Minnesota's Revolving Door Continues At Shortstop

It's been said time and time again that due to our poor draft position over the years, our prospects have been less than good (let's disregard we did things like pass on Pedroia six times in one draft, and Boston took him in the 2nd round with their first pick of that draft).

What should one expect from a #5 draft pick (like Gordon)?  Would it be okay if/ whenever he gets here, that one is disappointed in a guy if he only ends up a solid player as opposed to a star player? I ask because some keep saying we have to lower expectations for Buxton and be okay if he ends up being quite a bit lesser of a player than he was. 

And if these guys, and some others we've gotten higher up in the draft the last few years, underwhelm when/if they get to the majors (based on what people were projecting them to be and their draft position ), can we still blame it on draft position?  

Gordon will be the guy 2018 ongoing. I can't wait! 2017 will be interesting for who will cover the position, but Gordon will definitely help.

I think you have to give at least a passing look at range in conjunction with FP when it comes to infield defense in the minors.
Gordon's RF/9 was 4.88 last year. That is from a sample of 503 chances. By comparison Frank Lindor had a .952 FP and 4.59 RF/9 at the same level. Bogaerts, .958 and 4.28.

What's that mean in American?

As for 2017-2018, I think Cosart would be a fine get. Someone with 1-2 years of control remaining to help bridge the gap. Preferably an above average glove.

 Still LOVE this idea. Cozart for 2017 (or most of it) to bridge the gap. He is an amazing defender, and the pitching staff will love having him playing behind them.

What's that mean in American?

 It means that Gordon's range is just as good if not better at the same levels as Lindor and Boegarts were (4.88 is a higher number than either 4.59 or 4.28) so Gordon, statistically, got to more baseballs in the FSL than either Lindor or Boegarts did at the same age.

Fielding percentage also, Gordon's was .952, Lindor .952 and Boegarts' .958. All fairly similar.

This is not saying he will be the same as either of those two. But for age, and at the same level, he producted similar or better results than either of those two did. That is a VERY good sign.

I expect Polonco to be the shortstop unless we trade Dozier. By 2018 - 2019 it should be Gordon.  For those who want Cozert, Vielma may not hit as much, but would be as good or better defensibly. also would not cost us assets.

We assume Vielma will be as good of a defender, we don't know how he will be at the MLB level. It is up to the front office to decide what is best.

And no, I want Cozart personally both because I don't believe that Vielma is ready, AND that I don't think he will cost a ton to acquire in assets. If the Reds are needing two top 10 prospects, I probably look elsewhere. If they are ok with Palka and a GCL arm, I am on board 100%. That said, it would probably land somewhere in the middle.

The Twins' shortstop of the future will be the opening day shortstop, Jorge Polanco.

 Want to bet a dollar?

 It means that Gordon's range is just as good if not better at the same levels as Lindor and Boegarts were (4.88 is a higher number than either 4.59 or 4.28) so Gordon, statistically, got to more baseballs in the FSL than either Lindor or Boegarts did at the same age.

Fielding percentage also, Gordon's was .952, Lindor .952 and Boegarts' .958. All fairly similar.

This is not saying he will be the same as either of those two. But for age, and at the same level, he producted similar or better results than either of those two did. That is a VERY good sign.

Thank You for the interpretation.

Polancho will be the shortstop in 2017. But the Twins have to move on Dozier before he enters his walk season, or sign him longterm, and not sure if that is a geat idea. Or is it? And do you move Dozier, plant Polanco at second then, and have Gordon at shortstop. Of course, the future of Sano is also the question. Is he a third baseman longterm (doubtful). Do you want him at first, or do you make him a designated hitter.

But the shortstop answer comes from the longrange vision of where Brian Dozier is with the organization...the lifelong second baseman, a fixture at first base or the outfield, or a dynamite tradechip today when his value is high, as we have no idea how far down -to-earth he may come in 2017 and no longer be the bargain other teams could grab!

Polancho will be the shortstop in 2017. But the Twins have to move on Dozier before he enters his walk season, or sign him longterm, and not sure if that is a geat idea. Or is it? And do you move Dozier, plant Polanco at second then, and have Gordon at shortstop. Of course, the future of Sano is also the question. Is he a third baseman longterm (doubtful). Do you want him at first, or do you make him a designated hitter.

 

But the shortstop answer comes from the longrange vision of where Brian Dozier is with the organization...the lifelong second baseman, a fixture at first base or the outfield, or a dynamite tradechip today when his value is high, as we have no idea how far down -to-earth he may come in 2017 and no longer be the bargain other teams could grab!

I don't know for certain that any players have been decided on which position they are going to play next year. Falvey is in charge now for roster configuration. What in the world would he put a guy back at SS that was such a trainwreck last year? I mean, maybe Polanco does get a LOT better this offseason to get anywhere close to league average (and that would take a LOT of progress) but with the (hopeful/probable) trade of Dozier to strengthen an area of weakness elsewhere (pitching/catching) wouldn't just sliding Polanco over to his more natural position make sense?

Range factor doesnt actually measure range

"Some of the Twins' top prospects have made the jump from Double-A to the big leagues but Gordon still has some flaws.

Huge issue with this team.  Guys work thru the lower minors in an orderly fashion, one level a year and when the get to the upper minors we promote within a half season or less and then wonder why  they struggle at the big level.  See:  Buxton, Byron.

 

Range factor doesnt actually measure range

 I am not very up on what it measures then, I assumed it did it's best to measure range, or what balls a player is able to get to. What does it measure?

Putouts and assists per inning played

 

analogous to WHIP, should probably be called PAIP to reduce the confusion

But with whip, the higher number is worse. Isn't a higher number for range factor generally a good thing?

I appreciate the desire for a strong, consistent presence at SS.

I also believe that our dire needs at SP and catching are so huge that we can expect Polanco and Escobar to provide reasonably good defense and an actual threat, of sorts, at the plate that SS will not be anywhere near Falvey's initial focus.

Escobar and Polanco. They will be above adequate, which is more than can be said for our current SP & catching positions.

But with whip, the higher number is worse. Isn't a higher number for range factor generally a good thing?

A higher number is a better PAIP (or RF, as it used to be called in the old days, like this morning)

One rather important correction to this post: Jason Bartlett was traded to the Rays in 2007. So I'm not entirely sure how he was the shortstop in 2009 ...

I will go to my grave believing that the Twins' problems began in 2007 in part because the team traded away Bartlett.

The Twins traded him away without any logical successor. That was stupid. More stupid, in fact, than assuming Delmon Young would turn into a stud corner outfielder. Young had a solid rookie season the year before and so it's only logical to assume he'd be better the next year.

But you never, ever trade away from a position -- especially shortstop -- when you do not have someone ready to take over the job. The Twins didn't. And Bartlett was a good fielder.

The team hasn't been the same since. They made a smart move in 2010 by bringing in JJ Hardy. But then traded him a year later because Gardenhire was annoyed by his injuries and apparent lack of speed. 

If I'm the Twins, I keep Escobar at short next year, assuming Dozier is traded and Polanco is at second. And then I hope that Vielma or Gordon can man the position in the coming years. But I most definitely keep drafting shortstops in the hopes that one of them will stick at some point. Because man, this position has been cursed ...

If Escobar is 100% healthy I am totally on board with him being the SS opening day ongoing. He just, well, he didn't play this year like someone who is healthy. I'm hoping for the best for him, but we'll see.

 I am not very up on what it measures then, I assumed it did it's best to measure range, or what balls a player is able to get to. What does it measure?

To expand a bit on the previous explanations, "range" factor can often be influenced by the pitching staff a defender plays behind.

A flyball staff will lead to lower scores for infielders due to few chances, fewer yet if it's a high strikeout staff. Or the reverse, a groundball heavy staff that induces a lot of contact can drive the figures up for infielders.