Doomtints

If there is a huge difference between both sides, then no deal was ever close. This means we have been talking about a non-issue. The reports state that the Twins and Dodgers have discussed things. That's it. They are not close to a deal. Therefore, we have been wasting our time on this.

What's holding up the trade? Who knows. For all we know there isn't a serious Dozier trade on the table. Dodgers-Twins may have never progressed to any stage worth discussing, in spite of us going crazy about it.

Read up. Bill James proved it with numbers. Like I said, the perception is different because people judge minors talent on what pundits state rather than their actual metrics. Bill James can't measure the rubbish from the mouths of pundits.

Without question. Many of the people dissing ESPN will base their opinions on players after reading articles written by a certain ESPN employee named Keith Law every day of the week. Which I suppose proves that ESPN sucks, sure. But yes people live and die by it, even people who are saying it's terrible. As for the original topic, #9 is low but it's not like this is a travesty. As others have said, the 5-7 range is about right.

Who has been saying this? I have seen this stated a few times now but I don't see anybody arguing that Dozier is about to turn into a pumpkin.

This is phase two of the "We want all offers ASAP" tactic. "Gee, it's not fair to Dozier if we don't get a deal done now." These are just words. Time is not the key factor.

He is speedy, no question. If he ever learns to hit we will have a lot of exciting years.

Bill James wrote that if someone is an elite talent in the minors, he almost always works out in the MLB. The Kevin Sloweys who dominate the minors but have short MLB careers are rare. And even Slowey put together 3 good years before the Twins tried to change him, all in spite of him having a fastball that your grandma could hit. De Leon is dominating the minors. I'm wondering if some of you arguing against him being enough have actually looked at his stats. Anyway, the point is, prospects are not gambles. Analytics has proven that top talent in the minors reliably becomes top talent in the majors. The problem is that we often think of "top talent" based on scouting articles, not metrics, so we argue needlessly about what "top talent" actually is.

I would think that if there is any position o the field where the field manager gets to make the call on which players are on the roster, it would be the bullpen. I would wager this is still on Molitor if the talent isn't there.

Nah. He has 2 years on his contract. Him staying great for 24 months is a bad bet to take due to his age. Now if 2017 ends up fine, someone may take the 12 month bet next offseason. I think you could put money on that. Contenders are always looking for back end starters and if he has a good 2017, he would be the best back end starter on the market. He would be very little risk for a contending team's #4 or #5. If he stumbles through 2017 then he's a Twin forever.

At least one fewer walk off loss on a wild pitch would be cool.

It's about time.

Regarding Gibson, pitchf/x is showing almost no change between last year and his prior years. He was hitting the same locations as always and with the same velocity. I think we can safely chalk up Gibson's 2016 as being a dud year due to injuries, a bit of bad luck, and a terrible defense being behind him. Having said all that, Gibson is still just a #4 or #5 guy. I think he will be better in 2017 (if healthy and with better defensive play) but he's not likely to become the next Cy Young award winner regardless. He is probably the best #4/#5 option the team has, but that's not saying much. How much of Gibson's ERA is due to a reliever letting the inherited baserunners score?

For those who are wondering, this is on Molitor. At one point he was quoted as not wanting to pull pitchers until they finish an inning. It makes more sense to pull when the pitcher appears to be out of gas. What invariably happens is the pitcher lets some runs go by and he ends up having to pull him before the inning is over anyway. I think good managers need to have a strong pitching background, not only to know when to pull a pitcher but to know how to fill out the lineup card. I don't think Molitor has a keen eye when it comes to pitching. But ... per the boss Molitor is popular with fans so he gets another year......

Fair grades. This bullpen simply did not have the depth to deal with such a terrible starting staff. This is NOT a championship caliber bullpen, though, and like everything else on the team it needs to be improved.

I agree. Which brings me back to my original points ... this rhetoric was a bad tactic for the Twins. You don't "spin" in public when you make deals with someone -- you treat that person like the most important person in the world while you are on the phone with them. You may drop some bull**** in that process, sure, but you don't do it in front of everybody. A seasoned person is going to see right through this.

Why make an announcement to hurry up and call and then unplug the phone to go on vacation?

Yep. WAR is a great shorthand stat. But you always gotta dig in more to get the full story. It's like saying, "I made $50,000 last year." That's nice. but maybe you dig in more and find that you made $100/hr selling widgets and $8/hr shining shoes. Before you can make a smart decision about where you should be spending more time next year, you have to look at more than just the $50,000 number at the top. WAR is one of these top level numbers that is a helpful starting point but all of the underlying data is hidden. There is no doubt that some players, particularly elite starting pitchers, can provide more value than their WAR numbers indicate. If you never bother to look at the underlying stats, you will never know what's truly going on.

Mid-40s. Went to several games at the old Met, including a memorable 4th of July where they let everyone on the roof after the game to watch the fireworks. The Met was a great stadium for baseball, though there were very few amenities inside (and little room for them anyway). The outfield seats were not connected to the main stadium in any way, if you came in on the outfield side there was no way to the rest of the stadium. I felt like the lone Twins fan during the 81-87 seasons. Over that last month in 87, everyone in Minnesota was a Twins fan. In many ways I think the Twin Cities needed that championship. Everyone came together, it was a good time. Right after 87 World Series concluded, I moved to Texas, ending up in Austin for many years. I am currently in Chicago. By trade I am a data scientist, producing data on anything the executives ask for. Dollars, sales, utilization, whatever. Sometimes it's a question like, "Why are people suddenly buying this in this part of the country?" and figuring out the answer. Other times it's more banal basic market analysis trends. If the execs can't figure out an answer, I'm the one they call. It is not uncommon for the data to show the exact opposite of what people's perceptions are and learning this has taught me to scrutinize everything that people say about baseball players. And, at the danger of sounding like an arse, I'm usually right when I am skeptical about a player that everyone else loves (or when I love a player that others don't consider interesting).

You clearly think the Twins should care about what people think. You brought it up as being an important way to value a player. No one else went there. You changed the subject to social popularity because you had no argument against player valuation with accepted metrics, now you're changing it back? Are you just trying to make people run around in circles?

The Dodgers were 2 games from the world series, losing to a Cubs team that has since lost talent this offseason. They should be confident that they can make it at least as far next year with the same team.

Oh my god noooooo. People in positions of power don't consider such things. They go with what they believe in, not what is popular. (Also, I disagree that they would be "universally criticized" -- but I guarantee you that this isn't anything they are worried about).

So? Four out of the five slated starters on the Twins could have a negative WAR next year. If you replace a -1 pitcher with a +3 pitcher, you just improved by 4 WAR -- roughly what one should expect from Dozier in any future year. And this calculation doesn't even add in the fact that Polanco is probably good for 3 WAR as well.

Seems the Twins are working and that they want this done ASAP. The clock IS ticking.

That's right. Until he plays long seasons at A and above, we won't know if he can keep fireballing as a starter over the course of a full season. It's very likely that he can't and ends up in the bullpen unless he proves to be effective with less velocity on his fastball.