SB Nation User Blog: snolls

Improving for 2010 (trades, etc)

snolls — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:30:43 -0000

I know that our focus is back to the Twins making the playoffs, which is exciting and all, but I'm still ready to plan ahead. I just think the Front Office should wait to do it until the offseason.

The following is my discussion of the Twins should improve themselves going forward, and it includes considering a pretty significant restructuring of the squat (i.e. the team should explore trading some top players)

First things first, what do we have:

C - top catcher in the league, for 1 more year

1B - top tier

2B - unclear. Currently poor, potentially average, extremely cheap

SS - poor, expensive (Punto). On the other hand, we have an excellent, if expensive utility player.

3B - One decent prospect, very immature. Miscellaneous replacement level talent who could fight for a spot

OF - One good defensive, excellent OBP OF (Span), who can play anywhere. One excellent defensive, poor offensive CF. One poor defensive, unclear offensive corner (Young), one average offensive, decent power, average defense OF (Cuddyer), one very good DH who can pretend on defense (Kubel)

DH - one very good DH, who can sort of play OF (see above), a bunch of other people who can handle 30 games each (Mauer, Morneau, Cuddyer, Young, possible additions next year at 3B), to keep them fresh.

Starters - who knows. I'm going with 1 front end starter (Baker), 2 middle rotation (Slowey, Blackburn), two good for innings back end rotation (Perkins, Bonser), and a bunch of mysteries (Liriano, Swarzak, Duensing, Manship).

Relief - again, who knows. I'm going with top end closer (Nathan), two average dependable late inning guys (Rauch, Mijares), a couple of average middle relief (Guerrier, Dickey, Crain), and some good long relief options (the entire Redwings squad, Dickey, Bonser). I'm not sure if we have Mahay next year or not.

To me, our positions of strength C, 1B, DH, low level OF prospects, and hopefully increasing revenue. We have a surplus of average OF talent. We are deficient at middle infield and all pitching. Our best in-house bet at 3B is very unproven. Also, our system is now relatively weak (it was already, but now subtract Pino, Mulvey, and Ladendorf).

My reaction is that the twins need to trade from their positions of strength to fill their holes.

Position of strength 1: OF / DH: The Twins should look to trade either Kubel or Cuddyer, depending on who will bring the most in return. I tend to say trade Kubel. As 33MorneauMVP pointed out in response to this earlier, Kubel is one of the best hitting DH's, particularly against RH pitchers. He also happens to be extremely cheap. I would imagine there are a lot of teams that could really benefit. Additionally, because he is better against RH, he would be more valuable to a team looking for a LH bat than the Twins. If teams won't offer enough for him, then we should trade Cuddyer, and his $8 million salary (maybe $9, I forget). The other alternative is Young, though I would rather keep him, and put him in RF.

This would allow the Twins to platoon Mauer (30-40 games games), Morneau (20-30 games), Cuddyer (20-30 games), Young (30 ish games) and a yet to be acquired RH bat that we sign in the offseason. Span could probably also get some DH at-bats, to save his legs a bit. If we still have Young, Cuddyer, Span and Gomez, then one of them sits when Mauer DHs, and Cuddyer slides to 1B when Morneau DHs, and one of them DHs the rest of the time.

This trade should be for a young, or AAA prospect middle infielder or pitching prospect. Again, I think that Kubel could net us someone very talented (Escobar or Escobar?). Maybe we and other teams could add in lower tier prospects to balance it out as deemed appropriate.

Position of strength 2: Closer. Someone mentioned this, but Nathan is worth trading, if the haul is right. I mean, don't the Mets want to spend a fortune on a third closer? :)

The deal probably won't be right, but if we could get back a middle infielder, or a decent 7th or 8th inning reliever and a starter prospect, to restock our system, it might be worth it. Remember, his salary could be used to get us some other talent in the FA market.

Position of strength 3: Lowel level minor league OF. If we are trying to play for the next couple of years (Mauer and Morneau's primes), then we need to look at using Revere/Hicks/Morales etc to get us the pieces we need now. I would happily trade any one of them (we'll still have others left), plus other lesser prospects, to get us elite players at our weakest positions.

Position of strenght 4: Money - depending on what happens with revenue projections, Cuddyer, Nathan, Cabrera, and arbitrations, we should have money to spend. A pile of this should go to Mauer. More should be spend shoring up the pitching (starting or relieving, depending on who's available), and whatever we can't fill through trade.

The much harder part is figuring out who we should get, and that's because I know nothing about people's trade cost, or projected salaries for next year. So I'll leave that to others here to propose. The main point is this: we as fans need to remember that you have to pay to get value in return. The players we love as being top contributors are also those that could get us value in return. It's a risk, but it's the only way to try to really improve the team, after we hit our budget constraints. Kubel is my main example here. He's great, but he might be worth more to other teams than he is to us.

Bench Joe Mauer

snolls — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:14:51 -0000

Bench Joe Mauer. That's right, I said it. The guy is hitting .260/.315/.420 since the all-star break. Sure, "small sample size" some people might say (especially me). Or, "no worries, he was bound to regress toward the mean, after mainting an OBP near .550 for so long", and "OPS of .735 is still fine for a catcher".

Hogwash! His legs are hurting. Evidence here:

2009 monthly splits:

April: N/A. In fact, he didn't even start working out really until April. That means that February and March, normally busy months of getting in shape, crouching while working with pitchers, running, lots of swings, wasn't really happening until early - mid april.

May: .414 / .500 / .838 , 11 HR- yeah, pretty freakishly good. Sure, there might have been some luck involved, (ok, lots), but fresh legs are good for a ball player.

June: .353 / .407 / .490 , 3 HR - still very good, especially from a catcher. Still, the drop off in power makes him much less valuable, and a .407 OBP is great, but not elite, when you consider that there are 17 MLB players over .400 for the season, and 24 over .390. A lot of those players hit for significantly more power than Joe Mauer.

July: .289 / .356 / .422 , 3 HR - Decent production, from a catcher, but not what we talk about when we say that Joe Mauer is one of the best hitters in the game.

Career monthly splits:

March / April: .328 / .416 / .439

May: .361 / . 439 / .554

June: .323 / .392 / .515

July: .308 / .395 / .456

Aug: .299 / .391 / .419

Sept: .313 / .386 / .431

Notice that the OBP has a general, slight downward trend (possibly not statistically significant), but the first half v second have SLG is a significant difference.
--------

My argument is that though a lot of the statistical drop off this year is sample size related, in order to get the most out of him going into the playoffs, we need to keep his legs fresh. Especially to keep some power in his stroke. While it is great to have a guy that can get on base at a .386 clip in september who plays catcher, it would be worth a lot to up his slugging another 70-100 points.

This year, it seems to me that Gardy played him a lot more games in May / June then he normally would have, probably to try to get him qualified for the batting title. This might be contributing to his relatively weak play, for Mauer that is, lately. I say play him in the field a day a week, DH 2 or 3 per week, and PH the rest for the next 3 weeks or so. Tell him in advance, so that he can rest and lift weights appropriately. See if that doesn't help him stay fresh into late August and September. It will hurt to lose him for the 10 or so games that he sits, but the downgrade will be made up when a stronger Mauer comes back.

Also, for those who were arguing that he is "really a .380 type of hitter", or whatever the argument that he's the type that has a good chance at hitting .400 this year, I want say that this is what happens when you are dealing with a random process (see previous, somewhat heated arguments about credibility). Numbers fluctuate, and unusual observations are just that, unusual.

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?

Perennial 200+ IP, <4.00 ERA, very likely

14 votes

Perennial 200+IP, <4.00 ERA, but unlikely

20 votes

He'll get the innings, but ERA mid 4's is his ceiling, likely

12 votes

Consistent innings, and mid 4's ERA are more of a maybe, probably a back-end guy for his career

2 votes

48 votes | Poll has closed

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?