he fails this time around then he needs to go.

[nicksaviking]

In my opinion it makes more sense to get higher draft picks and more money for international prospects by being bad. Why spend in FA to be middle of the road? It serves no good purpose other than to have won a handful more games and you lose time on that pitchers arm losing anyway. I don't see value in FA right now I see the opposite.

 

Well the arguement is that if this team needs to hand out multi year deals to secure a bigger free agent fish, they need to do it now because if they wait until all the youngsters start needing contract attention, there will be not be enough money. Signing a good starting pitcher to a four year deal this offseason may mean he's on a poor team in 2014 but in theory he would be usefull for the competitive three seasons that follow.

 

Besides, the international free agent market is well underway and all of the top players have signed deals. The Twins still have about $1.5 million in cap space left. The Twins will not necessarily spend international draft slot money even when they are able to.