Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

TheLeviathan

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    18,575

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    46

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Tutorials & Help

Videos

2023 Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Free Agent & Trade Rumors

Guides & Resources

Minnesota Twins Players Project

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by TheLeviathan

  1. TheLeviathan
    I'm confused why you would have to do that?
  2. TheLeviathan
    I would argue that there is not a "good chance" of that at all for precisely the reasons laid out. The Hughes extension made total sense because in the best case scenario you save tens of millions on a pitcher and worst case scenario you paid him roughly market value if he becomes average. He'd have to have a career ending injury for it to be bad. Dozier? Arbitration and team control protect you from the worst case scenario and you risk getting rid of that protection in the name of buying out years when he is 33 and 34 years old for the benefit of saving a few million. That's a terrible guiding principle for extensions and I sincerely hope the Twins realize that.
  3. TheLeviathan
    Calling out erratic contributions isn't diminishing him. I'm more than a bit irritated with that constant scarecrow. This isn't about whether or not we are going to start Brian Dozier or whether or not to trade him, this is about handing him a bunch of money outside of team control now before that issue has to be decided. But let's examine your points - in the last two years Dozier has played in 12 months. In 7 of those 12 months he has had less than 10 XBHs in a month. His BABIP is actually relatively steady but for that fluke month in August that throws off your 2nd half vs. 1st half OPS comparison significantly. Lots of fine players are bad long-term investments, that doesn't make them bad players. Just makes them risky investments. We have ZERO reason to take any risks on Dozier, so why do it?
  4. TheLeviathan
    Strictly using OPS seems a tad silly does it not? One month it's a high BABIP, one month he's handing out HR souvenirs, the next month it's something else. The guys profile offensively is schizo, which in my eyes, makes sustainability more questionable. Was his second half OPS similar...sure. But it ignores an August BABIP that was 100 points higher than his usual one that drove that OPS when the power sapped. I'd suggest this heavy-handed, one stat analysis is a pretty disengenuous way to argue for an extension. Dozier is a good player we have several years of team control through his peak years and you combine that with his erratic offensive contributions and, IMO, you are taking a wildly unnecessary risk to extend him.
  5. TheLeviathan
    I'd like this signing more if we had moved one of our other veteran relievers at the deadline and/or non-tendered a few.
  6. TheLeviathan
    Just saying...but it may help our developing young starters if we had guys that could field in the outfield.
  7. TheLeviathan
    Count me as someone who believes Dozier's second half numbers are cause for concern. Dozier's method of contributions are very erratic and I am uneasy investing heavily in that sort of player. I still need to see more from him before I want an extension.
  8. TheLeviathan
    Sano starting in AA? I was really hoping for AAA.
  9. TheLeviathan
    Nice work Twins, this is a good move.
  10. TheLeviathan
    Perhaps Ryan's scale for good outfield defense is broken. For further evidence consider his Hunter comments.
  11. TheLeviathan
    Should have added an "honest" next to that assessment.
  12. TheLeviathan
    I am genuinely confused how anyone comes away with that positive of an assessment.
  13. TheLeviathan
    People....Hicks is not a good defensive centerfielder. His "prowess" is average at best. If we're going to field a guy in CF that can barely hit .200....can we at least get a dude that covers ground like a madman?
  14. TheLeviathan
    Well, for one, they both are average to below average defensive CFs. Secondly, Hicks has catastrophically failed twice now and putting a switch hitter into a platoon is basically acknowledging he's failed to develop. I'm not ready to give up hope on him, not until I've seen him work at it in AAA and try one last time.
  15. TheLeviathan
    There are a lot of things that might frustrate me out of ST, but none of them as much as the idea that CF for this team is Hicks and Schaefer. I may lose it if that's what our plan is.
  16. TheLeviathan
    I'm trying to convince myself that it doesn't seem likely.
  17. TheLeviathan
    Going back two years seems like a poor sample. Take the last decade and look at how the actual top-end pitchers performed. I used to believe the same thing you do, but the stats are absolutely unsupportive of that opinion. The best ingredient to winning a World Series is a lot of luck and enough guys getting hot at the same time. Or basically the ingredients for success in any small sample.
  18. TheLeviathan
    In addition to Willihammer point, I think you'd be surprised if you looked back at how ineffective many aces have been relative to some schmo with a magical postseason. Bumgarner was amazing in the playoffs, but that is far from common. The last time the Giants won the pennant it wasn't Bum, Cain, or Lincecum that lead the way.....it was Ryan Vogelsong. A guy all of us cringe at adding today. I'd recommend anyone that believes "Ace = World Series" to go back and look at just how very untrue that idea is. They are, however and as you point out, extremely valuable to being a better baseball team over the long season.
  19. TheLeviathan
    There you go, now you used the stat correctly. And I agree, Laroche is a better player. I didn't need convincing, I just found it amusing to see WAR used incorrectly again after being reassured everyone knows how to use it. It's not good short-hand. In fact, WAR is AWFUL short-hand.
  20. TheLeviathan
    Jay, these are the same thing. Just one makes you feel better about it by how you phrase it. Let me be clear, I don't think we've wrecked any careers or anything like that, but we have deliberately played worse players with less upside for whatever reason you want to cite. We seem to be in prime position to do so again in a few months and I hope that doesn't happen.
  21. TheLeviathan
    I'm making no claim on the point. I like the Laroche signing and think he'll be a good player for them. That doesn't change the fact that comparing one year of WAR data for two players is just a fundamental misuse of the stat.
  22. TheLeviathan
    1) The study has the same problem for all the teams and the sample is large enough to draw pretty reasonable conclusions. Namely - the Twins are definitely on the less aggressive side of things. Particularly as the player gets to the upper minors. 2) The Twins adding Ervin Santana is not the problem. The Twins' tendency to default to a guy like Mike Pelfrey over Trevor May is. My issue in this thread started with the pollyanne arguments that there would be a true competition for the spots that are available. (I think there is one, two tops) Given this team's decision making for quite some time, I have significant doubts that will happen. As Nick said earlier - Trevor May should walk into ST the favorite and I couldn't feel any less confident in that. That's the problem. Not Ervin Santana but the Twins ridiculous penchant for veteran innings eaters over younger, more talented pitchers. I'm glad we agree about the 5th spot going to Pelf over May and I genuinely hope I'm wrong, but we have a lot of evidence over the years to indicate I'm worried for good reason.
  23. TheLeviathan
    Heh, I think there was a thread not long ago about how often WAR is misused. This thread is wonderful evidence of that.
  24. TheLeviathan
    Here is just a sample of the evidence: these are the names of the pitchers we chose to use over Alex Meyer, Trevor May, or Kyle Gibson the last two years: Yohan Pino, Kevin Correia (or as you might know him in 2015 - Mike Pelfrey), Sam Deduno, Anthony Swarzak, Logan Darnell, Kris Johnson, Scott Diamond, Pedro Hernandez, Andrew Albers, Cole DeVries, Liam Hendricks, and PJ Walters. Now I'll save you the trauma of their numbers, but suffice to say we didn't need to look at these players. We certainly didn't need to look at all of them more than once. We have a definitive pattern of delaying our young players longer than any other team, so suggesting otherwise is demonstrably false. We do it and we do it frequently and moreso than basically any other team in the league. (At least in the last 5-8 years) I think it's comical that we defend the way in which we've handled some young starters the last few years under the guise that we "had some AAAA guys to look at" and then champion the improvement of the rotation because we won't be using AAAA guys. Seems like a self-inflicted wound the team repeatedly has not learned from and one I'm not prepared to believe they've learned from until I see the behavior change. Until we ACTUALLY waive Pelfry or option Milone out of ST for May or Meyer this seems like wishful thinking. And, hey, I get the argument with Meyer. Trevor May? If Pelfrey goes north in that spot over him it's nothing short of ridiculous.
  25. TheLeviathan
    This is a reflection of how every Sox fan I know feels about their team. The "grass is greener on the other side" version some here are longing for is precisely that. Not that I don't envy and like many of the things they do, it just seems sexier to us because it's the opposite of what we do.
×
×
  • Create New...