Still so far away/ the time is now.

[Mr. Brooks]

Rebuilding teams that appear to be pursuing all avenues for the rebuild deserve to have attention thrown their way. The excitement level on the South Side concerning the young guys now with the Sox and the potential of all the recently-acquired prospects deserves our attention and possibly begrudging admiration, not bulletin board sarcasm, mockery and ridicule.

 

Agreed.

We have to remember that the White Sox and Royals are in our division, so it is worth paying attention to what they are doing.

So many people seem to have the attitude of well, "they are the Sox and the Royals, we beat up on them for years, surely they'll never be a threat to us."

In reality, those teams are setting themselves up for some possible nice runs in the near future.

As someone pointed out regarding the Ruesse comments, not many spots on the roster where you would hesitate to swap our guy for theirs.

Obviously that should change, if our prospects pan out. But for the time being, with Detroit set up to compete for years to come, Cleveland with a strong nucleus and management, and the Royals and White Sox with good, young, intriguing talent, the days of this being an easy division to win might be coming to an end.

I could see a legitimate meat grinder, like the AL East of some years, oncce we are ready to compete again. The 2000's are not coming back.

That doesn't mean we can't win, but the days of putting together a roster full of #4 and #5 pitchers, a quality bullpen, and a "scrappy" lineup that "gets after it", and hoping to dominate the Central are never coming back.

[AROG]

no, AROG, it is bad baseball. You should not give up outs in the middle innings. The math on this is super, super clear. It is bad strategy. It promotes losing, not winning. Bunting there is playing to lose, not playing to win.

 

The stats don't take everything into account. The way a pitcher pitches with a one run lead is different then when they pitch with a three run lead. Stats can tell you what you want them to tell you. I'm not saying that they are 100% not useful but it would be foolish to play the game 100% by them.

 

I understand the math, I really do, it is just something that we will disagree on, sorry.

[Mr. Brooks]

List of Twins players/starters that would not even be on a team not named the Astros or Marlins:

 

CF - Clete Thomas

RF - Wilkin Ramirez

SS - Doug Bernier

 

Andrew Albers, Pedro Hernandez.

 

Players that might be a decent backup (or emergency 5th starter) on a ML club:

 

C- Ryan Doumit

SS - Pedro Florimon

 

Kevin Correia, Samuel Deduno and Mike Pelfrey

 

Players that could possibly start on a small handful of teams:

 

1B- Justin Morneau

3B - Trevor Plouffe

LF - Josh Willingham

 

Kyle Gibson, Scot Diamond

 

Solid everyday starters:

 

C- Joe Mauer

LF - Oswaldo Arcia

2B- Brian Dozier (barely makes the list)

 

Clearly, the quality of players is an issue. Pitchers and position players. Gibson is the only one that I think will be better next year. The Twins have SOOOOO many bad players that when someone mediocre is called up we as fans are excited. Willingham for example had a career year last year, but had been a journeyman prior to that. He isn't that good, yet he's our cleanup hitter! I think as Twins fans we live in a bubble and forget how good some of the players around the league really are. The talent level at the MLB level in this organization right now is abysmal! The Twins have a guy at AA that has hit 31 homers (he's 20) and the Twins MLB HR leader has 14 dingers. Our 2B is just off the clubhouse lead and his name isn't Robinson Cano. Our lineup is every bit as terrible as out pitching.

 

This was probably just an omission, since you had him on your solid everyday player list, but I think Arcia has a chance to be a lot better next year.

Gleeman did a nice job of breaking down how he compares to the other 22 year old hitters to get significant AB's for the Twins, and the company he's in is limited to Bruno/Hrbek/Ortiz.

[Mike Sixel]

So if the math clearly tells you that your likelihood of scoring is waaaaay higher in the not bunting scenario, over 10s of thousands of games, how can you reach a different conclusion?

[rickyriolo]

The only everyday starter I see on the Twins is our catcher Joe Mauer. everyone else--not so much

[Mike Sixel]

I only get to listen to and read about games, since the Twins decided that even though our tax dollars pay for their new stadium, the games should not be on tv anymore......unless I pay for stations I don't want, only to watch more bad tv.....how bad is Arcia's defense?

[Brock Beauchamp]

The stats don't take everything into account. The way a pitcher pitches with a one run lead is different then when they pitch with a three run lead. Stats can tell you what you want them to tell you. I'm not saying that they are 100% not useful but it would be foolish to play the game 100% by them.

 

I understand the math, I really do, it is just something that we will disagree on, sorry.

 

Actually, the stats have shown that pitchers don't pitch very differently with a three run lead.

 

There are hundreds of thousands of baseball games played. We have an enormous pool of data from which to pull and universally, they say "bunting is stupid".

[AROG]

So if the math clearly tells you that your likelihood of scoring is waaaaay higher in the not bunting scenario, over 10s of thousands of games, how can you reach a different conclusion?

 

The stats don't play the game. The Math also says that there is nothing special about the 9th inning. It is super super clear that you shouldn't put any credence to a closer and that anyone can throw pitches in that inning and the outs will come. I understand them, I do, I wouldn't have a computer as my manager though. This is a game and anything can happen.

[Mr. Brooks]

The stats don't play the game. The Math also says that there is nothing special about the 9th inning. It is super super clear that you shouldn't put any credence to a closer and that anyone can throw pitches in that inning and the outs will come. I understand them, I do, I wouldn't have a computer as my manager though. This is a game and anything can happen.

 

That is not true.

The stats show that the 9th inning matters plenty, which is why, all other things equal, it is given much more weight than say, the 3rd inning, when calculating WPA and leverage.

 

Win probability added - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[jokin]

I only get to listen to and read about games, since the Twins decided that even though our tax dollars pay for their new stadium, the games should not be on tv anymore......unless I pay for stations I don't want, only to watch more bad tv.....how bad is Arcia's defense?

 

Not good, but forgivable if he can average an OPS+ of 125 or better for his career- which I think is quite possible. But he really looks like a prime candidate for full-time DH as he gets older. (The Twins platooned Kubel in RF with a career OPS+ of 112, at this point in Arcia's career, he is slightly better in the field than Kubel- but they both have negative dWAR numbers).

[Mr. Brooks]

I think part of Arcia's defensive deficiencies are due the speed at which he moved through the system.

While I don't think he'll ever be a great defender, in fact he'll most likely continue to be a negative value, I think he is capable of improving to the point of being close enough to neutral dWAR for it to be a non issue.

[jokin]

Actually, the stats have shown that pitchers don't pitch very differently with a three run lead.

 

There are hundreds of thousands of baseball games played. We have an enormous pool of data from which to pull and universally, they say "bunting is stupid".

 

Don't "they" actually say situational "bunting is stupid"? Good bunters looking to use it as a weapon to force a defense and pitcher to change their approach, get an easy on-base hit to start a rally, or as a way to break out of a slump are not stupid uses of the bunt.

 

Bunting that just creates an out, lowers the chance for a big inning- with the heightened chance to score, maybe, only one run- is what's stupid.

[ThePuck]

Not good, but forgivable if he can average an OPS+ of 125 or better for his career- which I think is quite possible. But he really looks like a prime candidate for full-time DH as he gets older. (The Twins platooned Kubel in RF with a career OPS+ of 112, at this point in Arcia's career, he is slightly better in the field than Kubel- but they both have negative dWAR numbers).

 

IMO, I think as time goes on, we'll see Arcia is quite a bit worse than Kubel was on defense. Kubel took good routes and had a good arm, range was his issue. Arcia is like Willingham and Delmon Young bad out there.

[drjim]

IMO, I think as time goes on, we'll see Arcia is quite a bit worse than Kubel was on defense. Kubel took good routes and had a good arm, range was his issue. Arcia is like Willingham and Delmon Young bad out there.

 

Arcia did play cf at one point so he might have some potential. I would argue hos struggles have come from limited reps and the fact he constantly switches between rf and lf. More reps and solidifying a position and he should be acceptable.

[jokin]

IMO, I think as time goes on, we'll see Arcia is quite a bit worse than Kubel was on defense. Kubel took good routes and had a good arm, range was his issue. Arcia is like Willingham and Delmon Young bad out there.

 

I tend to agree, but Arcia is still young, lithe and quick enough to physically overcome some of his inexperience and IMO, inability, to play a decent, but not good, OF. As I stated, I think he is destined for DH as he ages and becomes more statue-like. For the next few years until Buxton, Hicks, and possibly Rosario, become ensconced in the OF, Arcia will probably be acceptable.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Don't "they" actually say situational "bunting is stupid"? Good bunters looking to use it as a weapon to force a defense and pitcher to change their approach, get an easy on-base hit to start a rally, or as a way to break out of a slump are not stupid uses of the bunt.

 

Bunting that just creates an out, lowers the chance for a big inning- with the heightened chance to score, maybe, only one run- is what's stupid.

 

True. Bunting for a hit is a perfectly valid way to try to reach base.

[AROG]

That is not true.

The stats show that the 9th inning matters plenty, which is why, all other things equal, it is given much more weight than say, the 3rd inning, when calculating WPA and leverage.

 

Win probability added - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The Baseball Analysts: Empirical Analysis of Bunting

[ThePuck]

The Baseball Analysts: Empirical Analysis of Bunting

 

 

The Sacrifice Bunt: The Real Rally Killer | FanGraphs Baseball

[AROG]

The Sacrifice Bunt: The Real Rally Killer | FanGraphs Baseball

 

I read that article before I read the one I posted. Did you read the one I posted? It's quite long so I am assuming not.

[ThePuck]

I read that article before I read the one I posted. Did you read the one I posted? It's quite long so I am assuming not.

 

I read it quite awhile ago...it's an older article

[AROG]

I read it quite awhile ago...it's an older article

 

And you give it no credence what so ever? The fan graphs article is correct, there are less rallies as a result of the sac bunt, but the amount of innings scored in are less and fangraphs leaves that out. They refer to any run scored at all.

[ThePuck]

And you give it no credence what so ever?

 

I wasn't smart enough to understand it :-)

[Mr. Brooks]

The Baseball Analysts: Empirical Analysis of Bunting

 

What are you trying to argue with this link?

It seems to support our argument, not yours.

These tables seem to suggest that in SOME cases, you can increase your probability of scoring ONE run by bunting, but that overall you score LESS total runs by bunting.

I think many of us have conceded that in some cases a bunt is not terrible if you are playing for only one run.

The Twins should not have been playing for only one run in that situation.

[nicksaviking]

The stats don't take everything into account. The way a pitcher pitches with a one run lead is different then when they pitch with a three run lead. Stats can tell you what you want them to tell you. I'm not saying that they are 100% not useful but it would be foolish to play the game 100% by them.

 

I think this is a quote taken directly from the anti-emperical Gardenhire himself. Strange you two don't get along considering how much you agree about the uselessness of advanced statistics.

 

A side note: I think everyone is missing a huge oversight. Gardy almost exclusively plays "old school" baseball. He often bunts, he pinch runs for his best hitter with two outs in a tie game, he doesn't shift his defense. The validity of bunting in this specific situation is funny because 90% of the time, Gardenhire likely sides with AROG who wants him gone because he didn't follow the rules this one time.

[AROG]

What are you trying to argue with this link?

It seems to support our argument, not yours.

These tables seem to suggest that in SOME cases, you can increase your probability of scoring ONE run by bunting, but that overall you score LESS total runs by bunting.

I think many of us have conceded that in some cases a bunt is not terrible if you are playing for only one run.

The Twins should not have been playing for only one run in that situation.

 

While the first graph shows the typical ERT, the rest of the graphs work towards the ultimate goal of testing the merits of bunting. In situations where teams bunted, there is historical proof that the teams that used the sac bunt scored more runs that inning then teams that didn't, not just one run, but more total.

 

Also, it points out that you can't use blanket statements to situations in baseball. They average out everything, placing no data to who is coming up, who is pitching, anything situationally. Now, it doesn't mean that you should always bunt. But what it proves is that using ERT for every situation is flawed and cannot be used to empirically state a case for all. I know that you have said that one run game...

 

The truth is, if you are down by three, score one, then score one again, you are down by one. Had you not scored you are still down by three. Baseball is about taking advantage of every situation you have to score, if you just sit back and wait for the long ball or 5 hits in a row, you are the 2000's yankees or you lose.

 

I am not saying you should bunt in all situations, but to say that you should never bunt before the 8th inning or only in one run games is just not good baseball, statistically.

[Siehbiscuit]

This was probably just an omission, since you had him on your solid everyday player list, but I think Arcia has a chance to be a lot better next year.

Gleeman did a nice job of breaking down how he compares to the other 22 year old hitters to get significant AB's for the Twins, and the company he's in is limited to Bruno/Hrbek/Ortiz.

 

Yes, Arcia should have been included in that sentence. The sad part is I was actually only thinking about the rotation. Kinda shows/supports how old and poor our offense really is though. I do see Dozier improving and possibly Florimon, but not to the point that warrants a starting MLB job.

 

Arcia is a building block kinda guy, even though this season hasn't been overwhelming. He needs to be a staple in our the lineup moving forward, because he will be a good player, not because he's the best the Twins have to choose from.

 

Building Blocks:

Arcia - potential David Ortiz type hitter (and fielder possibly)

Buxton - RH'd Ken Griffey Jr.

Sano - future star at 3B

Mauer - still at an elite level

Gibson - has hit a wall, but has the makings of a foundational guy

Meyer - #1 type pitcher

Rosario - the #2 hitter that Gardy has always dreamed of!!!!

[Oxtung]

Nicksaviking & jokin, I think everyone can agree, or at least I agree, that the Twins have struggled to produce quality starting pitching for the past few years due to a variety of reasons. It is disappointing. But throwing AAAA pitchers into a rotation is not any better than signing a free agent. In fact if you go the AAAA route then you actually need to acquire even more AAAA pitchers to replace the ones in the opening day rotation as they inevitably fail. I wish we were in the position the White Sox are in. I wish we had 4 young pitchers with potential to populate the rotation but we don't and we won't for a couple of more years.

 

AROG- Stats tell you exactly what has happened. You can certainly argue with the methodology and the applicability of a particular stat but it's not "lying" to you. You mention that a computer wouldn't be your choice for manager, why not? Computers consistently beat Grand Master chess players. A couple of years ago the computer Watson defeated Ken Jennings, the best human Jeopardy player of all time, head to head and won $1 million. If a computer was specifically designed to manage a baseball game I would have no problems letting it make game time decisions. After all baseball is nothing but a game of probabilities which computers excel at.

 

To the bunting conversation. You dismiss ERT's as being too generic to give advice in specific situations and then point to slightly modified, and yet still generic, ERT's to prove your point. That seems illogical.

[stringer bell]

Of the topics of discussion here so far: 1) Dozier may be more than a placeholder. I think his defense is elite, and he grades out average offensively. 2) Mauer could be part of the solution at first base next year. I wonder if he caught less if he would sustain more power. Maybe, maybe not. 3) Herrmann's skill set makes him a near-ideal 25th player. I don't think he's an alternate as a catcher, but he can be a backup plus an occasional corner OF, capable of pinch hitting. 4) I despise seeing Bernier, Thomas, Ramirez and to a lesser extent Doumit, and Morneau taking at bats away from guys who could help in the future. 6) Plouffe and Florimon seem to have earned starting spots to begin next year, no more than that.

[stringer bell]

Sadly, the Twins' rotation looks to be as big a mess as last year. It doesn't look like anyone has earned having their name written in ink for the rotation next year. I suppose Correia is the closest to a lock in the rotation. That is sad.

[Mr. Brooks]

Of the topics of discussion here so far: 1) Dozier may be more than a placeholder. I think his defense is elite, and he grades out average offensively. 2) Mauer could be part of the solution at first base next year. I wonder if he caught less if he would sustain more power. Maybe, maybe not. 3) Herrmann's skill set makes him a near-ideal 25th player. I don't think he's an alternate as a catcher, but he can be a backup plus an occasional corner OF, capable of pinch hitting. 4) I despise seeing Bernier, Thomas, and to a lesser extent Doumit, and Morneau taking at bats away from guys who could help in the future. 6) Plouffe and Florimon seem to have earned starting spots to begin next year, no more than that.

 

I disagree on #6. I think Plouffe needs a huge final 40 games of the season to save his job.

He's regressed in a big way, IMO. His OPS is now below .700, and if it finishes the season there, that is going to be tough to digest, given his really bad defense.

I hate to say it, because for some reason I've really always liked Plouffe, but the clock is ticking on his time here.