Jim H

Brad, I appreciate the amount of work you have put into this. Unfortunately, you already know my feelings about WAR. To this point, I don't think you have really showed us anything we didn't already "know". The relative values of WAR don't necessarily mean much, you have already explained why. We already knew that really good middle infielders and catchers are hard to find, especially ones who are consistently good for multiple years. I suspect what your next study will show is that, with a few very rare exceptions, most of the value of the better middle infielders will come from defense. That will be especially true of shortstops. Since we are relying on UZR for that, that will make some of those conclusions unreliable. At least in my opinion. Still, I appreciate your work. I might appreciate it more if it was strickly an offensive examination, and if you had used more traditional stats. Nevertheless, I appreciate what you are trying to show.

I don't see much sense in adding Thome at this point in his career. He can't play the field. He can't run. He can't pinch hit if doesn't get regular at AB's at DH. If he DH's he takes AB's from better hitters. The Twins likely need a RH pinch hitter more than a left handed one anyway. I don't think that a 4 man bench really allows the Twins to carry someone as limited as Thome. I suspect that if he gets enough AB's he will hit some homeruns, but other than that he really isn't a good hitter anymore. I don't think he will hit enough homeruns to offset the low average and the need for a pinchrunner if he does get on base.

Brad, I owe you an apology as well. I guess it seems to me that WAR is the new hot stat, and it is clear far too many don't understand its limitations or even acknowledge that it might have some. Many of us are drawn to baseball in part because of stats and their historical importance to baseball. I enjoy reading well researched stat based stories. I didn't mean to imply your story was lacking in those areas. But I will say that I don't have much faith in conclusions based on WAR. For all the reasons above, and maybe a few I didn't get around to stating. And the general premise of the article. Yes, the Twins have not had many outstanding middle infielders. A few at 2nd, headed by Carew and Knoblach. I remember Versalles as well. 1965 was special, he deserved the MVP award. Gagne and Smalley are really the only other shortstops that were noteworthy for more than a season or 2.

One last thought on WAR. A major component of WAR is UZR. I dislike UZR because I believe the whole concept backing UZR is flawed. UZR gives a grade to every play a fielder makes. That grade is based on where the ball is caught. There are adjustments based on how hard the ball is hit and the handness of the batter. The problem with the concept is that where the ball is hit has no real correlation to how difficult the play is. That depends on where the fielder started from. Fielders position themselves differently for every hitter, often making further adjustments based on the pitcher, the pitch, the count, the number outs, the score, etc. The whole idea that a ball hit to a particular part of the field has the same difficulity no matter who the batter is just wrong. Clearly Thome and Revere would be positioned entirely differently even though they are both left handed hitters. There, I hope you understand where I coming from, even if I am a old, cranky man.

I am sorry you perceive it as a personnal attach. But using a one number to compare players playing different positions from different eras has so much margin for error in it as to be almost completely meaningless. At least that is my perception. You did say in the original post that you did not know how WAR was calculated. Now that is quite a bit different from not wanting to explain it because it is complicated. You also said there at least 3 different versions of WAR with strikingly different numbers. So there is no standard way to calculate it. You picked one because-why? This is the reason I have trouble with these new stats. You are taking or perhaps asking other people, to take on faith that these stats really mean much and the calculations actually lead to what they purport to represent. The problem is they are taking the original stats(which all have flaws) weighing them in some porportion which might distort them even more, perhaps leaving out stats that might even be more useful and creating one number. Now I understand why people use them, and I appreciate your disclaimer. But other than as fun and simple way to look at and compare players, it isn't very useful. It is also likely to be very misleading. Finally again, I am not attacking you personally. But I really think if you are or anyone is going to use these new stats, they better understand them, completely. They also better be able to defend them, because I feel they often lead to some very misleading conclusions about various players.

I find it troubling that people will use a stat that they do not understand. How can you say it is the best way to compare players when you don't understand how it is created? People on this site argue about stats and their sigificance all the time. And that is about stats that they understand. People use WAR because it is easy to use. The idea is that somebody can take a bunch of stats, weigh them according to the value THEY PERCEIVE them to have, and then combine them into one number that allows you to compare players from disparate eras playing different positions with roles that have changed over the years, and actually have that number mean something? All that and you don't even know what stats the various sites are using and what weight they are giving to each stat. WAR isn't really a stat. It is a convenient fiction that allows people to do some things that would be difficult to do with real stats.

I enjoyed this article. Good writing. There are clearly more than one way to rebuild and all plans have risks. It is not like Kansas City and Pittsburgh were trying to be bad for 2 decades. For all the respect Tampa Bay gets, they were bad for a good long while. They also are bit short of good position players right now, which might undermine their good pitching. I think the key is to hire a good GM and then give him enough time to actually implement a plan. Many franchises(owners) get impatient and after a few years, dump whoever they put in charge and start over. I don't know how many GM's Kansas City has gone thru, but you can see the results. They may of screwed up their current rebuild by getting impatient again. The Cubs have been largely bad for much longer than 20 years. They have had money to work with, and sometimes they have been decent for a few years. But they should of had some periods of long term success like most wealthy franchises have. I think that good management is even more crucial in baseball than other major sports. In basketball, one player can turn your franchise around. In football, a good quarterback and couple of good drafts can make you a Superbowl contender. In baseball, the developmental time for prospects is so long and you need so many that it is easy for things to go wrong, even with good management.

Thank you for this. I enjoyed the read. One question I wish you would of asked is whether the Twins have changed their philosophy in regard to drafting pitchers. I don't really think they have, very much. What I think is happening is that college coaches are using their best arms in relief, a lot more than they used to. I suspect that there are many reasons for that, but the one that comes to mind is that rather than locking your best arm in a rotation, you can use him more flexiably as a reliever. Thus you could, maybe save on the arm a bit, but still have him available for more critical situations. He wouldn't necessarily pitch a lot fewer innings either. Thus the Twins taking more power arms might be more taking guys with a little less wear and tear on their arms. Since they are being used in shorter stints, maybe they are showing a little more velocity. Kind of like Perkins going from a soft tossing lefty starter, to a hard throwing reliever.

Oh, I understand saber stats, but I think people need to understand that baseball is a team game. Your stats ARE dependent on teammates. You can try, but you really can't completely take the team out of individual stats. Especially pitching stats where how well you pitch is very much influenced by what the other 8 guys on the field do or don't do. And even when you make the perfect pitch and every teammate does what he should, it can still go wrong when the opposing hitter bloops one in or is just better than you on that particular pitch. It is important also to recognize that saber stats have as many weaknesses as traditional stats. Just different sorts of weaknesses. A stat like FIP will naturally favor power/strikeout pitchers because it focuses largely on when the ball is not hit. I don't really think that is a very realistic way to look at pitching. The other thing is the attempt to create new stats tend to back my point. Many times we feel that players are better or maybe worse than their numbers so people are out there trying to find new ways to measure results. Maybe it is better to say that stats are an inperfect reflection of what happens on the field.

The phrase "better than his numbers" was a recent quote by Terry Ryan concerning newly acquired starter Kevin Correia. Now, I admit I have no idea whether Correia is "better than his numbers". I don't remember having seen him pitch and I haven't followed his career. The question for me is, is any pitcher "better than his numbers"? It is an interesting question for many reasons. A large part of discussion about Jack Morris' suitability for the Hall of Fame centers around this question. Many of his supporters suggest that the numbers or at least the traditional numbers, understate his value. Certainly, we have all seen a game where a pitcher was "better than his numbers". Occasionally we will see a pitcher give up a bunch of runs in an inning where there were no well hit balls and every hit seemed to perfectly but softly placed in the right spot. Many pitchers seem to pitch better than their secondary numbers suggest they should, at least for a while. Sometimes for a long while. Blackburn, despite the vitrol sent his way in the blogsphere, was largely the Twins best pitcher for 2 years. Till injuries set in or the league caught up to him, depending on your point of view. I always felt that Brad Radke was better than his numbers throughout his pretty long career. His numbers were solid, but generally suggested a good but not quite a front line starter. My thought is that Radke generally gave the Twins 25 or more starts a year where he gave his team a good chance to win. Quality starts, I suppose. Unfortunately he also had 2 or 3 starts a year where he was putrid. Six or more runs in 3 or less innings. It spoke to, I suppose how fine a line he walked to be a effective major league pitcher without dominant stuff. What those few extremely bad starts did, was take very good stats and make them pretty ordinary. It happened to him every year. Because he never strung together dominant performances like a Santana, his solid, very good pitching got diluted by a few bad starts. Clearly, even close observers often take in to account certain factors and conclude that certain pitchers were "better than their numbers". Ferguson Jenkins is a good example of this. He was elected to the Hall of Fame despite having slightly inferior numbers to many of his peers. It was thought that the handicap of pitching in Wrigley Field and often playing before an inferior team, depressed his numbers. So it was concluded that Ferguson was indeed Hall of Fame worthy despite his numbers. So, what does all of this mean? Well it could mean that some prominant bloggers are wrong about Correia. Perhaps, he is one of those pitchers who is "better than his numbers" and will provide useful pitching even if his end of the year numbers don't look that good. Or perhaps he is actually what his numbers suggest, a number 5 starter holding place until someone better comes along. I certainly don't know, but I will look forward to seeing whether Terry Ryan is right about him.

The phrase "better than his numbers" was a recent quote by Terry Ryan concerning newly acquired starter Kevin Correia. Now, I admit I have no idea whether Correia is "better than his numbers". I don't remember having seen him pitch and I haven't followed his career. The question for me is, is any pitcher "better than his numbers"? It is an interesting question for many reasons. A large part of discussion about Jack Morris' suitability for the Hall of Fame centers around this question. Many of his supporters suggest that the numbers or at least the traditional numbers, understate his value. Certainly, we have all seen a game where a pitcher was "better than his numbers". Occasionally we will see a pitcher give up a bunch of runs in an inning where there were no well hit balls and every hit seemed to perfectly but softly placed in the right spot. Many pitchers seem to pitch better than their secondary numbers suggest they should, at least for a while. Sometimes for a long while. Blackburn, despite the vitrol sent his way in the blogsphere, was largely the Twins best pitcher for 2 years. Till injuries set in or the league caught up to him, depending on your point of view. I always felt that Brad Radke was better than his numbers throughout his pretty long career. His numbers were solid, but generally suggested a good but not quite a front line starter. My thought is that Radke generally gave the Twins 25 or more starts a year where he gave his team a good chance to win. Quality starts, I suppose. Unfortunately he also had 2 or 3 starts a year where he was putrid. Six or more runs in 3 or less innings. It spoke to, I suppose how fine a line he walked to be a effective major league pitcher without dominant stuff. What those few extremely bad starts did, was take very good stats and make them pretty ordinary. It happened to him every year. Because he never strung together dominant performances like a Santana, his solid, very good pitching got diluted by a few bad starts. Clearly, even close observers often take in to account certain factors and conclude that certain pitchers were "better than their numbers". Ferguson Jenkins is a good example of this. He was elected to the Hall of Fame despite having slightly inferior numbers to many of his peers. It was thought that the handicap of pitching in Wrigley Field and often playing before an inferior team, depressed his numbers. So it was concluded that Ferguson was indeed Hall of Fame worthy despite his numbers. So, what does all of this mean? Well it could mean that some prominant bloggers are wrong about Correia. Perhaps, he is one of those pitchers who is "better than his numbers" and will provide useful pitching even if his end of the year numbers don't look that good. Or perhaps he is actually what his numbers suggest, a number 5 starter holding place until someone better comes along. I certainly don't know, but I will look forward to seeing whether Terry Ryan is right about him.

What do you suppose "normal" turnover is? I suspect that in the 4 years since your list, the Twins have signed between 80 and 100 pitchers from the drafts and international signings. Obviously a number of minor league free agents have been signed as well. I think the Twins have been hurt by a large number of injuries during this time. Clearly your point that not enough pitchers have developed into quality major leaguers is a valid one. But I am not sure that just looking at the number of pitchers from the spring of 2009 and checking on how many remain in the organization really tells you anything.

I enjoy these lists and don't really know enough about the prospects to comment, much. Still, I have a question about Vargas. My understanding about him is that he is a bit old for the level, has outstanding power but a bit of a slow bat and is not much defensively. He seems a little high on this rating. I tend to agree with you on the rest of the prospects. I am a bit excited about Salcedo, he seems like he could be a solid big league starter, someday.

Shane, to be a little less snarky. It is not just my opinion that Carroll is a below average fielder. If Carroll was viewed by major league talent evaluators as an above average fielder at shortstop, he would of held down a regular starting shortstop job for the last ten years instead being a utility man. His offense has been average or above for a middle infielder. If he was even average defensively he would of been starter. Look at guys like Adam Everett who started for years. Defense at short is the defining issue. Carroll clearly isn't that good defensively. Gardy would of left him at short or brought him back when Dozier struggled if Carroll were even an average big league shortstop.

Shane, I have no confidence in defensive stats, for any number of reasons. If the defensive stats say Carroll is above average especially at short, that is still one more reason to distrust them. More importantly, Carroll's production isn't likely to stand up to being a regular. If he is used as a utility guy, 3-4 times a week, he will stay fresher both offensively and defensively. I don't much care if he is used at the top of the lineup, when he is in the lineup, but I really think I would put Dozier there. With the choice right now, Dozier will likely start at either short or 2nd. Let him bat 2nd if he does. While I think roster speculation is interesting, there are so many variables and even possible additions or subtractions between now and spring training, that I doubt things will work out much like any of us suspect. The starting pitching breakdown and centerfield should be the most interesting.

Don't understand the Carroll thing. He is not really above average anywhere any more. He certainly isn't above average at short. He is a utility infielder and still pretty good at it. That is where he should be. If Florimon or Dozier aren't the answer at short, and they may not be, than you go elsewhere to find one. I wouldn't waste much time plugging Carroll in there. I am sort of surprised that the Twins haven't/apparently aren't going to get a solid middle infielder. It seems to indicate that they think either Florimon or Dozier can be a decent shortstop.

While I tend to agree with Old Nurse on WAR, I think even you believers in WAR are missing something here. It is very hard to predict what pitchers will do. WAR or all pitching stats really, are not predictive. The Twins staff in 2010 was good enough(I have no idea what their collective WAR was) to be major contributors to a 95 win team. Virtually the same staff was considerably poorer in 2011 and contributed almost nothing in 2012. Also consider, last year at this time, nobody was predicting(including WAR) what Diamond went on to produce in 2012. What Ryan is trying to do is put together a staff that by any measure(use WAR if you like) has some chance of being league average. He is well aware that some of those will fail, which is why there are so many options. Now, this stragedy has a fair chance of failing, I think Ryan has acknowledged this. Part of the reason for this is that there is little chance of the assembled staff to be better than league average. If that is your upside...... I am supportive of this stragedy because I don't think that by buying the higher priced, longer termed options actually much increases the staff's chances of being better than league average. Whether that is true or not, Ryan has acquired some higher upside pitching options, when added to the potentially higher sided options already in the system, gives a great deal of hope for the future. So getting back to the topic presented. Ryan is assembling a group of starters for 2012 that we all hope can be league average. He is avoiding any long committment that might inhibit assembling an above average staff in the future. Given where things were, I believe that is the right path.

"Will he pitch to a $13 million level? Maybe not, but there's little chance he'll pitch below a $10 million dollar value either. He's safe and besides, he's proven to be a very tradable commodity"Quote from Nick You don't think he will pitch below a $10 million level? I don't think he has ever been more than a back of a rotation pitcher. Is that really worth $10 million per year? You are right about him being tradable. I just wonder why he his previous teams were so willing to get rid of him. I certainly want the Twins to sign some free agent pitchers. While I suppose Jackson isn't the worst pitcher out there, he certainly is likely to be overpriced and I think overvalued. I rather hope that if the Twins sign a pitcher or pitchers to a multi-year deal, it is somebody likely to be more consistent and frankly better than Jackson.

It is true he isn't Blackburn, but he hasn't been any better than Blackburn's 2 good seasons, either. You have to wonder why a guy with his kind of stuff doesn't put up better numbers. You also have to notice that one year is all anyone seems to want to keep him around for. I guess that if Ryan signs him, especially for 2 years or less, I won't be upset. I won't be very excited either. He is a back of a rotation guy, who has generally eaten up a fair number of innings. I doubt if he is suddenly going to turn into an ace, or even a top of rotation guy. It doesn't seem like he will be a complete bust, either.

Another good article with interesting speculation. I think that Revere is the more likely of the 2 to be traded before the start of the season. While I doubt if Hicks is ready to play in the majors, Mastroianni could be used as a placeholder. It is certainly possible that some team could value Revere as highly as Span, meaning he could yield a high end pitching prospect or a pretty accomplished big league starter. Trading Morneau is harder. There is no bat remotely ready to replace him or move Parmelee to first. Guessing his trade value is also hard. His combination of high salary, one year to free agency and injury history make me think that his trade value is likely lower than Revere. Trading him for a back of rotation pitcher makes little sense. Getting a very high end prospect seems unlikely. Assuming that Ryan believes that there is some reasonable chance of contending in 2013, I doubt if either one gets traded unless the return is pretty spectacular.

I think that the oft repeated refrain that there is no pitching in the Twins system, is overstating the case. Pitching, even starting pitching, can move quickly through the system. There are several interesting guys beyond those you mentioned. I think it is a bit early to be sure that Hermsen can't add both velocity and "stuff" to his toolbox. Salcedo and some of the more recent draftees and international signing have some promise.

My guess is that the Twins have somewhere around $25 mill. to spent on pitching for 2013, whether it comes from free agent spending or in a trade. They may be willing to spend say another $20 million in 2014 if that is what it takes in multi year contracts to get what they want. Spending that kind of money might get a staff that will be as good as 2010 or it could closer resemble what happened in 2012. The problem is, most of the guys signed are going to have a question or 3 surrounding them in terms of health, consistency, or just plain talent. So yes, I agree that Ryan plans/hopes to have a competitive team in 2013. He understands that a lot of things have to go right for that to happen. Which it can if you want to use Oakland and Baltimore as examples from 2012. An extra problem here is that even if the starters he assembles, perform to near a best case scenario, other things will have to go well to be competitve. Good health by the vets, and some growth and consistency by the young guys will have to happen. So, I don't see the Twins dumping Willingham or Morneau this off season. There is no replacements ready, really for either one, and going to the free agent market to replace them will likely offset what you get in return for them. The Twins could conceivably trade someone else, but there would have to be a very high return, which seems a bit unlikely at this time. I think that 2013 is sort of a pivotable year for the Twins. Whether they contend or not in 2013, they will want to see growth by their key prospects. Pitching, throughout the system, needs to be healthy so that the Twins can actually evaluate what they have and what they need. They really need the current core of everyday players to be healthy. Then you can make decisions about whether to trade or keep them. 2013 would seem to be the key to whether the last 2 years were just down years or the beginning of a long rebuilding process.

"During six seasons in the minor leagues, Revere showed the ability to get on base at a very good rate (.383). Most of this was driven by a very high batting average of .326, which is a number that he most likely won't be able to duplicate at the big league level" Quote from above article. I don't really agree with this. People talk like Revere's only skill is his speed, but really, he has always been able to hit. If he becomes a bit more selective, and perhaps improves his bunting, I really think he can challenge for batting titles. A great many speed guys are slap and run guys. I think Revere is a better hitter than that. I also think that playing him too shallow is a double edged sword. Anything that gets by a shallow playing outfielder can easier turn into a triple or perhaps an inside the park home run.

I dsagree entirely. I don't think trading Mauer is a good idea, at all. You are going to struggle to get comparable talent back. There is nothing in the system that can replace what he does, even if he is only catching half the games. Finally, I don't really see that his contract is big obstacle to being competitive. The issues are making good decisions and being healthy. Having more money to spent but having less talent to work with, because you have traded Mauer, isn't likely to make you a better team.

I suspect the quality of the pitching is the key here. Neither the Pirates or the Twins had very good pitching in those years. Tampa certainly did. That is the problem with some of these new metrics, they actually corolate better with something else than what they are trying to measure. I remember when everyone was excited because Jeter's UZR improved one year over the previous year. The real reason was a number of better starting pitchers. Nobody ever really considered that. Finally, I don't doubt that Molina is good at framing pitches. The question is, what is the impact of that rather limited skill. I suspect that Molina has a large impact on a game because of his all around defensive skills. Including working with his pitcher, calling a game, blocking pitches and throwing out runners. While I don't doubt that stealing a pitch here and there is useful, the idea that it is a 5 win skill over 80 games, is pretty unbelievable, and pretty much ruins this metric as anything to pay attention to.