Twins Dislike Platoons

[Alex]

Cots lists 30 outfielders as free agents for this winter. Hitting with an OPS over .725 would be an improvement over the current situation. 2 throw in minor leaguers might even get you one in trade

 

No one is saying hold steady and platoons are all you need. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive, so I'd request that we not turn this into an either or argument. If the Twins go out and get an .800 OPS outfielder, that would be great, especially if he can hit both sides.

 

Now we only need to fill in six more spots in the lineupwith better hitters as well.... The Twins are in a position where a platoon or two will be an effective way to improve the overall lineup because they aren't going to completely remake the lineup with free agents.

[Shane Wahl]

I am pretty flabbergasted reading these posts.

 

Look, supposedly the rebuilding 2013 could at least have been about figuring out who other than Mauer is a legitimate player for the future Twins when Sano, Buxton, and Rosario (as a second baseman, in particular) are ready to play. You can say that Dozier clearly passed the test and that Arcia is a very likely candidate to pass that test given a season beyond his semi-rookie year. Florimon has passed the defensive test and currently has value there. Now, what's left out of 2013?

 

Hicks was an abomination in April. That word abomination ONLY applies to his performance in April. In my view, there is no way the Twins shouldn't start him on opening day in CF. He can't bat seventh against righties.

 

Plouffe and Parmelee! I'll be a monkey's uncle. What a damn platoon opportunity for two players who actually were on the roster together most of this year and who could share RF together. This need not be a straight platoon, but it still can work very effectively in maximizing PAs for players in positions where they are most able to contribute.

 

And thus I don't understand how it is crazy to consider have a roster for 2014 that maximizes the abilities of the . . . . . roster for 2014. If Parmelee is traded somehow, OK, but that is doubtful. In any event when you have such a platoon you are then able, in game, to bring in the other guy to pinch hit! Am I explaining the obvious? Yes. Is this necessary to explain the obvious? Apparently so.

[old nurse]

No one is saying hold steady and platoons are all you need. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive, so I'd request that we not turn this into an either or argument. If the Twins go out and get an .800 OPS outfielder, that would be great, especially if he can hit both sides.

 

Now we only need to fill in six more spots in the lineupwith better hitters as well.... The Twins are in a position where a platoon or two will be an effective way to improve the overall lineup because they aren't going to completely remake the lineup with free agents.

 

The idea of platooning is that your LH and RH bat off the bench play the same position. For it to be an effective use of talent and roster space there has to be above average talent. With a roster of 12 position players it would be a luxury having a platoon. This would especially be true if someone played only DH.

[Alex]

The idea of platooning is that your LH and RH bat off the bench play the same position. For it to be an effective use of talent and roster space there has to be above average talent. With a roster of 12 position players it would be a luxury having a platoon. This would especially be true if someone played only DH.

 

First, as many have pointed out, we disagree about the talent level. You get the most out of platooning when you have struggling hitters who are only effective from one side of the plate. Platooning for hitters like Mauer or Willingham has very minimal effect.

 

Also, as people have mentioned ad nauseum, we can certainly talk "rigid" platoons where two players are dedicated to one lineup and position spot, but there are other ways.

 

For example, yet again, consider the Twins 2B, SS, and 3B. All three were better against LHP and two crushed it (Dozier and Plouffe) but were significantly worse against RHP. The Twins bench players for them? All better against LHP. This meant the Twins put 1500+ PA against RHP from this collection of infielders that were pretty awful (below .700 OPS) and had no answer for it (bench infielders all terrible against RHP). If the Twins had a player who could hit RHP you then have the option of either platooning straight up for one of them (Plouffe probably since his defense is lacking) or rotate between all of them. Either way you now lower that number of weak PAs against RHP to 1000. It's the same result in the end, people are just getting caught up in the semantics and some sort of rigid definition.

[old nurse]

First, as many have pointed out, we disagree about the talent level. You get the most out of platooning when you have struggling hitters who are only effective from one side of the plate. Platooning for hitters like Mauer or Willingham has very minimal effect.

 

Also, as people have mentioned ad nauseum, we can certainly talk "rigid" platoons where two players are dedicated to one lineup and position spot, but there are other ways.

 

For example, yet again, consider the Twins 2B, SS, and 3B. All three were better against LHP and two crushed it (Dozier and Plouffe) but were significantly worse against RHP. The Twins bench players for them? All better against LHP. This meant the Twins put 1500+ PA against RHP from this collection of infielders that were pretty awful (below .700 OPS) and had no answer for it (bench infielders all terrible against RHP). If the Twins had a player who could hit RHP you then have the option of either platooning straight up for one of them (Plouffe probably since his defense is lacking) or rotate between all of them. Either way you now lower that number of weak PAs against RHP to 1000. It's the same result in the end, people are just getting caught up in the semantics and some sort of rigid definition.

 

Willingham when he came up wasn't very good at hitting right handers. Would have he got better sitting on the bench? The players all mentioned are still developing. Why stunt their growth? Either they are going to develop or you have to get new players.

Rigid definition. Platoon has a definition. It is or it isn't.

[John Bonnes]

Willingham when he came up wasn't very good at hitting right handers. Would have he got better sitting on the bench? The players all mentioned are still developing. Why stunt their growth? Either they are going to develop or you have to get new players.

Rigid definition. Platoon has a definition. It is or it isn't.

 

I think people are able to define "platoon" as they please. It doesn't need to mean "Trevor Plouffe never sees a right-handed starting pitcher and his replacement never sees a lefty." Truth is, I don't think that kind of rigid definition necessarily exists. If the definition is "Twins should be more flexible in their lineup to try and have opposite hands hitting against pitchers", I think that's fine.

 

On the other hand, the looser the definition, the more I think the Twins have done some of that, or at least where they've had the positional flexibility to do so in several areas, like right field. (They are less likely to do it in areas where they have a veteran, like first base or left field.)

 

I guess if I was trying to measure it, I would do the following:

- Find out the number of at-bats the Twins have had versus LHs and RHs (or maybe LH starting pitchers and RH starting pitchers). Find the percentage split.

- For each Twins players, find out their same percentage split. Find which players vary the most from that.

- Now doe something similar for a team that is considered a model of platooning, like the Rays. Do the percentages for the top 5 players vary as much as they do for the Twins? How about for another comparable poor team, like the Mariners?

[Alex]

 

On the other hand, the looser the definition, the more I think the Twins have done some of that, or at least where they've had the positional flexibility to do so in several areas, like right field. (They are less likely to do it in areas where they have a veteran, like first base or left field.)

 

I guess if I was trying to measure it, I would do the following:

- Find out the number of at-bats the Twins have had versus LHs and RHs (or maybe LH starting pitchers and RH starting pitchers). Find the percentage split.

- For each Twins players, find out their same percentage split. Find which players vary the most from that.

- Now doe something similar for a team that is considered a model of platooning, like the Rays. Do the percentages for the top 5 players vary as much as they do for the Twins? How about for another comparable poor team, like the Mariners?

 

I agree that that would be useful, but the Twins also don't seem to construct their roster based on this idea even in the loosest terms which I tried to point out in one of my posts (options 1 and 2 on the depth chart were same-handed hitters) and that affects the numbers as well.

[Alex]

Rigid definition. Platoon has a definition. It is or it isn't.

 

That's fine if you want to focus on that, but there are varying levels of discussion here and forcing the definition of this in such narrow terms it becomes pointless to continue.

[Mike Sixel]

You don't need 13 man pitching staffs, if you use AAA as a "bench". Not sure why more teams don't do that.....most of the backends of bullpens are replacement level, and you should not need to worry about protecting them if they run out of options. That should open up room for platoons and a better bench.

[old nurse]

What is the goal of the team this year? You want to win games but more importantly you need to see if you can develop everyday players. Dozier, Parmelee, and Colabello in the minors showed the ability to hit very well. At what point do you determine they will not develop further and have a limitation. If they are going to be somewhere on the field of play as a regular they need to play regularly. When they need an off day, it should be against a pitcher they are less likely to do well against, that someone else has a better shot at. The conversation thus far would lead me to believe people don't think they are going to get any better as players than what they are now. Plouffe as a career has hit left handed pitching well enough to have a role somewhere. In terms of time, have Colabello or Parmelee been given that chance? If the answer is yes, then I would ask you do you think their best side warrants big league status? A .750 OPS in a limited role doesn't sound like it would help a team on that needs an above average offense.

[kab21]

Cots lists 30 outfielders as free agents for this winter. Hitting with an OPS over .725 would be an improvement over the current situation. 2 throw in minor leaguers might even get you one in trade

 

This is an incredibly lazy suggestion that imo puts you in with the crowd that Theo Epstein referenced when he said that signing FA's is not just about checking the box.

 

If you actually spent a little time checking the stats you would find that there is almost nobody in FA this winter that fits your criteria. I picked the 6 players closest to your criteria to help you. McLouth, Kubel, Morse, Murphy, Scott and CBYoung. Aside from maybe McLouth these are exactly the types of players that the Twins shouldn't be signing. They need to get younger and more athletic. Most of this list that you suggested completely sucks.

 

Alfredo Amezaga - a 35 yr old that spent the season in AAA

Rick Ankiel - .657 OPS and was DFA'd by 2 teams

Norichika Aoki - has a cheap option

Jeff Baker .910 (used as a platoon player:o)

Jason Bay - .691 OPS

Carlos Beltran - .831 OPS signing for megabucks

Shin-Soo Choo .890 OPS signing for megabucks

Coco Crisp - his option will be exercised

Nelson Cruz - .841 OPS but the Twins won't be signing him

Rajai Davis - .687 OPS

David DeJesus - .745 OPS (used as a platoon player)

Mark DeRosa - .734 OPS (used as a platoon player:))

Matt Diaz - he's finished but he was a platoon player

Jacoby Ellsbury - signing for megabucks

Jeff Francoeur - .536 OPS

Curtis Granderson - signing for megabucks

Franklin Gutierrez - has missed close to 300 games in the last 3 seasons

Tony Gwynn Jr. - in AAA all season

Corey Hart - .841 signing for megabucks

Raul Ibanez - .811 OPS (41 yrs old)

Reed Johnson * - .674 OPS (a platoon player)

Austin Kearns - he's done

Jason Kubel * - .610 OPS but a good bounceback candidate

Nate McLouth - .734 OPS (actually fits your criteria)

Nyjer Morgan - sat out season

Mike Morse - .651 OPS (could bounceback)

David Murphy - .657 OPS (could bounceback)

Xavier Nady - he's finished

Laynce Nix - he sucks

Hunter Pence signing for megabucks

Juan Rivera - he's finished

Luke Scott - .739 OPS (200+ games missed in 3 seasons)

Ryan Sweeney - .808 OPS as a part timer

Andres Torres - .644 OPS

Chris Young * .654 OPS - a bounceback candidate if his option is declined

Delmon Young .699 OPS (this really is not going to happen)

[ashbury]

This is an incredibly lazy suggestion that imo puts you in with the crowd that Theo Epstein referenced when he said that signing FA's is not just about checking the box.

 

Mod note: PLEASE don't make things so personal.

 

Better: "This is an incredibly lazy suggestion. Theo Epstein has a quote that signing FA's is not just about checking the box."

 

It's better because it talks about ideas.

 

Even better: "I like Theo Epstein's quote that signing FA's is not just about checking the box."

 

This takes the value judgement out about another poster's statement. Please consider it when writing a rebuttal.

 

The continuation of your post would similarly benefit from removing the second-person form. When you finally arrive at the meat of your post, there's quite a lot there worth considering. Believe me, I HATE simply deleting most posts.

[Alex]

A rather comprehensive article on platooning.

 

Need to add O, how about a platoon? - SweetSpot Blog - ESPN

 

Among the subjects is "cross-position platooning" which we've talked about here and that the author notes is a more realistic option the way rosters work. They also look at specific examples. Surprising to me was that while I knew platooning wasn't a new idea I am amazed it went back to the deadball era (though it makes sense after seeing that fact).

[twinsfan34]

2) I think you need to look beyond average. If you look at OPS, almost every player you mention and some you don't (Doumit) is better 80 points or more (Plouffe is almost 200 points better -- so your stats of choice on him are especially misleading).

 

 

I didn't mention Doumit, as he is a switch-hitter and didn't have a platoon to match position (C, RF) wise in the hierarchy of subs that would have benefited the team. He typically already starts at DH or C when Mauer wasn't available. So I guess I didn't factor him as much of a 'platoon' eligible player more of a necessary backup (when Mauer was healthy) as the team didn't carry more than 2 Catchers.

 

I wonder what Ryan's definition of "platoon" is versus others who question it?

 

I honestly only feel Plouffe would make it as a "platoon" eligible player going forward. But, even so, his "platoon" skill is hitting LHP, which, honestly, is not that beneficial. However, most RH hit LHP better. Factor in, what if Miguel Sano hits the big club in 2014? He mashes lefties.

 

I see Aaron Hicks as a starter or gone. Hoping he doesn't go the way of Joe Benson ("toolsy", great defense, never panned out).

 

Either Willingham can hit or he can't. He generally kills LHP so might be a situational 4th OF vs LHP (but you don't keep someone who only faces LHP - not enough ABS). Although the '4th OF' typically is a LH who hits RH pretty well (e.g. Randy Bush a la 1991) as it's a 3-to-1 ratio of available ABs.

 

The rest of those guys are hoping to be a serviceable defensive replacement. Florimon might be the only one that qualifies.

 

If many are thinking the Twins aren't trying to maximize the turd-pile of players we currently have - I CAN go along with that, in the sense of maximizing every little match-up. This does not feel like the 1987 Twins or the 1991 Twins or even the Twins of the early 2000's where pitching changes and timely Pinch Hitters were the norm.

 

The Front Office here doesn't particularly care if we go 60-102 or 68-94.

 

I get a sense they're trying to see if there's an everyday player in the players we have. Versus trying to "develop" a bunch of platoon players (don't have the roster spots for such development, thus my '18 players + Mauer' comment).

 

I would ask this...as many of our top prospects are sitting in A-, A+, & AA...so 2-3 years away. Who do you think makes the cut to that time from this team? I would say only Plouffe out of those "platoon" eligible players would make the cut. Florimon, maybe as a Al Newman play everywhere defensive replacement. But that's a stretch with Santana & Goodrum flashing plenty of defense and they may be able to hit too - and if there's any inclination they can hit, they'll be given every opportunity to push Florimon out the door.

[stringer bell]

Alex I'll dispute one thing you wrote--you said that all three regular Twins infielders were better against LH pitching. As has been noted on Twins telecasts since mid-season, Florimon has been brutal against left handers. He has a .478 OPS vs. lefties, as opposed to a still very pedestrian .655 against righties. Starting Escobar vs. lefties (.670 OPS) and spotting Eduardo for Plouffe and Dozier makes sense, although both Plouffe and Dozier outhit Escobar vs. righthanders (not significantly).

[Otto von Ballpark]

Plouffe and Parmelee! I'll be a monkey's uncle. What a damn platoon opportunity for two players who actually were on the roster together most of this year and who could share RF together.

 

Really? Plouffe I sorta get -- even outside of his crazy 2012, he's been around an .800 OPS vs LHP.

 

But Parmelee's at .749 vs RHP for his career, and that includes his otherworldly 1.069 from September 2011. He's at .698 vs RHP since then, over 411 PA. That's hardly worth platooning over Plouffe's career .662 OPS vs RHP (and Plouffe's .147 ISO vs RHP is identical to Parmelee's post-2011, so your entire gain is about 20 points of AVG and 10 extra points OBP).

 

Even Plouffe's platooning potential is limited because it's the short half of the platoon. At least he has some more theoretical positional flexibility, but basically, if a guy is worth being the long half of a platoon (playing vs RHP), he's probably worth starting full-time. Parmelee hasn't looked like that guy yet, especially not in RF.

[Alex]

Alex I'll dispute one thing you wrote--you said that all three regular Twins infielders were better against LH pitching. As has been noted on Twins telecasts since mid-season, Florimon has been brutal against left handers. He has a .478 OPS vs. lefties, as opposed to a still very pedestrian .655 against righties. Starting Escobar vs. lefties (.670 OPS) and spotting Eduardo for Plouffe and Dozier makes sense, although both Plouffe and Dozier outhit Escobar vs. righthanders (not significantly).

 

You are correct. In his case I had flipped the numbers. My apologies, but it definitely adds to the point that the opportunity was there and wasn't used and probably should have been.

[Alex]

 

Even Plouffe's platooning potential is limited because it's the short half of the platoon. At least he has some more theoretical positional flexibility, but basically, if a guy is worth being the long half of a platoon (playing vs RHP), he's probably worth starting full-time.

 

I don't think that's true at all, especially as left-handed hitters in general tend to have more extreme splits than righties (I think I got that overall information from Tom Tango's book, but can't remember exactly).

 

An example (all in good fun):

Jamey Carroll had Morneau by almost 100 points of OPS against LHP this season and for his career has a higher OPS against LHP. That's a player that was considered on of the best hitters in the Twins history and you could have made an argument for platooning him with a utility infielder.

 

And another fun note:

Despite the fact that Morneau was terrible against lefties (hadn't put up an OPS over .600 for multiple years against them) he was still in the heart of the lineup against them.

 

(All that said, Morneau was pretty good against lefties for the peak of his career).

[YourHouseIsMyHouse]

I hate this Plouffe/Parmelee idea. Parmelee is simply a terrible player that shouldn't even be platooning. His .717 OPS vs. righties really isn't much of an upgrade from Plouffe's .654 and 12 HRs. Plus, he OPSed .691 against them last year. In addition, Plouffe would have a lot more range then Parmelee in RF. Since most starting pitchers are right handed, Parmelee would get played more than Plouffe and that just makes me sick. Plouffe has shown he can play at an MLB level and has promise while Parmelee has done nothing of the sort. Oh, and Plouffe hits way more deengers.

If anything a Parmelee/Colabello platoon and I'm not sure I like that.

[stringer bell]

To summarize, perhaps finding middle ground on this issue: It is probably tough to have a strict platoon, in part because position player numbers have shrunk and in part because the right handed part of a platoon would only start somewhere between 23 and 30% of the time. While having a strict platoon doesn't and shouldn't happen much, the Twins have managed to send out far too many hitters going on the weak side of their platoon splits

[twinsfan34]

 

Even Plouffe's platooning potential is limited because it's the short half of the platoon. At least he has some more theoretical positional flexibility, but basically, if a guy is worth being the long half of a platoon (playing vs RHP), he's probably worth starting full-time. Parmelee hasn't looked like that guy yet, especially not in RF.

 

You nailed it.

[twinsfan34]

I hate this Plouffe/Parmelee idea. Parmelee is simply a terrible player that shouldn't even be platooning. His .717 OPS vs. righties really isn't much of an upgrade from Plouffe's .654 and 12 HRs. Plus, he OPSed .691 against them last year. In addition, Plouffe would have a lot more range then Parmelee in RF. Since most starting pitchers are right handed, Parmelee would get played more than Plouffe and that just makes me sick. Plouffe has shown he can play at an MLB level and has promise while Parmelee has done nothing of the sort. Oh, and Plouffe hits way more deengers.

 

Totally agree.

 

IF somehow Parmalee is on the Twins Roster and playing 80+ games (platoon) - the Twins won't be winning many games. I'd put the over under at 70 Wins.

[stringer bell]

I hate this Plouffe/Parmelee idea. Parmelee is simply a terrible player that shouldn't even be platooning. His .717 OPS vs. righties really isn't much of an upgrade from Plouffe's .654 and 12 HRs. Plus, he OPSed .691 against them last year. In addition, Plouffe would have a lot more range then Parmelee in RF. Since most starting pitchers are right handed, Parmelee would get played more than Plouffe and that just makes me sick. Plouffe has shown he can play at an MLB level and has promise while Parmelee has done nothing of the sort. Oh, and Plouffe hits way more deengers.

No, it isn't fair for RH hitters and I see Plouffe as at least the equal of Parmelee. That said, I don't think Plouffe's OF defense would be superior to Parm. I have more hope for as a hitter than you do, as well. Parmelee is younger, proved that he can play OF this year, and hits lefty. He may be no more than a replacement player, but I think 2014 should be his last chance to prove himself.

[twinsfan34]

To summarize, perhaps finding middle ground on this issue: It is probably tough to have a strict platoon, in part because position player numbers have shrunk and in part because the right handed part of a platoon would only start somewhere between 23 and 30% of the time. While having a strict platoon doesn't and shouldn't happen much, The Twins have managed to send out far too many hitters going on the weak side of their platoon splits

 

That's a good summary.

 

 

- It hasn't been utilized to it's full potential by Twins management (But I believe it has been done for Development reasons - no reason to 'develop' platoon players - see if they can hit either side)

- It doesn't work for the short-half of the Platoon, that is to be a "platoon" player it is best if they hit RHP well.

- To be solely a "platoon" regular, it would reason the hitter need to hit at least .280 vs that strong side of the platoon (usually RHP).

 

A question, for those to do some research. Who are some good platoon players? What did the hit vs. LHP or vs RHP. Were these "platoon" players, maybe "combos" is a better word - mostly RH or LH for the "long half" of the platoon (e.g. Pagliarulo vs Leius in 1991).

[YourHouseIsMyHouse]

One more reason platooning Parmelee and Plouffe is a bad idea is that both are somewhat young. They simply haven't had enough data to justify it. You're basically giving up on both of them too by putting them in that type of role. Parmelee I've given up on, but I think Plouffe has a chance to still be what we'd like him to be. Platoons make more sense for older players (29+) who have wider splits than what these two guys have. To me, it's not a dramatic difference. A player like Valencia is perfect because he's very good against lefties (.875OPS), but is mediocre against righties (.631OPS). He has always been that way and always will and the gap is significant. That makes sense, not this.

[YourHouseIsMyHouse]

No, it isn't fair for RH hitters and I see Plouffe as at least the equal of Parmelee. That said, I don't think Plouffe's OF defense would be superior to Parm. I have more hope for as a hitter than you do, as well. Parmelee is younger, proved that he can play OF this year, and hits lefty. He may be no more than a replacement player, but I think 2014 should be his last chance to prove himself.

 

Parmelee will never hit over 20 HRs. Plouffe has shown he can (30HR potential) and probably would have been better had he not been limited by injury (.759 prior). I think he's a better all around hitter, but you are right about the OF defense.

[Alex]

Look at the article I posted. There were some good examples there

[darin617]

Basically, the GM nor Manager believe in platooning:

 

Platoons not attractive to Twins - TwinCities.com

 

There will always be platoons because the team will never spend the money to sign any actual star players. And if any of the top prospects pan out they will not be willing to pay them.

[The Wise One]

I am not sure what the fuss is about. For the most part Parmalee does not start when there is a left hander starting. 64 plate appearances in 47 games would indicate he is not starting much against left handers. Plouffe starts at 3B because there wasn't much else for options. What he lacks in BA he makes up for in power over Carroll (when he was here) and Escobar. There is no guarantee of an arrival of Sano, Plouffe will be starting at 3B for the near future. Maybe he doesn't have a long future, but stuff happens. He will be somewhere in the lineup against lefties.

Some players have been all over the outfield. Herman rarely sees a left hander, Parmalee only a little as does Thomas. It would be hard to say there is a set pattern. Sometimes it was a matter of who had a pulse that day, but the mix and match of outfielders would be closer to the loose definition of platoon than not.

[Alex]

I am not sure what the fuss is about. For the most part Parmalee does not start when there is a left hander starting. 64 plate appearances in 47 games would indicate he is not starting much against left handers. Plouffe starts at 3B because there wasn't much else for options. What he lacks in BA he makes up for in power over Carroll (when he was here) and Escobar. There is no guarantee of an arrival of Sano, Plouffe will be starting at 3B for the near future. Maybe he doesn't have a long future, but stuff happens. He will be somewhere in the lineup against lefties.

Some players have been all over the outfield. Herman rarely sees a left hander, Parmalee only a little as does Thomas. It would be hard to say there is a set pattern. Sometimes it was a matter of who had a pulse that day, but the mix and match of outfielders would be closer to the loose definition of platoon than not.

 

That's a good point, and when the alternative was Doumit, that's a decent switch.