SB Nation User Blog: snolls

Blackburn looks good

snolls — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:39:35 -0000

Excluding a couple of bad early starts on the road, Blackburn has looked really good this year. The question is, how valuable is this guy really going to be?

I'm starting to think he's deserving of some pretty significant respect. He has been pretty consistent this year, and his numbers are great for a ground ball pitcher.

Stats, with ranking of pitchers with at least 75 IP (97 pitchers total, or about 3 / team)

IP/S: 6.7 (?)

IP: 107 (13th)

ERA: 3.10 (18th)

OBP against: .313 (34th)

GB%: 47% (34th)

FB: 28% (46th)

HR/9: .75 (23rd)

LD: 19% (53rd)

DP%: (53rd)

Blackburn is a ground-ball pitcher. As long as he keeps the ball on the ground (check), his keys to success are low OBP against (check), avoid HRs, and get deep into games (check, at least lately). Combine that with a few double plays and you're going to be pretty valuable. None of these stats are noteworthy on their own (slightly above average, in all), but combined they are pretty powerful. His ERA is better than I would expect based on this, which probably indicates that some regression should be expected, but overall, this is pretty solid.

When Blackburn was putting up the great statistics in AA and AAA, he got wide respect for his likelihood to contribute in the big leagues, but the knock was that he had a mid or back end starter. However, if Blackburn could continue to replicate this kind of success, which is awfully similar to the success he showed in the minors, he could be a front end of the rotation starter. He'll never be a stopper (Santana, Lincecum, etc.), because he doesn't have that type of stuff, but he could he be a #1/#2 type pitcher? I'm picturing the type of pitcher who can give you 200 IP, with an ERA of around 4.00 or better, year to year. What do you all think?

Poll

What is Blackburn's ceiling, and how likely is he to reach it?

Credibility 101

snolls — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:14:45 -0000

Lets say you are in lower manhattan, NYC, and you need to get to LaGuardia for a flight in 30 minutes. On average, cab drivers in NY make it to LaGuardia in less than 30 minutes 27.5% of the time. Drivers percentages vary from 22.5% to 32.5%.

You have two cab drivers in front of you. Driver (A) has been driving for 10 years (5000 trips), and makes the trip in 30 minutes 30% of the time. Driver (B) just started driving, has done the trip 5 times, and made it in time twice. Which cab should you take?

The answer, plus a basic lesson in statistics, after the break.

The answer is that you should take the driver who has performed better than average for 10 years. The odds are that driver B got lucky, and will not continue to demonstrate that success. Notice that this example can be turned into batting averages, give or take. If Carlos Gomez gets two hits in his first two at bats, does that make him a career .400 hitter? Yes, for now. Do you expect him to hit at .400 for the rest of his career?

Terms like small sample size, regress toward to the mean get thrown around here a lot (I'm really just quoting Ubelmann). But, at this site, and more so around the internet/blogosphere/tv/newspaper (ahem Hartman!), people don't really seem to understand it. I tried to find a good link to an explanation of credibilty, but failed, so I'll draw up the "lesson plan" myself. I hope this makes sense, I'm not much of a teacher.

Alright, lets say you are flipping a fair coin (50% heads). If you flip the coin once, you will get either 1 (heads) or 0 (tails). If you get a 1, do you expect to always get heads in the future? But, there is a 50% chance after 1 flip that you will end up with a "career" average of 1. If you flip it twice, there is a 25% chance that you will have a career average of 1, even though the "true" average is .5. If you flip it 10 times, there is a 0.1% chance that you still have a career average of 1. If you flip it 10 times, there is an 38% chance that you have a career average of at least .6. However, if you go to 100 flips, the probability of having a career average of at least .6 drops to 3%.

Hopefully this makes sense so far. The point being, that flipping a coin is a random process, and sometimes fair coins will show averages that aren't equal to the true probability. As the amount of experience rises (flips), the probability of remaining just as far away from the true mean decreases. Remember that for all of the cases mentioned above, no matter how many flips and how many heads, you would always have a 50% chance of heads in future flips.

Lets make it a bit more complicated. You have two coins, one is fair (50% heads), and one is not (60% heads). You have flipped a randomly chosen coin 10 times, and you have more than 6 heads heads. What are the odds of getting a heads on your next flip? This depends on the probability that your coin is the fair, or the weighted coin. Well, the fair coin had a 38% chance, and the weighted coin has a 63% chance of getting at least 6 heads. Since you randomly chose your coin, there is a 62% chance (63/(63+38)) that the coin you have chosen is the weighted coin. Your future EXPECTED flip is 62%*60% + 38%*50% = 56%. Note that this is lower than the average flip thusfar (which is greater than or equal to .6). In fact, it is very close to the mean flip of 55% (average of 50% and 60%).

In reality there is a different set of odds for 6 heads, 7 heads, 8 heads, but using "cumulative" distributions made my job easier. I will probably have my math corrected anyhow, because I'm racing to do this and get back to my work.

The idea is that this extends to any baseball player. Joe Mauer has a career average of something like .320. There is a chance that he is actually a .320 hitter, and has performed exactly as expected, that he is actually a .400 hitter, and has been unlucky, or that he is actually a .200 hitter, and should be expected to regress. The world of people hitting .320 is made of of mostly players who truly hit worse than .320 hitters, some who truly are .320 hitters, and a few that are truly better than .320 hitters. The odds are that any .320 hitter has gotten lucky, to some extent. The fact that he has performed above average does not make him a .320 hitter, but it does increase the probability that he is an above average hitter. However, the odds are less than 50% that he is truly a .320 hitter, because the average hitter is worse than .320.

I hope this makes sense. I'd love to see a good discussion about this, because I think that a lot of smart baseball people on this board don't completely understand the logic behind this. The other factors, like age, injuries, coaching, experience, etc complicate this model, but all have to be considered in aggregate to get fair, accurate projections.

Twins / Baker 4 year deal

snolls — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 21:04:07 -0000

The Twins bought out Baker's next four years for $15.25 million, plus $9.25 m option for 2013. buys out 3 arbitration years, plus 1 of FA plus option.

http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090307&content_id=3936016&vkey=news_min&fext=.jsp&c_id=min

Good way to spend money. Will they look to lock anyone else up? Mauer, Liriano, Young? The problem is that many of their players have time left before arbitration, so their isn't much need. Mauer and Liriano are the obvious choices, but also the expensive ones. That should be about 75 words.

FA infielders

snolls — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:35:23 -0000

I wonder if the Twins are still looking for infielders. There are a couple names still unsigned, which makes me think that their price tags have to be dropping. Even if they weren't worth it a couple of months ago, they may be worth a look as we get close to spring training. To me, the following stand out as worth a discussion:

Nomar Garciaparra - Could play some third, some first. Would push Brendan Harris into the utility/pinch hitter spot. Still, if he can play 75-100 games at 1B and 3B, provide lineup protection when he is in, and some pop off the bench when he sits, he would add some serious value to our offense. His defense isn't bad either. I would think he would probably play for a couple million, and only require a 1 year contract.

Shea Hillenbrand - It sounds like people don't like him, and he certainly had a terrible 2007, but at one time he could hit, and from the right side of the plate. He may be worthy of an invite to spring training, and let the coaches decide if he still has anything left.

Ty Wiggington - We've discussed him before, and he seemed a bit expensive based on his road splits. Still, if his price is falling, a two year deal wouldn't be the worst thing. Again, Harris probably gets pushed down a notch, and tolbert/macri lose their shot at the big league roster.

Ray Durham - I can't really see this happening, because it would demote Punto, but I'd be interested if he was available cheap. Based on his age, it pretty much comes down to whether he's willing to take a 1 year contract.

So - who wants to take a chance on one of these guys if the price is right? If so, please describe the right price.

Lets talk 3B

snolls — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 23:19:22 -0000

After last winter's Santana trade talk, I am realizing that my baseball withdrawal will be more severe this winter than usual. So, in order to get some hot stove chatter going, I thought I'd bring up potential 3B players for next year. I know that we've talked about this before, but it is a conversation that will continue to dominate any Twins talk this winter, and I think I can add a couple of names to the discussion.

First, there are the players that we are all hearing about available for trade:

Beltre: Good defender, great power, not the greatest OBP, expensive, only a only a one year deal.

Kouzmanoff: Out machine, good power, decent defense, under team control for a couple more years (3 I think, maybe four). Good splits away from S.D.

Atkins: Being supplanted by a prospect. Good hitter all around, average defense, in arbitration, scary splits away from Denver.

We have talked about those guys a good amount. The question really seems to come down to how much Beltre would cost in trade, whether Atkins is a product of lower atmospheric pressure, and whether Kouzmanoff is a product of a gigantic S.D. park. Since I don't know the answers to any of these, I'm not going to add anything else.

Then there are some free agent options:

Crede: Decent bat, back injury issues, good defense. Should be cheap and available for a short contract.

Blake: Good power, makes a lot of outs. Will want 3 years, and a respectable salary, 35 yrs old, Type B FA. I'm actually unsure about his defense (I really have no idea). I've seen some good plays, but that doesn't mean much, and defense definitely declines with age.

We've also discussed these in the past, and it comes down to how much to spend, and how much to expect based on age/injury. I'm not fond of either of these guys, but if you disagree, then convince me. I'm all ears.

There are some internal options:

Harris: Average bat, some (minimal) power. Nothing special on defense, but doesn't seem as much of a liability at 3B as at 2B.

Buscher: Solid bat, some power, not much defense, lefthanded.

Tolbert: Good defense, no power. Maybe some on-base skills, definitely fast.

Hughes/Valencia: Young, questionable defense.

Cuddyer: Didn't like 3B a couple of years ago.

Basically, these are the develop from within options. I see a Harris/Buscher/Tolbert platoon as likely, and hard to object to, if other options are too expensive. These are guys that you want on your roster. If they are there, Tolbert gives you a good glove option at many positions, Harris and Buscher give you flexibility off the bench around the infield while having decent bats. The question is whether you can get enough offense out of this group for 600 plate appearances at 3B. Cuddyer is a great option, unless his hitting is likely to suffer from the difficulties in adjusting to 3B. This was the argument for his breakout in 2006.

There are a couple of people that we haven't really discussed much that I think are worth a look:

Shea Hillenbrand: Good power, some clubhouse problems. Should be very cheap. Free agent.

Aubrey Huff: 32 yrs old, lots of power. At 1B now, but used to play 3B. I don't know anything about his defense. He is under contract for $8m (Orioles) in 2009, then is a FA. Lefthanded.

Brandon Wood: Top angels prospect. Big Bat (minor league ISO of .255), plays 3B and SS, played poorly in first taste of majors.

Andy LaRoche: Pittsburgh Pirates prospect, acquired in Manny 3-way trade this fall. ML service = .56. Some power, good OBP in minors.

I think that Hillenbrand is a really good FA option. He gets a contract, he comes in to play every day, and if it doesn't work out, he gets cut and we fall back on internal options. The team may be afraid to try another in the vein of Bautista/Lamb, but if they go the cheap FA route, Hillenbrand is the best bet, I think. Good bat, from 2002 until a mid year 2006 trade. He was basicall a .300/.340/.450 hitter, from the right side of the plate. Huff I suggest because he is such a big bat, and you have to assume that the Orioles would be open to trading anyone for prospects. The fact that he is left-handed, and has stark RHP/LHP splits means that he probably isn't a good candiate. I present Brandon Wood and Andy LaRoche as the path that I would really like the Twins to take. While Delmon Young hasn't yet been the player we hoped for, I really liked the idea of that trade. What the Twins need is a young, cheapgood bat at 3B. We are hoping that one of our prospects will be ready in another year or two, but why not just trade for exactly that? Go around the league, and ask teams what it would take to swap top prospects. This all comes down to costs, but I imagine Brandon Wood being available for something like Slowey and Hughes, or Blackburn and Revere. Maybe that is too much to pay, and maybe I'm mis-judging the cost, but that's the question.

Ignoring cost ($ and players), my wish list is as follows: Wood, LaRoche, Beltre, Hillenbrand, Kouzmanoff, internal options. What do other people think? I know that you can't ignore cost, so I'm also curious what people think might be feasible.

For instance, would you trade Slowey straight up for Wood? Would you trade Someone like Hicks, Angel Morales, Valencia, etc with a good pitching prospect for any 3B prospects (Wood, LaRoche, Ian Stewart etc.).

What other players should be added to this list? What players' characterizations do you disagree with (especially defense)?

Changes In the Game

snolls — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:19:14 -0000

Interesting reference in Kelly Theisers article on the draft.

"Former scouting director Mike Radcliff, who is currently the vice president of player personnel, has indicated that the Twins feel there will be a shift in the game in coming years, focusing more on athletic, speedy players rather than the bulked-up power hitters seen during the "boom or bust" days of the past 10-15 years. The Twins have tried to adjust their thinking to that when obtaining players, and perhaps center fielder Carlos Gomez is one of the best examples of that trend."

I find this to be a very interesting perspective. The Twins seem to have made their own "moneyball" assessment that power hitters are overvalued in the post-steroid era. They certainly have loaded their minor league system with singles and doubles hitters who can run.

While I'm dissappointed they haven't picked up more big bats in the infield or at the corner outfield positions, I do tend to like their logic. These players are cheaper, and don't have the same risk associated power hitters who can't get the ball to the seats.

I'm just worried that the Twins are overloaded on talent in CF. While I understand the "take the best player" approach, it is extemely difficult to trade good prospects for other good prospects. If Gomez sticks in CF for a couple of years, and they don't get rid of Span, there is a real jam in giving other CF opportunities to improve at higher levels. The Twins need to seriously start looking at prospect only trades. How do they swap a Span/Revere/Martin for a 3B/SS with similar potential. The same is true for pitchers. While most of us respect the Twins patient approach with pitching, at some point they need to move these guys up. That means trading away from their strength.

I assume the problem is that if you call up a team and say "we want to trade you one of our better prospects for one of your's" the other team is going to get nervous that they're being sold a lemon.

Leaving Slowey in

snolls — Fri, 30 May 2008 02:40:36 -0000

I wish Slowey had gotten the shutout, so this post wouldn't sound affected by the run he gave up.

Gardenhire shouldn't have left Slowey in the game for the 9th, and possibly even the 8th. In light of the low pitch count, and especially the heavy innings the bullpen got in this series, I understand the 8th inning, but the 9th was a mistake. This is a pitcher that has been injured, and isn't as "stretched out" as other major leaguers. He was clearly already getting tired, as his fastball was registering 89-90 in the 8th and 9th. While he still pitched fine tonight, this will catch up to him in the next start. While he only threw 101 pitches, remember that he threw an extra 8 warm-up pitches for each extra inning. Say thats an extra 15-25 pitches, and that is a lot.

I think they should have put Rincon in. He isn't real dependable right now, so this was the perfect outing.

Different issue: Does anyone who understands good baseball technique have any insight on Kubel's swing. It looks to me like he is opening up his front hip really early, especially against left-handers. Presumably, this is because he is trying to pull the ball. He should be staying back, and pulling the ball by getting the bat-head out in front, and hitting it the other way on the pitches he is late to. Opening up, as I understand it, means that any opposite field hits will have no power, and a lot of the powerful hits will be foul. I'm no expert though, and I'd love to hear someone else's analysis.

Gomez and Casilla

snolls — Thu, 15 May 2008 03:47:29 -0000

I didn't watch the game tonight, so I don't know how the at-bats looked, but I did see the box score. Combined 1 for 8 with 4 strikeouts. I have high hopes for both players (less so for Casilla), but I think they should be forced to watch each other's at-bats closely, and go through tape together. I'm real worried that our future 1-2 are a pair of strikeouts in a row every other time.

What do we think of Casilla? I think a lot of people were pretty high on him a year ago, but I'm somewhat concerned now. He hasn't shown much ability to hit MLB or AAA pitching, and he is still erratic in the field. Obviously we all want to have a high level, high ceiling middle infield prospect, but I'm just not sure he's it. I think he's just the best we've got.

Thoughts?

Gomez & Stikeouts

snolls — Sun, 04 May 2008 03:24:13 -0000

"The first month, I struck out 24 times; I can get that to 10 [per month]," he said. "That's what I want to do. When I get on base, I change the game."

Said Twins hitting coach Joe Vavra: "That's good he's talking about it. That shows me he's getting it. ... We've been on him about cutting down his swing and trying to keep his feet underneath him."

http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins/18551434.html

I've been complaining for a while that Gomez looks terrible in the batter's box, and that it was ludicrous of the team to be supporting this aggressive approach (wild swings, terrible balance, nearly jumping mid-swing). It is now my responsibility to own up to the fact that I wasn't giving management enough credit. Clearly they have been working on strikeouts and mechanics (keeping his feet underneath him). I guess this serves as a good reminder that just because someone said it for an interview, it doesn't mean that's their true opinion. Gardy was obviously just trying to show support for Gomez publicly, while working quietly behind the scenes on the areas of improvement.

Maybe this means that he doesn't really like getting Punto in their whenever he can.

Centerfielders

snolls — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 04:47:56 -0000

If we trade Santana for Melky, Ellsbury or Crisp, its pretty clear that to me that they will start in CF. It is less clear what happens if we trade for Gomez or, in some crazy change, don't trade Santana.

The Twins are much more cautious with their prospects than the Mets, and it seems to work. Gardenhire has also proven to be uncomfortable with very young players. Will/should the Twins start Gomez in AAA if he doesn't have a great spring? He has not yet shown that he can hit in the show or even dominate in the Minors.

2006 (age 20): AA 430 AB, .281/.349/.423 41 SB
2007 (21): AAA 140 AB, .286/.363/.414 17 SB
MLB 125 AB, .232/.288/.394 12 SB

So he can clearly burn on the basepaths, and even seems to have a decent ability to draw walks. I realize that he will be another year older, with the experience that comes along, but if he had been in the Twins system the whole time, I would be sure that he would be at AAA until at least the all-star game.

What should the Twins do? I don't know if anyone will agree with me, but I propose the following, at least for discussion purposes. The Twins put Gomez at AAA (unless he has a spectacular spring) and start Pridie in CF. Pridie is not going to be a strength, but solid defense would be enough for me. He and Everett would be our only two weak spots in the lineup, which is an improvement over last year, and we have better pinch hitters. At the all-star break we swap the two. Gomez gets 80 games of practice/instruction, and they are probably less concerned about damaging Pridie by bringing him along too quickly. Any thougths?

Other options:
1.Try to have Monroe or Young play CF for half a year.
2. Sign Lofton or Patterson. I like the idea of Patterson, but I doubt he and the twins could agree on length. We only need him for 1 year.
3. Trade for Crisp - which prospect(s) would get it done?
4. Start Gomez from the beginning. Expectations from fans may demand this anyway, and Gomez might get upset if he gets "demoted".
5. Put Punto or Casilla there. Casilla has the speed to cover some ground, and Gardy loves playinig Punto.
6. Other?