Making Sense Of The Final Roster Decisions

I'm talking over the entire season, not merely April.  I think Plouffe's bat is redundant in this lineup, low obp, some HR power, right handed.  I think Kepler would be more than capable of being a top 2-3 obp guy this season.  

I think Kepler might be able to do that as well... But that's not a risk I'm going to take until I see him take some hacks at AAA pitching to see if his dominant 2015 carries over to a new league with craftier, experienced pitchers.

If Kepler had more than one season where he showed the kind of contact, patience, and power he put on display in 2015, it'd be a different situation... But as of right now, he's a one-year breakout player. He needs to show more before he gets a starting position in Minnesota.

I wasn't arguing that either way........was merely pointing out why some people wanted Plouffe moved. I like Plouffe, but I understand both sides of the argument. 

I understand both sides as well, I just think people are getting a little too prospect-happy at the expense of an experienced vet who produces at an acceptable level.

I hope the Twins can trade Plouffe and everyone shifts around the diamond to their natural positions... But I'm not going to give away Plouffe just to make that happen. Trevor is worth MLB wins and I'm not giving away MLB wins just because the defensive alignment isn't optimal in the short-term.

On top of all of this Plouffe/Sano/Kepler argument, all it takes is one injury to Mauer, Park, Plouffe, or Sano and this goes away.

Depth is good. One of those guys will get injured and/or struggle this season. Instead of scrambling and having the privilege of watching a Beresford-type player spot-start, we'll get to see Kepler.

Certainly a fair opinion, I don't think either of us are clearly right or wrong.  I'm not upset Kepler isn't on the Opening Day roster or anything, I get it.  

 

I just think the lineup is awfully right handed, and worry about who is going to get on base.  I also don't value Plouffe to the point where he's someone I have to keep unless they get top value in return. 

I agree the lineup is too right-handed but as I mentioned in the previous post, all it takes is one injury and/or struggles from:

Mauer

Park

Sano

Plouffe

And Kepler is in the lineup every day. I think that's the correct course of action and it gives the team depth through a 162 game schedule. If you start with Kepler and a guy gets injured or struggles, you fall back to... Junk, probably. A Mastroianni-type player.

One of those guys will get injured or struggle at some point in the season. Max will get his shot.

And this isn't even mentioning what happens if Rosario falls on his face, which I think has a high probability of happening.

Agree, I think Kepler will get 400+ plate appearances this year, I think many may come at the expense of a guy you didn't have on your list; Rosario.  

 

I was more responding to the post about having to get something for Plouffe.  I think theoretically they could be a better lineup without him (because of the whole Sano rf issue)

Hehehe, I edited my post to include Rosario. Must have got it in right before you hit Reply.

To me, the most important stat that is compiled about a reliever is inherited runners scored. It always amazes me that even though it is in every box score, it is hard to find it in a lot of the sites' individual stats. Tonkin's good at letting inherited runners score. That fast ball is so straight, it doesn't matter what speed it is thrown at. We will see. He gets another chance.

Eh, inherited runners isn't a great stat, either... A runner on third base with no outs is treated the same as a runner on first with two outs. The guy on third with no outs is almost a given to score... The runner on first with two outs should rarely, if ever, score.

For relievers, FIP/xFIP and other advanced metrics are a much better indicator of skill because, while they're still flawed, they try to remove things the pitcher cannot control.

Inherited runners scored means a lot to me! It is not relief if the pitcher comes in and lets the runners on base score. If he needs a strikeout and a double play to get out of a bases loaded with no outs jam, that is relief. If the pitcher comes in and there is two outs and the bases loaded, and he gives up a bases clearing double and then gets a strikeout, his line looks pretty good while he lays three runs on the teammate he was supposed to offer relief to. I get FIP/xFIP, but inherited runners scored tells me a lot more about a pitchers moxy and guts and whether he can do his job as a relief pitcher, and that job is to shut the other team down, no matter what it takes. That is why they call it relief.

Sure, if a reliever consistently has a low run scored percentage, he's probably a good reliever... But there are a half dozen stats that better tell us he's a good reliever long before inherited runners gets enough data points to become relevant.

Again, the problem with inherited runners are many fold:

1. Reliever use: it's not in the pitcher's control. Some relievers just don't come in very often with runners on base (eg. your average closer).

2. Game situation: is the game 4-3 or 9-2? Does it matter whether the reliever allows one run to score in a bases loaded situation or is it kind of irrelevant?

3. Runner situation: if a manager leans on a reliever abnormally often in "really bad" situations (ie. bases loaded, no outs) versus another manager leaning on a reliever infrequently (ie. runner on first, two outs), that's going to wildly skew the results, especially in the relatively small sample size a reliever sees over the course of one season (anywhere between 50-70 innings).

Inherited runners are a lot like pitcher wins. If a pitcher is really bad or really good at preventing/allowing runs, that's an indication of pitcher quality... But everything in between is noise.

Any stat that treats the following two situations the same:

1. No outs, Escobar on third, Buxton on second, Dozier at the plate and the Twins are up by seven runs

and

2. Two outs, Sano on second, Plouffe on first, Arcia at the plate against a left-handed pitcher and the Twins are down by one run

Is so broken as to be almost entirely useless.

I respect the advanced stat trend and trying to make an argument about them, and I do not discount them. And I applaud the arguments. I still like inherited runners scored, and think it is very telling about the pitcher, and it tells me a lot. So do other things that have been brought up to convince one to disregard it. This originally started with me saying that I like it (and I still do and will) and the curiosity that it is hard to find it, if at all, on many sources pitchers' stats. As far as small samples, one can only take what they can get - ever. I see that according to spycake, Tonkin was at 36% last year, and 6% over the team and league average. Since I am never really happy with a league average player anyway (sure, it could be worse, but still not "happy"), that only solidifies my lack of love (in fact I cringe) for seeing Tonkin come into the game, and watching that "Crain in his worst year" straight fastball get crushed and empty the bases, and lose the game, and give a loss to the pitcher he was supposed to provide relief for, and that probably could have done better than Tonkin if he had been given the chance.

 

I wish inherited runners scored was easier to find, and found a home in all pitchers' stat lines from all sources. I don't ever see a stat as "broken". It is only ever a record of what happened.

Well, you're kinda proving my point for me. The human memory is selective and often irrational.

In the case of Jesse Crain and his "straight fastball" that led to losses, he was 33-21 with Minnesota (I loathe using wins but you brought it up) and had an ERA+ of 128 during his time here.

He wasn't a flashy pitcher (until his last couple of seasons with the Twins, anyway) but he got the job done year in and year out. His peripherals were pretty good. He didn't give up an inordinate number of hits, his HR/9 ratio was very good, he struck out a middling number of batters, and he didn't walk an inordinate number of batters.

Stats like inherited runners contribute to more bias confirmation... It doesn't really tell you what happened. If a guy is routinely thrown out into a bad situation in the middle of an inning, his inherited runners percentage is going to reflect that... and it's not an indictment of the pitcher because almost any pitcher will give up runs in certain situations unless he's dealt a very lucky hand (eg. runner on third base, no outs with the heart of the lineup heading to the plate).

Feel free to continue using the stat but you should also realize it doesn't really tell you anything unless the numbers are at either edge of the bell curve.

"Crain in his worst year" means his career to you? I agree, the human memory is selective and often irrational.

Well, he never had a truly bad season unless you're counting the 16 innings during his injury-plagued 2007 season.