Jake Cave is Primed to Break Out in 2020

  On 2/16/2020 at 2:45 PM, jorgenswest said:

The Twins need to win games and use him in opportunities where he will help. There isn’t a need to get to the stabilization point so fans can see the value in slash stats. They need to see the value and make decisions about it much sooner. It would be foolish to give him playing for the purpose of making the data we see more stable.

 

Mid and small market teams are going to be successful if they can determine a player’s value sooner and better than others. I am hoping we have a staff that is going to win on that more often than not. By their use I don’t think they see Cave as any more than a 4th or 5th OF with the ability to option.

Under no circumstances do I want my front office or manager looking Jake Cave in the eye and telling him: We didn't give you AB's against tougher pitching last year so I hope you understand that we intend use that information against you going forward.

 

Under no circumstances do I want my front office or manager so cocky and confident that the conclusions they draw prior to actual performance can't be altered or adjusted or wrong.

 

Under no circumstances do I want my front office or manager to forget that their prior conclusions led to Logan Morrison, Martin Perez and Nick Anderson.

 

Under no circumstances do I want increased value to be denied based on thin or secondary statistical margins.

 

And under no circumstances do I want a player on the roster that has no chance of increasing value for tomorrow or helping the team win today.

 

  On 2/16/2020 at 4:53 PM, saviking said:

The problem with Cave is by possibly as early as late this year he has no place in our long term plans. Krilloff, Larnach, Rooker are knocking on the door. Cave plays a little too out of control always trying to be the hero. Makes bad decisions in the outfield especially when it comes to where and when to throw the ball. People forget about Rosario's arm although he started to make bad throwing decisions last year as well. 

 

If I had to guess I would say neither Rosario or Cave will be with the Twins next year ...

 

There are very few things sadder than predetermined fate. 

 

 

 

  On 2/18/2020 at 2:15 AM, Danchat said:

I think it might be smart to view Cave's 2019 season in two halves:

 

March to August 8th: (112 PAs) .211/.321/.326 (.648 OPS) 2 HR

August 9th on: (116 PAs) .301/.379/.573 (.952 OPS) 6 HR

 

I do remember some wanting Cave DFA'd during the first half of the year, but now he's better than Rosario? Eh... I don't think so. He's a streaky hitter who needs to get hot, but when he does, he can sure hit well.

 

Also, fun fact: Cave hit all 8 of his HRs against divisional opponents - and not a single one against any other team!

That's not two halves.

 

That's 112 AB's over 115 games.

And

That's 116 AB's over 47 games.

 

You can call that streaky. I call it opportunity.

 

Personally... I'd be hesitant to label anyone with 500 AB's as streaky or anything for that matter.

  On 2/18/2020 at 2:34 PM, jorgenswest said:

I would call it random variation due to sample and the skew of a schedule where his opportunity came with a disproportionately larger number of games against weaker pitchers. I wouldn’t use slash stats to make a decision about Cave at this sample or even double this sample.

Too soon to use these positive numbers as a negative.

 

He had no choice but to swing the bat when he was given the chance to swing the bat.

 

However... if you want to point out that he faced inferior pitching during his best stretch. Ok... we can do that but I will point out that everyone else faced the same pitching during this time frame and his OPS was better than everyone not named Cruz or Garver.

 

Why does Cave get a negative check mark for hitting sub par pitching really well while Kepler, Arraez, Polanco, Schoop, Rosario, Marwin and Cron dont get a negative check mark for not hitting that same pitching as decently as Cave did?

  On 2/18/2020 at 4:40 PM, jorgenswest said:

I don’t think you get that I am not using them as a negative or positive. In this case I added the context that the typical batter against his set of pitchers hit them better. I will often add context not to suggest a negative (or positive) but to suggest the futility of arguing with stats as a foundation - particularly stats resulting from a plate appearance. I think it comes off as a negative (or positive) when I offer that contrasting context. I am doing the same in another thread about Odorizzi the third time through. I am not suggesting a positive or negative but only pointing out that it can’t be seen by the skewed data offered.

 

I offer this context to point out that teams need to make decisions long before these samples (that have a variety of skews) become reliable. You can't give all of your prospects the opportunity necessary to get to the point where the data becomes reliable. In fact that time span is multiple years so any improvement gets lost. That improvement can not be seen in slash stats. It needs to be seen by the staff.

 

I trust the eyes of this staff and the skills of the data team. I think they took an organizational step forward in 2018 with hitting and a step forward last year with pitching. They haven’t been perfect but they need to get it right more often than most.

I agree with you that the data is not sufficient. I don't declare Jake Cave anything at this point. I only state that he has been capable for 500 AB's and believe he should be allowed to keep going.

 

I do disagree with the level of trust you place in the staff to make pre-determinations and that isn't a slam or statement against our front office.

 

I assume and believe with all my heart that they are better at it than you and I and am glad they are making the calls.

 

But Logan Morrison, Martin Perez and Nick Anderson are enough to demonstrate that they can and do get it wrong. I believe every GM can and does get it wrong.

 

There is one way to avoid those type of mistakes. Let the players determine the course of action through performance.

 

I'm opposed to hard lines drawn on very small margins or insufficient data.

 

Hard lines or predetermined assessments gaurentees a failed result. That's how Nick Anderson happened and it's how Logan Morrison happened.

 

If I was Jake Cave... I'd be pissed if I wasn't given an honest chance to control my fate. I wouldn't want anyone telling me that I can't be as good as anyone and subsequently preventing me from proving you wrong especially if I have been playing as decently as anyone so far.

 

If you spread the AB's across the roster. No one has to give up significant playing time to feed the entire roster.

 

The players who shouldn't get playing time are the ones who are not playing well. Cave doesn't belong in that group based on his performance thus far.

 

13 bingo balls instead of 9 bingo balls with 4 blank balls and you have increased your output by 25% and a better chance at a filled out bingo card.

 

  On 2/18/2020 at 7:06 PM, USAFChief said:

if you spread ABs across the roster, you are by definition intentionally taking ABs from the better players and giving them to the weaker players.

I dont want Adrianza to get ABs at the expense of Polanco, except as necessary, and I dont want Cave to get ABs at the expense of Kepler or Buxton.

I trust our management to be capable of using history, health, and potential to determine ahead of time where the regular playing time should go.

Now, if someone has 3 months of poor performance, and you have someone worth trying, fine. But I absolutely dont want them to make that decision based on who was hot yesterday.

 

if you spread ABs across the roster, you are by definition intentionally taking ABs from the better players and giving them to the weaker players.

 

No I'm not. My diatribes were hardened by Logan Morrison which I never want to see again. I want weaker players to get LESS AB's and if they have no chance of helping the team or increasing in future value, I'd rather they have no AB's at all.  

 

I'm outwardly questioning who are the better players and who are the weaker players and by how much are they better players and by how much are they weaker players.

 

I'm saying without reservation that purposely wasting a roster spot by benching players who can produce above average at low cost is a hundred fold bigger waste of franchise advancement then the daily waste of playing who is maybe .005 to .100 OPS worse over the course of a season and it's an even bigger waste if the player you assume to be .005 to .100 OPS is actually better. 

 

I dont want Adrianza to get ABs at the expense of Polanco, except as necessary, and I dont want Cave to get ABs at the expense of Kepler or Buxton.

 

Polanco doesn't have to shoulder the entire burden if Adrianza is able to increase in value. I question how much Adrianza is going to increase in value because if he does, he becomes cost prohibitive to us anyway. 

 

I trust our management to be capable of using history, health, and potential to determine ahead of time where the regular playing time should go.

 

I also trust our management. They have the data. I was OK with them signing Martin Perez and giving him a chance. I was not fine when they let him continue because they determined ahead of time where the regular playing time should go. 

 

Now, if someone has 3 months of poor performance, and you have someone worth trying, fine. But I absolutely dont want them to make that decision based on who was hot yesterday. 

 

After 3 months, you are in a hole. If the someone worth trying after the 3 months also has poor performance, you are deeper in to the hole. 

 

My viewpoint isn't that difficult. If a player is performing... let him continue. Jake Cave has played well enough to continue.

 

It is not taxing on a roster or a manager to find the AB's for him to continue.

 

It is beneficial to a roster or a manager to find the AB's for him to continue. 

  On 2/18/2020 at 10:09 PM, stringer bell said:

I come down somewhere between you two (Chief and RB). I think every member of the team is important and each has a role to play. Beyond that, I recall many people giving credit to Tom Kelly for "putting players in a spot where they can succeed".

 

The 2020 Twins appear to have a position player roster where there are nine regulars and will have a deep and versatile bench with Gonzalez and Adrianza adept at multiple positions and a pretty close to ideal platoon partner for Garver, in Avila. Baldelli's challenge will be to get the maximum out of the players he has.

 

In order to get the maximum, he needs to get the bench players enough reps that they can help the team win games and he needs to give the "regulars" enough rest that they stay as fresh as possible throughout the season. What is the right number of games for each player? Difficult to answer in a vacuum, but it would seem that less than 150 is desirable for most.

 

Another consideration is when to rest guys. It would make sense to rest them when the bench player has as good or better of a chance than the so-called regular. In the Garver/Avila scenario, it would make sense to give Avila at-bats against right handers, since he is stronger against them and Garver is weaker versus same-handed throwers. Switch hitters Adrianza and Gonzalez can also provide a platoon advantage in certain spots. Both Arraez and Polanco were weaker against left handed pitching and Ehire had a higher OPS against lefties than either player. Meanwhile Gonzalez hit lefties better than Rosario did. So a case could be made in those cases that against left handers, Adrianza and Gonzalez should get many, if not most starts. Right handed hitters Sanó and Donaldson will also need some days off, which would give either Adrianza and Gonzalez more at bats.

 

I see no such edge for Cave over either corner outfielder and Jake isn't really a center fielder, so I'm still not convinced he will even get a spot on the roster. Beyond that, I really don't see him as an ideal fit for the 2020 Twins, even though he has put up satisfactory numbers so far in his career.

Very impressive. You expertly support my point while killing my poster boy.

 

You are better than the average bear String.

 

I agree with all your points on platoon, matchup, rest and the difficulty of expressing the ideal number of AB's for all involved.

 

I'm just adding potential future trade value, future cost savings to your mix.

 

Let me ask you this. How do handle Kiriloff if he is called up in June. Let's say the injury that spurs his call up is Cave and he is out for 1 month. Everybody else is healthy.

 

  On 2/18/2020 at 11:41 PM, stringer bell said:

This is a hypothetical. First of all, if Kirilloff were recalled for a Cave injury, it would infer that he is hitting very, very well, given that he'd get the call over Wade, Astudillo, Rooker and Larnach. Wade and Astudillo have big league experience and both Larnach and Rooker are older (Rooker by two years). It would also necessitate a 40-man roster move.

 

I would think that Kirilloff would and should get at least four starts a week. That could be done by resting all the outfielders and occasionally Sanó/Cruz. It wouldn't make sense to sit a Top 50 prospect on the bench using service time. We really don't know if there will be a platoon or other advantage (for example AK might feast on fastballs) but if Kirilloff were recalled, he really would need to be in the lineup more often than not.

 

All players are not created equal. It is the job of field staff and front office to weigh the various factors, including potential when making roster and playing time decisions. 40-man status, service time, contract, options all fit in somewhere and it complicates decisions for promotion and demotion. Getting back to Kirilloff, if the club decides to promote him early and start his service time clock, they definitely need to have him on the field a lot, if not every day.

 

Yep, that's the reason I chose Kiriloff for my example.

 

Let's say that Kiriloff is in Rochester hitting around .350 with an OPS around 1,000. He's seeing the ball well and he is performing a foot taller than everyone else on the 40 man and the Twins call him up. 

 

You are willing to get him 4 starts a week and that makes complete sense to me. 

 

But... as you say, all players are not created equal. At least not in each individual mind's eye. 

 

You are biased against Jake Cave for your personal reasons. I won't question your logic, you may be right but you have expressed that Kiriloff's prospect ranking is part of your reasoning so you are possibly over-weighting prospect ranking over actual performance. 

 

If we want our front office to be data driven and I do because the alternative was the scout driven guessing of the previous regime that produced the dark ages. I'm going to ask my front office to be free of all the common research bias mistakes that influence outcomes.

 

If they don't... they can put down the research and bring back Terry Ryan.