Projections have Twins headed for fourth-straight 90-loss season

[PseudoSABR]

My question is what is the alternative? "Gut feeling"? There is a place in the world for "gut feelings" for certain, but by and large they aren't very accurate.

What assurances do I have that the gut feelings have been objectively eliminated from these metrics? Each metric produces varying results because they weigh different aspects of different values--which is a reflection of their bias. Again, there's no mathematical innocence or objectivity at work here.

 

For instance if you believe that walks are more valuable than hits in determining winning outcomes--how do you determine that difference? Do you look at runs scored? The same runs that we might dismiss in having value in determining player worth?

 

Objectivity is a tenuous goal when we are looking at a phenomenons that are invariably abstract and lack reducible modalities. There's non-mathematical biases at work when you start dividing the field into zones or when you attempt to combine defense and hitting and baserunning into the same metric. As useful as it might be, the need to quantify an abstract phenomenon changes the nature of the phenomenon.

 

I worry that the quality assurance of such metrics simpy confirms the makers' deep-seated biases (Well these numbers look right because I generally value speed and defense than average). How do you assure the accuracy of these models if not by the models themselves? These kind statistical models night only be self-affirming.

 

For my own part, I like to look at individual pieces of data--but I like to do my own 'math' when determining a players total value or rather do my own thinking in which aspects of the game have more weight than others.

[savvyspy]

If the offense regresses (very possible) its not likely to be made up for by slightly improved (Likely) pitching and the fact that defensively they are below average. They are probably right where they usually are at 68-72 wins.

 

I'm not sure about why they are predicting Mauer to regress. That seems a bit odd. I think its much more likely that Dozier regresses (he's never had 2 good seasons in a row) and that Suzuki gives you nothing. Overall I don't see how this team scores runs. I don't see anyone but Mauer and Arcia hitting over .250, they have ZERO power, and they don't walk a ton.

[jay]

If the offense regresses (very possible) its not likely to be made up for by slightly improved (Likely) pitching and the fact that defensively they are below average. They are probably right where they usually are at 68-72 wins.

 

Everything I've seen has the Twins offense regressing, but that regression is towards the mean (aka... better). Regression describes returning towards the mean whether the starting point is bad or good. It doesn't describe going from bad to even worse, which is what I think you're saying?

 

Help me understand which positions you think will put up worse production than last year? I'm not seeing many ways for the offense to be worse (barring significant injury).

[Craig Arko]

Everything I've seen has the Twins offense regressing, but that regression is towards the mean (aka... better). Regression describes returning towards the mean whether the starting point is bad or good. It doesn't describe going from bad to even worse, which is what I think you're saying?

 

Help me understand which positions you think will put up worse production than last year? I'm not seeing many ways for the offense to be worse (barring significant injury).

 

Yes, I've also noticed that people throw out the term "regression" without realizing how statistical regression differs from the common usage. And not just here, of course. Gauss is rolling over in his tomb...

[jay]

Yes, I've also noticed that people throw out the term "regression" without realizing how statistical regression differs from the common usage. And not just here, of course. Gauss is rolling over in his tomb...

 

Quite tricky definitions... regress is to go backwards while regression is to go back to a previous state/place (the mean).

 

savvyspy, wasn't trying to jump on you. Your usage of 'regresses' was correct as well, just slightly confusing given the discussion on regression to the mean.

[TheLeviathan]

Help me understand which positions you think will put up worse production than last year? I'm not seeing many ways for the offense to be worse (barring significant injury).

 

I think the combination we had at C/1B/DH will be worse this year than it was last year. People cite Mauer's injury - but forget Pinto hit out of his damn mind when he took over. Arguably better than Mauer in fact. I see a dip there.

 

I see a very solid chance of a dip from Dozier.

 

I see virtually no depth on the team in case of injury.

 

And I see a team with very limited speed and very limited power. Not generally a good recipe. I don't necessarily think they regress....but I don't see them as being a whole hell of a lot better either.

[notoriousgod71]

I think the combination we had at C/1B/DH will be worse this year than it was last year. People cite Mauer's injury - but forget Pinto hit out of his damn mind when he took over. Arguably better than Mauer in fact. I see a dip there.

 

I see a very solid chance of a dip from Dozier.

 

I see virtually no depth on the team in case of injury.

 

And I see a team with very limited speed and very limited power. Not generally a good recipe. I don't necessarily think they regress....but I don't see them as being a whole hell of a lot better either.

 

We're also forgetting that as mediocre as Morneau was he was STILL our second best hitter last year.

[Oxtung]

I appreciate the good replies to my previous comments. The civility displayed was appreciated. I like it when we can all act like adults and bring our differing viewpoints to the table without getting into shouting matches. I will try and touch on many of the points you made but don't want to be as long winded this time.

 

First let me try and clarify my position a bit, again remember that I'm not trying to pick on any person in particular and this isn't really limited to just this thread.

 

I think what really perturbs me is when a poster enters a thread that is clearly about a mathematical model or metric and makes an argument along the lines of "Well my gut says this can't be true therefore this is a terrible and worthless model and deserves no consideration." Ok, perhaps a bit of hyperbole in that last sentence. I'm not sure how that helps to further the discussion.

 

I have no problem with people pointing out flaws in the methodology like Psuedo did earlier. He is absolutely right that often times there are some biases involved. Though sometimes those are base off of sound statistical analysis. For instance it is true, as a whole, that players tend to regress beginning in their late 20's or early 30's. Now, that isn't player specific, it would be great if we could narrow down the causes and be more selective in the application of regression, but statistical analysis is clearly not at that point yet. Expecting it to be is being unrealistic.

 

I also fully accept and understand that not all people are interested in statistical analysis either because they don't have the time or the desire to dive into it. That's just fine. When my engineering friends start talking about how the Boeing Dreamliner decided to use titanium alloy A instead of alloy B my eyes start to glaze over. BTW JB, totally agree on Parker's analysis. On the other hand just because you don't understand the analysis is not a good reason to claim that a statistical model is wrong or not worth using. If you don't understand it then ask a question to clarify. Why does this model predict such a big drop in OPS for Mauer? It turns out that there are reasons to question his ability to maintain his great hitting. He is striking out much more frequently than earlier in his career. The more you strike out the lower your batting average and OBP. On a side note I highly recommend you look into ERA+ (or ERA- if you prefer fangraphs) Hosken. It essentially balances ERA for ballpark and league. After all a 4.00 ERA in Coors Field isn't the same as a 4.00 ERA at Target field and when you're facing a pitcher every 9th batter that's very different than facing David Ortiz. ERA+ adjusts for these things to make it easier to compare players.

 

I recognize that not all statistical analysis is particularly well done. And if there are better alternatives out there it would be great if you would pass those along. For instance, bringing this discussion back to the topic at hand, you know of an alternative model or human prognosticator that is correct more than 70% of the time than great. We could all agree than that this model needs more work to be up to the highest standards. Again though, just saying being correct 70% of the time is terrible therefore this is useless doesn't really add much to the conversation. If the alternatives are your gut, which we have no idea how accurate it is, or another model that is only correct 60% of the time, well then 70% is looking pretty darn good.

 

Psuedo, when it comes to determining the accuracy of models that predict future results it is pretty easy to determine whether their biases are accurate or not. After the season you just have to go back and see how often they were correct. That's the beauty of quantitative analysis. As I said earlier if you think STEAMER, ZIPS, PECOTA, etc... is a better choice, great. Let us know why that is better (or why you think you're a better prognosticator ).

 

Statistical models or metrics take A LOT of time to create. Somebody has taken their off work hours and worked their butts off trying to create a tool of value. So when I see people glance at one aspect of the analysis and determine it doesn't fit their world view or gut feeling and then dismiss the whole project as being worthless it frustrates me.

 

Perhaps we should have a thread dedicated to predicting the standings at the end of the season. Then we can compare our intuition to the statistical analysis. Perhaps the mods could even make a special title for a person that beats all the rest of us and the statistical models. They could be called The Prognosticator King. We could do something similar for OPS or even BA/OBP/SLG, though that seems harder to judge after the season.

 

Well I've created another opus. Truly I need to learn how to be more concise.

[Mike Sixel]

Think about this......MORE money and effort is applied to predict the stock market, and they are wrong a lot more often than 30% of the time.....70% accurate, given the variables. that's actually quite good imo.

[jay]

I think the combination we had at C/1B/DH will be worse this year than it was last year. People cite Mauer's injury - but forget Pinto hit out of his damn mind when he took over. Arguably better than Mauer in fact. I see a dip there.

 

I see a very solid chance of a dip from Dozier.

 

I see virtually no depth on the team in case of injury.

 

Levi, I'll admit I was surprised when I looked at the numbers. We got a combined OPS of like .739 out of C/1B/DH last year. I plugged in some fairly conservative production and playing time projections for this year and ended up with .737 combined. There's some upside in that number, but I thought it would be higher before I started.

 

On Dozier, if you mean a dip from his post-May numbers (like .790), I'd buy in more. His April-May was so bad though, he was only at .726 for the season. I can't see him much lower than that.

 

If we hold steady at C, 1B, DH, 2B (and 3B?) that still leaves the inevitable improvement from the outfield production that was so atrocious. I do agree that a couple key injuries could ruin any chances of improvement in a hurry, but that's the case across most of MLB.

[TheLeviathan]

If we hold steady at C, 1B, DH, 2B (and 3B?) that still leaves the inevitable improvement from the outfield production that was so atrocious. I do agree that a couple key injuries could ruin any chances of improvement in a hurry, but that's the case across most of MLB.

 

I disagree, I think most teams have better depth than we do. That's one of the problems with not being very good, you're often pretty shallow too.

 

I know everyone is counting on an improvement from CF to boost the numbers there and that may well be true, but I think we'll be lucky if we don't make up that boost with a decline from C/1B/DH. I think people are really overlooking how bad that group could be for us this year. And those are positions that really hurt a team's offense if they struggle.

[jay]

Even if the team OPS doesn't increase at all, the team almost has to do better w/ RISP. The team had a 92 wRC+ last year and only put up a 74 wRC+ w/ RISP. That's the 2nd largest difference in MLB.

 

You know as well as I do that "clutch" isn't really a thing. Regression bells should be ringing and that can account for a huge number of runs right there.

 

Edit: Sorry to jump around with which stat. Team OPS was .692, bases empty was .708, men on base was .692, RISP was .635.

[Boom Boom]

Even if the team OPS doesn't increase at all, the team almost has to do better w/ RISP. The team had a 92 wRC+ last year and only put up a 74 wRC+ w/ RISP. That's the 2nd largest difference in MLB.

 

You know as well as I do that "clutch" isn't really a thing. Regression bells should be ringing and that can account for a huge number of runs right there.

 

Edit: Sorry to jump around with which stat. Team OPS was .692, bases empty was .708, men on base was .692, RISP was .635.

 

To an extent OPS with RISP isn't just about luck when using it as a team statistic.

 

I bet that Joe Mauer was more likely to be the runner in scoring position in those situations than the hitter at the plate.

[jay]

To an extent OPS with RISP isn't just about luck when using it as a team statistic.

 

I bet that Joe Mauer was more likely to be the runner in scoring position in those situations than the hitter at the plate.

 

There is some truth to that, but it doesn't show up in the numbers and you'd expect to see that effect show up for other teams as well (maybe not as much given Mauer's superiority, but still present).

 

MLB performance increases with RISP -- .706 with bases empty, .722 with RISP last year. .707 vs .739 the year before. There's other variables at play here outside of the good hitter already being on base... tiring pitcher, confidence, etc.

[shs_59]

I'd say 72-90 is a little harsh.

 

I think 74-88 or 75-87 is more like it.

 

Mauer will not OPS greater than .900 BUt should be stronger than .775. FInd the happy-medium to that.

 

The 2nd half of the season the Twins have a chance to be pretty good, With guys like Hicks, Pinto and Arcia all up from AAA full time and maybe juuuust getting his feet wett one Miguel Sano.... IF this is all true i'd expect our offense to be at least very fun to watch the fina 2-3 months of the season if nothing else.

 

Dozier needs to build up a batting average a little bit, would greatly help.

[Mike Sixel]

Why would Arcia not be up day one? That's crazy, imo.

[jokin]

Levi, I'll admit I was surprised when I looked at the numbers. We got a combined OPS of like .739 out of C/1B/DH last year. I plugged in some fairly conservative production and playing time projections for this year and ended up with .737 combined. There's some upside in that number, but I thought it would be higher before I started.

 

.

 

Could you flesh out your "conservative projections" of a combined .737 OPS more specifically?

 

We OPS'd @ .770 from the DH last year (2nd in the League). That number is nearly certain to drop with the combined loss of Mauer's and Morneau's production playing DH, which was close to .850 OPS in 2013. The likely suspects @ DH are coming off of these numbers: Willingham (.577 as a DH), Kubel (.610), Colabello (.631) Parmelee (.663). A 2014 OPS of .700 seems extremely optimistic here.

 

Our Catcher OPS was .781 in 2013, with Suzuki (.627 OPS) and Fryer (3 years @ AAA OPS of .624) or Chris Hermann (.611 OPS/.565 career OPS) possibly starting out as the catching duo, that number is clearly going to plummet, even if/when Pinto takes over the primary catching role. A combined OPS of .650 seems reasonable, if not generous.

 

Obviously, Mauer will eclipse Morneau's .741 OPS at First Base, and presumably more likely stay healthy the entire season at that position. Even still, the most optimistic projected OPS for Mauer out there is <.850. Combine that with whomever else gets playing time at First Base and you're looking at a pretty reasonable number closer to .825 OPS.

 

Consolidating those 3 positions, I get a very generous combined projection of .725 OPS.

[jay]

Could you flesh out your "conservative projections" of a combined .737 OPS more specifically?

 

We're actually very similar at 1B and C, but I have Mauer buoying DH a little. I'm not sure why you'd use or even consider those other numbers for DH. Doumit took the most ABs at .624 and is gone. Willingham and Kubel both weren't themselves. If any of those guys are playing at DH, it's because they are doing better. You even seem to backhandedly acknowledge that by saying .700.

 

If you want to buy that Mauer will be at .825 with the switch to 1B, go ahead. He hasn't been sub-.861 as a C since 2007 other than the injury-filled 2011.

 

[TABLE=width: 271]

1B

Mauer

[TD=align: right]500

[/TD]

[TD=align: right]0.875

[/TD]

[/TD]

Other

[TD=align: right]130

[TD=align: right]0.650

[/TD]

DH

Kubel

[TD=align: right]400

[/TD]

[TD=align: right]0.700

[/TD]

[/TD]

Willingham

[TD=align: right]100

[TD=align: right]0.700

[/TD]

[/TD]

Mauer

[TD=align: right]60

[TD=align: right]0.875

[/TD]

[/TD]

Plouffe

[TD=align: right]60

[TD=align: right]0.700

[/TD]

C

Suzuki

[TD=align: right]250

[/TD]

[TD=align: right]0.625

[/TD]

[/TD]

Pinto

[TD=align: right]300

[TD=align: right]0.700

[/TD]

[/TD]

Fryer

[TD=align: right]60

[TD=align: right]0.625

[/TD]

[/TABLE]

 

1B - .829, DH - .717, C - .662, combined .737 across 1860 ABs. We really don't see it all too differently, other than your narrative to portray more negatives.

[jokin]

We're actually very similar at 1B and C, but I have Mauer buoying DH a little. I'm not sure why you'd use or even consider those other numbers for DH. Doumit took the most ABs at .624 and is gone. Willingham and Kubel both weren't themselves. If any of those guys are playing at DH, it's because they are doing better. You even seem to backhandedly acknowledge that by saying .700.

 

If you want to buy that Mauer will be at .825 with the switch to 1B, go ahead. He hasn't been sub-.861 as a C since 2007 other than the injury-filled 2011.

[TABLE=width: 271]

1B

Mauer

[TD=align: right]500

[/TD]

[TD=align: right]0.875

[/TD]

[/TD]

Other

[TD=align: right]130

[TD=align: right]0.650

[/TD]

DH

Kubel

[TD=align: right]400

[/TD]

[TD=align: right]0.700

[/TD]

[/TD]

Willingham

[TD=align: right]100

[TD=align: right]0.700

[/TD]

[/TD]

Mauer

[TD=align: right]60

[TD=align: right]0.875

[/TD]

[/TD]

Plouffe

[TD=align: right]60

[TD=align: right]0.700

[/TD]

C

Suzuki

[TD=align: right]250

[/TD]

[TD=align: right]0.625

[/TD]

[/TD]

Pinto

[TD=align: right]300

[TD=align: right]0.700

[/TD]

[/TD]

Fryer

[TD=align: right]60

[TD=align: right]0.625

[/TD]

[/TABLE]

 

1B - .829, DH - .717, C - .662, combined .737 across 1860 ABs. We really don't see it all too differently, other than your narrative to portray more negatives.

 

Uhh, I didn't say Mauer at .825 OPS. I said Mauer at .850 (which is more optimistic than every other projection out there), combined with whomever else plays First Base, for a combined, net average at 1B of .825 OPS.

[Brock Beauchamp]

We OPS'd @ .770 from the DH last year (2nd in the League). That number is nearly certain to drop with the combined loss of Mauer's and Morneau's production playing DH, which was close to .850 OPS in 2013. The likely suspects @ DH are coming off of these numbers: Willingham (.577 as a DH), Kubel (.610), Colabello (.631) Parmelee (.663). A 2014 OPS of .700 seems extremely optimistic here.

 

If the Twins can't find a DH that OPSes over .700, that is a massive failure. If Willingham DHes, that number should be well over .700.

 

Obviously, Mauer will eclipse Morneau's .741 OPS at First Base, and presumably more likely stay healthy the entire season at that position. Even still, the most optimistic projected OPS for Mauer out there is <.850. combine that with whomever else gets playing time at first base and you looking a pretty reasonable number closer to .825 ops.>

 

Mauer hasn't OPSed under .850 in a healthy season since his second year in the league. Is 2014 the year he regresses? Possibly. Is it "optimistic" to expect him to OPS over .850? No, not really.

 

I understand your points but you're skewing way on the negative here. I think the Twins offense will probably be bad... But given how miserable it was in 2013, small gains aren't out of the question just through a healthy Willingham (if that's possible at this point) and the maturation of Arcia.

[jokin]

We're actually very similar at 1B and C, but I have Mauer buoying DH a little. I'm not sure why you'd use or even consider those other numbers for DH. Doumit took the most ABs at .624 and is gone. Willingham and Kubel both weren't themselves. If any of those guys are playing at DH, it's because they are doing better. You even seem to backhandedly acknowledge that by saying .700.

 

If you want to buy that Mauer will be at .825 with the switch to 1B, go ahead. He hasn't been sub-.861 as a C since 2007 other than the injury-filled 2011.

[TABLE=width: 271]

1B

Mauer

[TD=align: right]500

[/TD]

[TD=align: right]0.875

[/TD]

[/TD]

Other

[TD=align: right]130

[TD=align: right]0.650

[/TD]

DH

Kubel

[TD=align: right]400

[/TD]

[TD=align: right]0.700

[/TD]

[/TD]

Willingham

[TD=align: right]100

[TD=align: right]0.700

[/TD]

[/TD]

Mauer

[TD=align: right]60

[TD=align: right]0.875

[/TD]

[/TD]

Plouffe

[TD=align: right]60

[TD=align: right]0.700

[/TD]

C

Suzuki

[TD=align: right]250

[/TD]

[TD=align: right]0.625

[/TD]

[/TD]

Pinto

[TD=align: right]300

[TD=align: right]0.700

[/TD]

[/TD]

Fryer

[TD=align: right]60

[TD=align: right]0.625

[/TD]

[/TABLE]

1B - .829, DH - .717, C - .662, combined .737 across 1860 ABs. We really don't see it all too differently, other than your narrative to portray more negatives.

 

Plouffe hasn't had much success as a DH....>.321 OPS in 9 games last year, for his career at DH, his OPS is .504.

 

Fryer OPD'd @ .624 in 3 years of AAA ball, .625 is optimistic. And Chris Hermann isn't really a better bat option.

 

I don't get what's "backhanded" about projecting that either Kubel or Willingham, or both, can rebound from disastrous years in 2013, that seems on my part to be both optimistic and fully acknowledging that either or both can regress closer to their mean career production.

[Mike Sixel]

I hope Willingham is the DH, I would like more OF defense.....can we agree that projecting the offense to be A LOT better, like enough runs to approach median, seems unlikely where they sit today?

[jay]

Plouffe hasn't had much success as a DH....>.321 OPS in 9 games last year, for his career at DH, his OPS is .504.

 

Fryer OPD'd @ .624 in 3 years of AAA ball, .625 is optimistic. And Chris Hermann isn't really a better bat option.

 

You know as well as I do that Plouffe's sample size at DH is completely irrelevant. Fryer is all of 60 ABs... .625 or .575 really is inconsequential.

 

I'm all for debate. I'm not all for crafting one-sided narratives.

[jokin]

If the Twins can't find a DH that OPSes over .700, that is a massive failure. If Willingham DHes, that number should be well over .700.

 

 

 

Mauer hasn't OPSed under .850 in a healthy season since his second year in the league. Is 2014 the year he regresses? Possibly. Is it "optimistic" to expect him to OPS over .850? No, not really.

 

I understand your points but you're skewing way on the negative here. I think the Twins offense will probably be bad... But given how miserable it was in 2013, small gains aren't out of the question just through a healthy Willingham (if that's possible at this point) and the maturation of Arcia.

 

It can be equally stated that based on every projection that is out there, that .850 for Mauer:

 

at age 31, coming off of a high BABIP year, increasing trend in upward K rates and no immediate heir apparent providing plate protection, is optimistic. I certainly think .875 is entirely possible, as well, you say I'm being overly negative, I say I'm trying to be realistic with expectations.

 

Regarding DH, Willingham is a career .706 OPS as a DH, this is primarily all with MN and Oakland the last 3 years, when he supposedly has been healthy. How does that square with your assertion that the DH number will be well over .700 OPS? This is just one solid reason why I am so concerned that lack of offseason moves is going to lead to a "massive failure" at the DH/C/1B combined production.

[jay]

Uhh, I didn't say Mauer at .825 OPS. I said Mauer at .850 (which is more optimistic than every other projection out there), combined with whomever else plays First Base, for a combined, net average at 1B of .825 OPS.

 

So... rely on projections when a guy is moving to a less physically demanding position and they are far lower than what a guy has done when healthy, but ignore them when a different guy's 2013 number or SSS make him look like a failure?

 

Right. Got it.

[jokin]

You know as well as I do that Plouffe's sample size at DH is completely irrelevant. Fryer is all of 60 ABs... .625 or .575 really is inconsequential.

 

I'm all for debate. I'm not all for crafting one-sided narratives.

 

Again, why project Fryer's numbers at all into your model, if they're so inconsequential?

 

I'm trying to be fair, somewhat optimistic and realistic at the same time, and going off of comprehensive compiled stats and trends, certainly not one-sided.

[jokin]

So... rely on projections when a guy is moving to a less physically demanding position and they are far lower than what a guy has done when healthy, but ignore them when a different guy's 2013 number or SSS make him look like a failure?

 

Right. Got it.

 

Again, my own projection for Mauer's number in 2014 is higher than anyone else's out there- I said I could also see the .875 OPS you are hoping for.

 

And I'm not following you on your last couple sentences. Are you saying that it isn't likely that the 20-30 games that someone else (Parmelee, Colabello, Plouffe?) besides Mauer play at First Base are going to drag the net average OPS down from Mauer's own OPS? I think .825 OPS, combined net, is pretty optimistic, if Joe plays 135-140 games at the position.

[jay]

Again, why project Fryer's numbers at all into your model, if they're so inconsequential?

 

Because I think someone else will get some ABs at C? The difference between .625 and .575 at that number of ABs is what is inconsequential.

I'm trying to be fair, somewhat optimistic and realistic at the same time, and going off of comprehensive compiled stats and trends, certainly not one-sided.

 

Well, respectfully and frankly, I don't believe you are doing any of those.

 

For what it's worth Fangraphs projects .744, which you'd have to call neutral. I don't think calling .737 "fairly conservative" is unfair. Trying to paint .725 as the optimistic number? Sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[jokin]

Because I think someone else will get some ABs at C? The difference between .625 and .575 at that number of ABs is what is inconsequential.

 

Well, respectfully and frankly, I don't believe you are doing any of those.

 

For what it's worth Fangraphs projects .744, which you'd have to call neutral. I don't think calling .737 "fairly conservative" is unfair. Trying to paint .725 as the optimistic number? Sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

 

"Fangraphs projects .744" Link please? I can't wrap my ahead around this number based on what I am looking at at their site. Willingham is likely to start out, at the very least, as the LF to maximize his trade value, so what level his production will be as a DH is in doubt at this point. And Pinto seems certain to be highly discounted in his theoretical contribution based on what the Twins have hinted to and the money spent in acquiring a FA Catcher.

 

Kubel on the 3 published projections in Fangraphs (ZIPS, Oliver, Steamer) produces an average OPS of .705. Joe Mauer on the same 3 published projections yields an average OPS of .817. Hard to get to .744 OPS from here with the very thin bench depth under these 2 spots, especially if Willingham ends up mostly in LF (until he's traded) and Pinto only ends up playing 80 games or less (likely .625 net OPS for the other 3 options).

[notoriousgod71]

Why would Arcia not be up day one? That's crazy, imo.

 

Maybe he won't run out a ground ball and we'll need to teach him a lesson.