SB Nation User Blog: Jon Marthaler

All the Headlines Fit To Not Print

Jon Marthaler — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 03:43:12 -0000

The Winter Meetings are over, the Twins have offered contracts to all of their arbitration-eligible players, and so the news has, for the moment, slowed down. (This statement will be officially null and void, should Joe Mauer choose to favor us with an early Christmas present.)

So, with the headlines slowing a bit, it's time to fall back on the old standby of lazy journalists everywhere: making stuff up! Below, some of the headlines you won't be seeing over the next few days:

Bill Smith Tenders Contract To Hot Fudge Sundae
Official team site headline: "Smith locks up important piece"

Team Has To Gently Explain Trade to Carlos Gomez for Fourth Time
"I really hope it's just a language thing," say team officials

Cuddyer's Masterpiece: Magician Makes Metrodome Disappear
On same day, Yanks' Sabathia makes fourteen hot dogs and an entire fried chicken disappear

Timberwolves, Wild DIscuss Contract Extensions With Mauer's Agent
May fill third-line right wing, shooting guard holes

Redmond Still Planning To Report To Spring Training
Security to begin extended details on January 1 in hopes of avoiding bloodbath on reporting day

ESPN SportsCenter Special: Target Field - Brett Favre Finally Speaks!
How does this affect Tiger Woods?

CERN Large Hadron Collider Experiments Prove: Prince Fielder's Pants Don't Fit
Researchers hope new theories explain how pants can be built so large

Joe Mauer Displays First Signs of Personality
Doctors hope he may utter first interesting quote within six months

Justin Morneau Still Debating Fan Letter to Spuds Mackenzie
Letter was written in 1989

Wouldn't it be a more interesting world, though?

Winter Meetings Open Thread, Monday

Jon Marthaler — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 03:32:53 -0000

6:30 pm - As TonyO points out in the comment threads, LEN III is reporting that Pavano will indeed accept the Twins' offer of arbitration.

I should point out that this means there is only one rotation spot up for grabs. This provides Minnesota with a lot of starting pitching depth, although none of the contenders for the fifth spot look like stars. Could the Twins batch a couple of them along with another piece or two to get something significant in return?

Back to Pavano, Ed Price thinks the Twins could be on the hook for $7 million for this decision. Considering this was his first healthy season in half a decade, I think that's a bit high unless he reaches some incentive bonuses. But we'll find out.

3:45 pm - Happy Monday afternoon y'all, here's another Jesse update, rounding up some of the SP and 3B names and teams in circulation...

Ed Price tweets that no fewer than 12 teams are interested in Tigers starter Edwin Jackson.
Meanwhile, Ken Davidoff wonders if starters not named John Lackey or Randy Wolf can get more than a one-year deal.
Speaking of Wolf, Ken Rosenthal says the Brewers are hot on his trail.
Former Pavano rotation-mate Brad Penny is close to signing with the Cardinals.
It sounds like Mark DeRose will decline the Cards' offer of arbitration.
Adrian Beltre is also likely to decline arbitration.

Noon - Ken Rosenthal contradicts Neal, saying Pavano is actually likely to accept the offer of arbitration. Intriguing.

10:15 am - La Velle is guessing that Pavano will decline arbitration, and is hoping to get a multi-year deal.

9:30 am - Morning all, Jesse here. Over at Big League Stew there's a perma-chat going on, with news from Yahoo!'s pundits. A couple of things from Tim Brown: apparently Pavano's agent pressed the Twins for a multi-year deal last night. Brown also mentions that the Twins have prioritized starting pitching and third basemen, "in that order".

9:00 am - Only one link so far to start off the morning - Kelsie Smith at the PiPress reminds us all that those offered arbitration have to decide today whether to accept it. For the Twins, that's only Carl Pavano, and apparently Bill Smith and Pavano agent Tom O'Connell were deep in conversation late last night.

HOT STOVE CHAOS! HERE WE GO!

Okay, we're Twins fans; it's unlikely we'll see too much CHAOS this week. Nevertheless, we'll be following the news and posting updates in this thread. Discuss in the comments, of course.

December Important Dates

Jon Marthaler — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:55:38 -0000

A quick rundown of the important dates for the Twins in December, which you may have noticed starts tomorrow. (The lack of November snow here in Minnesota has thrown us all off, so I don't blame you if you didn't notice.)

December 1 - Last day for teams to offer arbitration to free agents

The only person here affected is really Carl Pavano; he is a "Type B" free agent, and the Twins will get a supplemental draft pick if they offer arbitration and he signs somewhere else. Orlando Cabrera is Type A, but by the terms of his contract, the team can't offer him arbitration. Ron Mahay, Joe Crede, and Mike Redmond are also veteran free agents, but since none of the three qualified as Type A or B, the team has no compelling reason to offer arbitration to any of them.

December 7 - Last day for free agents to accept the offer of salary arbitration

If Pavano is offered arbitration, he likely will decline it; I suspect he'd rather take his chances on the open market.

December 7-10 - Winter meetings, Indianapolis, IN

This four-day period is the time in which we all go half-blind refreshing MLB Trade Rumors fifteen times an hour. We'll be updating Twinkie Town about as often, I suspect; this is the four days when the Hot Stove League is truly lava-hot.

December 10 - Rule V Draft

The team's 40-man roster is full to bursting at this point; if the Twins want to pluck a player from somebody else's system, they need to make a move in the next week and a half. Last year, the Twins took Jason Jones from the Yankees system, then ended up trading Charles Nolte to New York in order to keep Jones. Jones went 5-11 with a 5.75 ERA in Rochester last year; Nolte was 5-4 with a 5.29 ERA in A-ball with the Yankees. In other words, not exactly a blockbuster. (And yes, I know that Johan Santana was famously a Rule V pickup, but there are a hundred RA Dickeys for every Santana.)

December is usually the month with the most player movement, as free agents find employers and teams fill holes at the winter meetings. It'll be interesting to see if any of the 2010 free agents end up playing at Target Field next spring.

On Productive Outs

Jon Marthaler — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:04:00 -0000

A couple of weeks ago, I read this blog post from Joe Posnanski, in which he discusses comments made by Red Sox GM Theo Epstein about outfielder J.D. Drew. The whole thing's interesting, but what caught my eye was the following quote from Epstein:

He [Drew] does the single most important thing you can do in baseball as an offensive player. And that’s not make outs.

Well, this really hit me, because it's about the most concise possible argument you could make about hitting - just to simply state, "We get only three outs an inning, and when we reach three, we have to start over. Wasting outs for any reason does not help us." And yes, I realize that slugging percentage plays a big part in scoring runs, too, and a single is sometimes more valuable than a walk, and all of that. But ultimately good hitters that help their teams simply don't make outs.

This, however, got me thinking about "productive outs," and sacrifice bunting and all the rest of the things that managers and announcers talk about. How many times have you heard the Twins broadcast crew laud Nick Punto for grounding out to the correct side of the infield, thus moving the runner from second to third?

With all this in mind, I went over to Baseball Prospectus to grab the Run Expectancy Matrix for 2009. If you're not familiar with this graph, simply put, it tells you how many runs a team can be expected to score, given a certain situation and all else being equal. Here's the 2009 version:

Situation / Outs	0	1	2
Bases Empty	0.5173	0.2789	0.1064
Runner on First	0.8834	0.5330	0.2234
Second	1.1415	0.6884	0.3219
Third	1.3146	0.9655	0.3701
First and Second	1.4837	0.9217	0.4556
First and Third	1.7686	1.2018	0.5220
Second and Third	2.0137	1.4138	0.5623
Bases Loaded	2.2790	1.5580	0.7499

If you're new to reading this table, examine with me the second row ("Runner on first"). This row says that, in 2009, a team could be expected to score .8834 runs, on average, if it had a runner on first with nobody out. With one out and a runner on first, it was expected to score .5330 runs, and so on.

What I thought I'd find, from this table, was the ability to state a hard-and-fast rule about outs. I assumed that we could all live by the following statement: "Making an out ALWAYS decreases the number of runs a team can be expected to score in an inning."

What I found was close to that statement... but not quite.

Of course, the value of an out always depends on the situation, the batter at the plate, the runners on base, and so forth. (For example: it's a better idea to have Alexi Casilla try to bunt a run home than it is to have Joe Mauer try to bunt a run home, because Casilla is far less likely to get a hit or otherwise drive the run home.) However, with all else being equal, I was surprised to find that there are productive outs.

By this, I mean outs that actually increase the expected number of runs that a team would score. Here's the list of plausible productive outs I've found; perhaps you can find more.

With the bases loaded and fewer than two out, an out that advances all three runners is a productive out. (Just as an example, here's the math: With nobody out and the bases full, a team is expected to score 2.2790 runs. If the batter advances all three runners - say, with a sacrifice bunt - a run comes home, and the team has second and third with one out, an expectancy of 1.4138. In other words, the run expectancy has gone from 2.2790 to 2.4138. With one out, the expectancy goes from 1.5580 to 1.5623.)
With a runner on third base and one out, getting the run home via a sacrifice or simple ground-out is productive (the expectancy goes from .9655 to 1). Interestingly, this isn't true if no one is out (decreases from 1.3146 to 1.2789).
With runners on first and third and one out, moving both runners along is productive (1.2018 to 1.3219). This can plausibly be done via sacrifice, or possibly a deep fly ball to Johnny Damon or any other outfielder with a terrible arm.

And that's it. In all other situations, all else being equal, making an out - whether the announcers think it's productive, or not - doesn't help the team score more runs.

Of course, productive outs are better than non-productive outs. It's better for Nick Punto to move a runner over than strike out. But these are Pyrrhic victories; in most situations, the team is worse off.

I thought, when I looked at the numbers, we'd end up with a strict rule. Instead, we're stuck with more of the ambiguity that baseball will always be famous for: "For the most part, making an out decreases the number of runs a team can be expected to score, all else being equal."

Joe Mauer wins Silver Slugger

Jon Marthaler — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 03:48:01 -0000

Exactly nobody is surprised, as Mauer is about as good at the plate as any other two AL catchers combined.

This is Mauer's third Silver Slugger, and second in a row. He still has a ways to go to catch Mike Piazza, though - Piazza leads all catchers with ten awards.

Joe Mauer

#7 / Catcher / Minnesota Twins

Height: 6-5

Weight: 225

Bats: L

Throws: R

Born: Apr 19, 1983

	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	K	SB	CS	AVG	OBP	SLG
2009 - Joe Mauer	138	523	94	191	30	1	28	96	76	63	4	1	.365	.444	.587

On Payrolls

Jon Marthaler — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:13:03 -0000

I swear, I didn't want to be the guy that keeps harping on payroll discrepancies in baseball. But then I discovered one of the depressing things about payrolls. And then the great Joe Posnanski got in on the act, pointing out that baseball has a tendency to hide dominance - that even if you put together a team made up of the best players in baseball, that team still might lose 45-50 games during the season, and still might not win the World Series. That's just the way it's set up.

So I went ahead and did some number crunching (well, number adding, at least). Using the USA Today payroll database, I went through a decade's worth of payrolls. (Please, no arguments about whether the decade is over this year or next year. It's 2000-2009 for the purposes of this post.)

You won't be surprised to find out that the Yankees top the list; they had the largest payroll in every single season, and all told spent just over 1.67 billion on player contracts over the decade. Only three other teams (the Red Sox, the Mets, and the Dodgers) cleared the $1 billion mark.

I'm not sure that I'm doing justice to how big that gap is, though. The Yankees spent only $9 million less than the Cubs and the White Sox combined. The Yankees spent more than the Nationals, Pirates, Marlins, and Rays - FOUR OTHER TEAMS - combined.

A little closer to home: take the Red Sox payroll, the second-highest payroll in the league. Now add the Twins payroll. THAT is what the Yankees spent; they could afford to buy the Red Sox roster, and add in the Twins roster, every year.

And now, let me address the "money can't buy wins" argument, which is what Posnanski tackled so ably. No amount of money can buy an undefeated season, and the playoffs are such a crapshoot that the best team doesn't always win.

So I ask you to instead look at it this way. Consider this:

The top 13 teams in payroll over the last decade each won at least one division title. Only six of the other 17 teams won even one.
43 of a possible 60 division titles were won by these same 13 teams.
57 of a possible 80 playoff berths were won by these same 13 teams.
The Mets and the Mariners were the only teams in the top 13 that didn't go to the playoffs at least three times in the decade, going twice each. Out of the bottom 17, only the Athletics, Twins, and Diamondbacks made the playoffs at least three times (and the D'Backs had payrolls north of $85 million two of those years).

What I'm trying to say is this. There are, in general, two ways to compete in baseball. You can get lucky with young talent, like the Twins and Athletics. You can hope for one or two good years, like the Rays or the Marlins or the Brewers.

Or you can spend lots of money.

Twins trade Carlos Gomez for JJ Hardy

Jon Marthaler — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:57:03 -0000

The first report was from Brewers.com, via Twitter:

Brewers acquire CF Carlos Gomez from Minnesota in exchange for SS J.J. Hardy.

I did NOT see that coming. It's been confirmed pretty much everywhere.

According to MLBTradeRumors, thanks to Hardy's midseason demotion in '09, he's under team control for 2010 and 2011.

Hardy had good seasons in 2007 and 2008 at the plate, putting up OPS+ numbers north of 100 both seasons, but was terrible last year (see stats below). He's decent defensively, though.

J.J. Hardy

#7 / Short Stop / Milwaukee Brewers

Height: 6-2

Weight: 190

Bats: R

Throws: R

Born: Aug 19, 1982

	G	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	K	SB	CS	AVG	OBP	SLG
2009 - J.J. Hardy	115	414	53	95	16	2	11	47	43	85	0	1	.229	.302	.357

Joe Nathan's Not Losing His Fastball, Is He?

Jon Marthaler — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:25:26 -0000

More photos » by Tom Olmscheid - AP

Browse more photos »

During last week's great "Joe Nathan: Trade Him?" debate, a friend of mine (who shall remain nameless) made the following point: "His fastball seems to have lost some hop (and not just in the final month of the season)."

Apart from all of the other arguments, this one I had to explore for myself - and thanks to the highly useful PitchFX tool at BrooksBaseball.Net and the PitchFX pages at FanGraphs.com, I had the tools I needed.

Let us deconstruct the above argument, and tackle some possibilities one by one.

Prop. #1: Joe Nathan's fastball has lost some hop.
Veracity: Probable.

First of all, let's be clear: the PitchFX data available only extends back to midway through the 2007 season. We can't use this to prove whether Nathan has dropped velocity since 2004, when he started closing games for Minnesota.

However, it's probable that he's lost some zip since then; after all, he was 29 back then. He'll be 35 next month. Of course he's not throwing as hard as he once did. Not everybody's Nolan Ryan, and can keep throwing hard until they're 68 years old.

That said, if you wanted to use that argument, then you should have used it two years ago.

Prop #2: Joe Nathan has RECENTLY lost some zip on the fastball.
Veracity: Questionable.

Looking back over 2008 and 2009, the numbers seem to speak pretty clearly. Nathan's average fastball in 2008 was 93.6 mph. In 2009, his average fastball was... 93.6 mph. (In the limited data from 2007, he was up around 95). Take a look at the following charts. (Update: Just to be clear, these graphs are from the super-wonderful PitchFX pages at FanGraphs.com. I trust their data and so should you.)

The first is a graph of his averages, for all of the data we have for the past three years:

The second shows his velocity ranges for his fastball, in the same time period:

I'm just eyeballing these graphs, so I can't tell you that these prove anything with any statistical certainty. But 2008 and 2009 look a lot alike, and I have a feeling that if you lined them all up in descending order, there'd be a lot of '08 appearances and '09 appearances intermingled. If anything, his fastball has been the same for two years.

So let's examine one more possible argument, about September and October this year.

Prop. #3: Joe Nathan lost something off his fastball in September.
Veracity: Doubtful.

I reviewed his average and max fastball speeds for all of his appearances in the regular season in September and October (a stretch in which he saved 12 of 13 games, had a 3.38 ERA, and allowed opponents to hit .158, by the way.)

In his 16 appearances, his average fastball was 93+ mph in 13 of them. Two of the other three came on 9/15 and 9/16, when he was pitching for the third and fourth day in a row.
In ten of those appearances, he threw at least one fastball faster than 94.
In two of those appearances, he touched 95 on the radar gun.

Ultimately, his fastball was more or less the same for the entire month - right in the 93-94 range consistently, day after day.

My conclusion

I think it's simple to sum up: sure, Nathan is older than he once was. He may not be able to throw as hard as he could at age 29. But over the past two years, he's maintained a remarkably consistent velocity on his fastball, and at 93-94 mph, he still throws plenty hard. I don't think a drop in velocity can be used as an argument for trading him.

Another Poll: How do you feel about management?

Jon Marthaler — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 03:31:01 -0000

More photos » by Jim Mone - AP

Browse more photos »

The Twins won their fifth division title in eight years in 2009, beating the odds, the payroll mountain, and the Tigers and White Sox along the way. Nevertheless, there are plenty of people who are unhappy with team management. Lots of people want Bill Smith fired, for a number of reasons; some people also want Ron Gardenhire gone.

So, which camp are you in?

Poll

Whose side are you on in the Twins management debate?

They won the division, for goodness sake. Keep both, obviously.

556 votes

Fire Smith, keep Gardy.

212 votes

Fire Gardy, keep Smith.

36 votes

Fire 'em both.

65 votes

Who cares? NEW STADIUM WOO HOO!

84 votes

953 votes | Poll has closed

Morning After Poll: How are you doing?

Jon Marthaler — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 03:14:41 -0000

More photos » by Charlie Neibergall - AP

Browse more photos »

We did this last year, so it's only fair to do a 2009 version as well. Twins baseball is over until April, and over forever in the Metrodome, and it's hard not to be a little bit sad about that.

That's certainly not the only feeling this morning, though. No doubt there's a certain amount of rage, some of it directed at Phil Cuzzi, much of it probably aimed at ~~Darrell Evans~~ Nick Punto.

So, how are you doing?

Poll

How are you feeling this morning?

Thrilled for next year: 2010's the year, baby!

135 votes

Still hoping for a chance to punch Phil Cuzzi.

136 votes

Still hoping for a chance to punch Nick Punto.

92 votes

Feeling defeated, after nine straight playoff-game losses.

159 votes

Feeling resigned to more exciting but ultimately disappointing years like this one.

124 votes

Bleary-eyed and hung over.

49 votes

695 votes | Poll has closed