Cup of Coffee: May 31, 2007
Posted by SBG on Thursday, May 31st, 2007 at 6:25 am
You know what they say... a walk's as good as a hit.
This entry was posted by SBG on Thursday, May 31st, 2007 at 6:25 am and is filed under Cup of Coffee. It is one of 2331 entries by the author. We are no longer accepting Letters to the Editor on this post. Why?
38 LTEs
Sorry, The WGOM is no longer accepting Letters to the Editor on this article.
Loading ...
especially a Castillo hit
Guerrier has become a stud in the bullpen. When did that happen, and where was I??
Who would have thought that Torii Hunter of all people would be the one to take the walk off walk. (a term I hate by the way)
Punto looked good at second base. Hypothetically... next year, would you rather the Twins pick up a legit 3rd baseman, move Punto to 2nd or keep Castillo and keep Punto at 3rd. Option 3, which I hope they don't do is Punto at 3rd and bring up Casilla at 2nd (I think he is at least two years away)
Hypothetically, I'd rather the Twins brought Casilla back up to play 2b and acquired a legit 3b. Use Punto the way God intended -- as a utility man.
or, dare I say it, give Matt Tolbert his shot. He's been tearing up the IL so far (356/427/545 in 34 games). Hard to tell whether he can sustain that leap in performance (275/342/395 career minor league track record coming in over 256 games, 72 at New Britain last year).
NBB, what can you tell us about Matt Tolbert? Does he have "major league makeup" or is he a red-light district hussy wearing pancake?
After the look we had at Casilla early this year, I'd agree that he could use more time at AAA and right now I would not pencil him in as our starting 2nd baseman next year. I have no problem with Punto at second defensively, but offensively he's still a bottom of the lineup guy (despite Gardy's insistance on batting him 2nd), so we'd need to groom a new leadoff hitter (maybe Bartlett?). But honestly, I've become a pretty big Luis Castillo fan and would favor keeping him around next year if we can do it for around $5 million (he's currently playing out his $5.75 million option year), so that would mean Punto at 3B, but get him out of the two-hole in the lineup, please. While I'd love to acquire a "legit" 3rd baseman, it's going to cost money that would probably be better spent on retaining Santana or Nathan or Hunter or whoever. While Mauer is signed long-term, the MVP and Cuddyer aren't, and that will likely cost the team some extra dollars in arbitration the next couple of years unless they get something done this offseason. And I just don't think that many teams with good hitting 3rd basemen are going to give them up without wanting a bunch of our pitching prospects, and a free agent would be too expensive given our other contract priorities (see: Santana, Nathan, etc.). The point is that with this team and this payroll, you have to accept some weakness at certain positions, which is something that many fans have not fully grasped, I think. Everybody wants to upgrade, whether its 3rd base or the back of the rotation or DH or LF, but we don't have the money to do it. I'd also caution that when we do have our 'star' players all signed to longer term deals that it will exacerbate our current lack of position depth.
Now, it wasn't part of your question, but what to do about CF also weighs on my mind. Keeping Torii will be expensive, and Denard Span is not the answer, he's just another outfield piranha like Jason Tyner, and I don't know why the organization has such high expectations for him. We'd have to be pretty far out of contention by the deadline to trade Hunter away, considering how he's fueled the offense this year, and the fact that he's still pretty damn good defensively even though he has lost a bit of his range. So I don't see a whole lot of good options for replacing Hunter right now, which concerns me more than finding a better offensive 3rd baseman.
The irony of this dillemma after last year's discussions of what to do with Hunter is almost too much.
Your right! This discussion is literally ironic!
The irony of this dillemma after last year’s discussions of what to do with Hunter is almost too much.
I still think it's possible the Twins missed the boat by keeping Hunter. Yes, he's been great for the first two months of this season, but what could he have fetched in a trade? It seems to me that TR could've used Hunter to pry a couple of legit prospects from teams that traditionally don't like to rely on young players.
Consider that Pierzynski got the Twins a short-term and long-term solution at closer, and then two long-term solutions in the rotation. If Torii could've gotten the Twins a couple of players to fill needs at 3B and LF, would it have been worth it? Sure, we would be weakening CF, but adding some more balance to the offense sure wouldn't hurt. And it could have eliminated the need to bring back the ever-absent RonDL, who was really only worth having because the Twins are so weak at corner positions.
As it stands, we'll get Torii's contributions this year, which many figured to be pretty good anyway, it being a career year and all, but at the end of the year, we'll have a couple extra draft picks, which are valuable, but are far riskier than more developed players we could have gotten for Torii over the winter.
Really, though, I just wish I knew that Terry Ryan actually explored this avenue of thinking. If he looked for trades and couldn't find equal value, that's one thing, but I get the feeling that Torii was sort of off-limits, and TR has a habit of just keeping players around until they walk away, rather than dealing them while they still have value.
We'll never know entirely, as Hunter was seriously injured right before the trade deadline in 2005, which really diminished his trade value, both at the deadline (zero) and in the off season. Last year, the Twins were in the hunt and Hunter got hurt right before the deadline again.
I read an article on ESPN yesterday that described the market for free agent CF being a) deep b) affordable due to the fact that many of the money teams will not be in the market for a CF next year. If Hunter finishes with 30homers, 25 steals, .280 + AVG and continues to regain his defensive prowness, I would be cool with signing him in that $10 million range (2-3 years at the very max). Otherwise, unfortunately we will probably either get stuck with a Punto-like centerfielder (Ewww Ford, Span, Tyner) or possible Punto himself. If Kubel turns into a 20, 90, .280 guy like we all hope, then we would be looking at glaring holes in CF, 3b, 2b, and DH. (maybe even SS if Bartlett doesn't come around offensively)
Baring any minor leaguer stepping in (don't see it right now) or TRyan making a legit free agent positional signing (don't see it), we are not going to score many runs next year. We will be back to starting pitching (should be much better) and the best bullpen in baseball. Typical eeek into the playoff or just miss type of team. I wish it was more, but that is who we are right now. Until the new park gets done anyway.
.318/.359/.578 -- Hunter, 2007
.289/.341/.458 -- Soriano, 2006
This is the comparison I keep bringing up, and I think it's an important one. Soriano got an 8 year, $136M contract for doing what Hunter's been doing at the plate, but with worse defense in the outfield. The free agent class this year might be deep, but it's not the difference between 3/$30M and 8/$136M. I'm thinking Hunter gets somewhere around 5/$80M.
ubes... really... 5 years 80 million... nope... Ichiro will get the biggest contract of the FA centerfielders... probably in the range you just mentioned. Andrew Jones will get hot this yet year and get 3-4 years at 13-15 mill per year (he doesn't deserve more than Torii but he will get it).
If Torii finishes with the numbers he is posting now, yeah... he might get 13-15 mil per year. Seriously, I like Torii, but he will cool down somewhere along the way and end up slightly better than his average seasonal offensive numbers. If that is so, he will end up in the 10-13 million range. His injury problems will keep the number down. Plus, Yankees won't be in the bidding. Sounds like Red Sox probably not. Without those two driving the price, it won't get that high.
However, it will probably be more than the Twins can afford (especially length of contract) and he will be gone... odds are Texas.
I'm not sure that the Yankees won't be interested.
Without those two driving the price, it won’t get that high.
I don't think that's necessarily a good assumption. What you proposed was a 3 year, $30M contract for Hunter. At that price, anyone who needs an outfielder is going to be involved in the bidding. Toronto just spent $20M/2yr on a guy who doesn't even play defense. Houston spent $100M/6yr on a guy who essentially doesn't play defense. I really can't see Hunter getting anything less than $50M/4yr, and I really think that $80M/5yr is reasonable, because even if Hunter cools off, he's going to be pretty close to that line that Soriano put up.
I'm also not so sure that Ichiro gets the highest contract. Torii's defensive rep is better than Ichiro's, Torii has better power numbers (which is more uncommon for CF), and Torii is younger than Ichiro by two years. Ichiro could get the most, but I could also see some team valuing Hunter more than the highest bidder for Ichiro values Ichiro.
I think your 4 yr / 50million is probably much closer. I never proposed a 3/30 deal, I just said I would sign him for that much. If the price is any higher/longer I would pass. I think most baseball minds would take Ichiro's defense over Hunters, but there are many GM's out there who aren't necessarily great baseball minds.
My premise in responding to your comment was 5/80 just won't happen unless Torii finishes just as strong as he started, if not stronger. I just don't see it. In the end, I think we are in the same general ballpark on numbers, I am just shading to the right and you are shading to the wrong (oops I mean left).
I am just shading to the right and you are shading to the wrong (oops I mean left).
something tells me it should be a lot easier to find a regular 3b than to re-sign Hunter.
current avg AL 3b line: 254/327/430
last year's avg 3b line: 269/339/442
Punto's 2007 line : 237/337/295
Punto's 2006 line :290/352/373
Cot's Contracts identifies the following 3bs on the FA line this winter:
Russell Branyan SD
Corey Koskie * MIL
Mike Lamb HOU
Mike Lowell BOS
Greg Norton * TB
Abraham O. Nunez PHI
Alex Rodriguez NYY (may void after 2007)
of those, A-Rod obviously is a non-starter.
Mike Lowell (age 33 season) is making $9m this year and is in the midst of a toriid streak (330/386/573 this year). Out of our price range.
Russell Branyan (age 31 season) is severely underpaid ($1.25 million) and currently hitting 231/355/519 for SD. Worth a look. What's he worth on the open market? $18 million over 3 years? Probably too rich for our blood.
Mike Lamb (age 31, $2.7 million) is hitting 271/347/376. Not much of an upgrade if any at all from Punto.
Greg Norton ($800k, $1 million club option for 2008) has barely played this year (176/417/176 in 24 PA). Not interested.
Nunez (age 31, 287/339/366, $1.925 million plus club option for 2008) has been decent for Philly, but has no track record of being better than Punto.
that brings us back to Koskie (age 34, has not played yet this year -- post-concussive syndrome). If Ryan Braun (who has been destroying AAA pitching at Nashville) can establish himself this year, Koskie is done in Milwaukee. I seriously doubt that he will be able to find someone willing to give him $6.75 million per year (his current deal) at age 35, after having missed a ton of time this year. But I don't think ~$5 million per for 2 years would be so crazy to bring him back "home", would it?
But I don’t think ~$5 million per for 2 years would be so crazy to bring him back “home”, would it?
I think what might be crazy is assuming he'll ever play again. Much as I like him, Corey's career looks like it may be toast.
Really?
soo, I went looking for stories. this appears to be the latest word.
from this week's SI, in a blurb-fest on HBPs, comes this:
Are the Yankees bad or unlucky? They are 4-17 in games decided by 2 or fewer runs. Although their record is 22-29, their expected W-L is 28-23. Still not earth shattering, but we could see the Yanks storm back.
Bullpen, small ball, clutch hitting... all things that the Yanks allegedly struggle with and are allegedly myths to many sabemetricians.
I think they will climb back to .500, but with that bullpen and the Chisox-like station to station offense, I don't see them challenging the Red Sox. Unless, of course the Red Sox choke.
The Red Sox could easily start a steep downhill slide if they were to be decimated by injuries like the Yankee pitching staff (in literal terms, that would be 2.5 injured players on a 25 man roster, so they'd have to be key position players or some starting pitching). That's not out of the question considering the average age of their roster is 30.9, the third oldest in MLB. Like the Twins and Tigers did last year, the Yanks would have to put together a really strong run and Boston would have to cool off considerably. So go ahead and write the Yankees obituary for this season, but don't publish it until the coroner confirms that rigor mortis has set in.
Also, I've been reading a lot lately here and elsewhere about teams being lucky or unlucky and the role of luck in baseball. I believe that luck does play a role in baseball, at least within individual games... a bad bounce, a blow call by the ump, balls lost in the sun or lights (or catwalks), etc. can change the momentum of a game and swing the advantage one way or the other. I'm not so sure about the role of luck over extended periods, though. What we call luck could also be viewed simply as manifestations of statistical anomolies. Was the Twins resurgence last season based on luck? It would have to be viewed as something of an anomoly, since it's not predictable and not likely to be repeated by this team anytime soon. So I guess you have to go back and ask the question, what is luck, how do we define it? Is it simply performance that does not align with statistical probabilities, or is it more than that, maybe some unexected mixture of synergy and serendipity that you just can't ever account for? What I do know is that the unexpected result is one of the things that makes watching baseball so much fun. In fact, seeing nothing but expected outcomes day in and day out would be pathetically boring.
The Twins system was substantially changed in the middle of the year. Liriano was plugged into the rotation and was unbeatable. The Cubanistas were jettisoned and Nick Bartlett and Jason Punto were a huge upgrade. Justin Morneau exploded. I don't think there was a whole lot of luck involved (well, maybe some).
It's hard to explain how a team could be 4-17 in close games, and 18-12 in games that aren't close. You would think that a team's record in close games would be reasonably close to their overall record.
What I was suggesting earlier is that it is likely that the Yankees will regress to the mean.
Got it. But I may investigate this idea of how luck plays out in baseball a little more. It might make an interesting GameDay article if approached right.
You would think that a team’s record in close games would be reasonably close to their overall record.
Why?
You have a discrete distribution of runs scored and a second, almost independent, discrete distribution of runs allowed. You are, in essence, randomly matching draws from the two distributions (of course, there is a systematic component to each, mostly driven by the qualities of the two starting pitchers, and there really are different runs-allowed distributions for every opponent, but ... ).
I need several beers at the ready if I'm going any further with this. I guess that the "close game" win rate should converge on the overall win rate in sufficiently large samples. But I'm guessing that 162 games isn't anywhere near close enough to "sufficiently large".
I guess that the “close game” win rate should converge on the overall win rate in sufficiently large samples. But I’m guessing that 162 games isn’t anywhere near close enough to “sufficiently large”.
It might not be large enough for the variance to be on the 1-2 game level, but if you were going to do a study on whether or not a team has been lucky or unlucky in close games, it seems to me that you should use something like their pythagorean winning percentage or something to estimate what their expected winning percentage in close games should be, rather than assuming they should be .500 in close games.
Personally, I sort of cringe everytime I see an analyst suggest that all teams have a devine right to being .500 in close ballgames. It stands to reason that good teams should win close ballgames more than bad teams would win close ballgames. If that's not the case, I haven't seen anyone provide the empirical justification for it.
for those with nothing better to do, here is a paper that offers a theoretical justification for the generic, Pythagorean Win Expectancy formula.
Was the Twins resurgence last season based on luck?
As SBG suggests, it was certainly based on significant changes in the lineup that was being put on the field every day. However, I would say that it was also somewhat based on luck. From June 15th to October 1st last season, the Twins won 67% of their games. Over 98 games, that's an incredible winning percentage. That team last year was good, but were they that good? I tend to think that there was some luck involved there.
I’m not so sure about the role of luck over extended periods, though.
Consider that in 2005, Johan Santana had a run support of 4.70 and Bartolo Colon had a run support of 6.02. The Twins that year averaged 4.21 R/G and the Angels averaged 4.70 R/G, so the Angels were better overall offensively, but not 1.3 R/G better.
Why did this happen? I don't have any better reason than luck, but maybe I'm lacking in imagination. I guess maybe you can say that the Twins ran into more difficult opposing pitchers when Santana pitched than the Angels did when Colon pitched, but isn't that essentially out of the team's control? If it's out of the team's control, I would just tend to lump that in with "bad luck."
Certainly luck gets thrown around in a lot of different contexts without being very precisely defined, but I think there's definitely room for luck, even over the course of a long 162-game season. And I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, either.
In terms of the Twins 2006 season, yes - there were significant changes in the roster that improved the team's chances of winning more games. But at the same time winning the division required a significant downturn by Detroit, especially in the final 3 games when probability would have indicated that Detroit would not be swept by the Royals. So that's where the luck component comes in, which means I've contradicted myself and should just shut up now. But I'm gonna keep thinkin' on it.
In terms of the Twins 2006 season, yes - there were significant changes in the roster that improved the team's chances of winning more games. But at the same time winning the division required a significant downturn by Detroit, especially in the final 3 games when probability would have indicated that Detroit would not be swept by the Royals. So I guess there is a long-term 'luck' component in many things, like Bert Blyleven's career. Had he played for better teams and won more games he'd probably be in the HOF right now.
As to Detroit losing last 3 to KC, Twins lost 2 of 3 to White Sox. Both seemed to be setting up for playoffs. Twins managed to win one Detroit didn't.
Well, that was weird. I must have posted the first comment without realizing it, because I was still editing.
Cleveland/Detroit in overtime. Le-Bron Bertin' James. Wow. What a fourth quarter.
Double overtime now, eh?
I really like how Cleveland spread the ball around in the first OT.
And Cleveland wins. LeBron gets 48, and scored 29 of Cleveland's last 30 points. Unbelievable.
The Chuckster was glowing in his review after the game, saying it was the best game he'd seen in person since some game he played against a dude named Jordan in the playoffs. Or something like that.
I worked last night and we had the game on in the bar area. When the Cavs were down about 5 or 6 with about 2 minutes in regulation, someone said "the Cavs are done... it's over" I looked over at the guy and said... "this is Lebron's Michael Jordan moment. He will either will his team to victory, or lose this game, but this will define him."
Sure enough Lebron made my comment seem much more intelligent than it probably was. Another guest said that these two team were in this same 2-3 spot last year, and the Pistons took the last 2 to crush the Cavs dreams. My response on that was "Didn't you just watch what just happened" The parallel to Michael are pretty amazing. I think his time in now.... wow!!