The claim made often is that, on paper, the Twins look like favorites in the AL central. But that is not only "on paper", it seems to be based on optimistic projections for almost every player in the lineup. Who are the players most likely to disappoint? Here is a semi-pessmistic list of players who could disappoint. Of course injuries and high expectations could make any player a disappointment, but these are players who seem to be most likely to not to quite live up to Twins fans hopes:
JJ Hardy. Almost every evaluation of the Twins has Hardy hitting and fielding the way he did a couple years ago. But last year Hardy really struggled offensively and there are reports his defense has slipped as he has matured. He no longer has the range to be a plus at shortstop. Even Hardy's lose season averages last year may be optimistic, inflated by one hot month. If he continues to struggle the Twins will have a huge hole at shortstop.
Delmon Young: The Twins outfield looks solid, but it depends on Delmon Young hitting the way he ended the season, not the way he started out. That is a reasonable hope, but again until Young shows he can use his potential over a full season it is not a certainty. If he doesn't, with Gomez gone there are not a lot of options available to fill the hole. We may see Kubel in left and Thome at DH more than we want.
Jim Thome: Thome is old. He faded at the end of last season and didn't do very well in a pinch hit role. Its possible he will not be able to find his swing with irregular playing time for the first time in his career. Its also possible that fade was not a fluke, that pitchers found they could challenge him in ways they avoided to start the year.
Orlando Hudson:. Its not clear whether Hudson slipped and lost his job or if Joe Torre just decided to ride the hot bat in the playoffs. But it is a bit suspicious when an all-star, gold glove defensive infielder is replaced in mid-season no matter how hot the other player's bat. Hudson is slow and his "gold glove" defense may not be what it was. If his OBP slips, the excitement about him in the number two spot in the order could fade to disappointment at a base blogging runner who fails to score even when he gets on base.
Kevin Slowey: Slowey is being counted on to fill a spot in the rotation, but reported his wrist was still sore form his surgery which had two screws put in it. Its possible that will change his delivery or effect his control.
Francisco Liriano The spring hype about Liriano's return to his 2006 form could turn out to be just that and Liriano will struggle the same as last year.
Michael Cuddyer Cuddyer really stepped up when Morneau was hurt. Its not clear he can sustain that over an entire season. He could contribute to a disappointing outfield.
Carl Pavano. Pavano's arrival really transformed the pitching staff last year. Or maybe it didn't, but it coincided with improvement in the rest of the staff. Pavono may not be quite the pitcher some people have projected and he could easily follow a long line of disappointing veterans. He is not really an "inning eater". Instead he is a solid mid to back rotation starter. If he is asked to step up to the number two or three spot in the rotation he may not be up to it.
Joe Nathan Nathan is going to start slipping at some point. This could be the year and the Twins don't really have anyone to take his place.
The rest of the bullpen: The Twins bullpen looks solid, but ... any or all of its members could disappoint. Relief pitching is always high risk and the Twins are counting on a number of players who have had their ups and downs.
Of course there are also some players who could step up and surprise us. If you look at that list there is good reason for Twins fans optimism. Except for Hardy and Young, the downside for most of these players is either unlikely or not catastrophic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
Once again, you make it out like you're going against the grain by arguing against a supposed conventional wisdom that doesn't really exist. Yes, if a significant number of players have down years then the Twins will probably miss the playoffs. That isn't exactly a groundbreaking position you're taking, I'm sorry to say.
Almost every evaluation of the Twins has Hardy hitting and fielding the way he did a couple years ago.
Find me one such evaluation. Most anlaysis I've read has been pretty cautious in evaluating Hardy, noting that he's not particularly likely to rebound all the way back to the level he was at in 2008. I know that's my stance. But Twins' shortstops hit .263/.309/.374 last season, and it's not a stretch to believe Hardy can best that.
He no longer has the range to be a plus at shortstop.
According to what? The scouting report you've assembled from probably not watching him at all last year? How do you expect people to put any stock into completely unsupported statements like this?
If his [Hudson's] OBP slips, the excitement about him in the number two spot in the order could fade to disappointment at a base blogging runner who fails to score even when he gets on base.
Twins' second basemen hit .209/.302/.267 last year. What else needs to be said? You seem to think that the high expectations for the Twins this year are based on people unreasonably expecting all these new acquisitions to have spectacular years, but that simply isn't the case. The Twins made the playoffs last year with almost no production whatsoever from the middle infield spots, and now they've acquired veteran players who have had a lot of success in the past while also retaining each key contributor from a year ago. It would be almost impossible for the Twins to not get better production from those spots with the new guys. And that's not setting expectations for those new guys very high.
Anticipating that Hardy, Hudson and Thome can outperform Punto, Casilla and Buscher is not really all that "optimistic."
"Anticipating that Hardy, Hudson and Thome can outperform Punto, Casilla and Buscher is not really all that "optimistic."
I think that is another example of the unrealistic optimism. Hardy, Hudson and Thome aren't really replacing those three guys. Hudson and Hardy are mostly replacing Crede and Cabrera and will have a hard time duplicating their production if Hardy hits like he did last year.
Thome is certainly not going to play third base and probably not much at first - which is where Buscher got his plate appearances. Buscher only had 15 at bats as a PH and another 15 as DH. And equaling his production in those roles would be optimistic for Thome. Overall the Twins PH hit .303/.446/.530 - I doubt Thome is going to improve on that.
"Find me one such evaluation."
http://www.nickstwinsblog.com/2009/11/wasting-no-time.html
I'm sure there are clearer examples, but none by you.
"How do you expect people to put any stock into completely unsupported statements like this?"
I couldn't care less whether you put any stock in it. All you have to do is look to find critical reports on Hardy's defense last year.
Hudson and Hardy are mostly replacing Crede and Cabrera and will have a hard time duplicating their production if Hardy hits like he did last year.
Um, no, because Crede and Cabrera each only played about half the year for the Twins. Unless you expect that Hudson and Hardy will both get injuries and miss half the year -- which isn't particularly reasonable -- Hardy is replacing Cabrera/Punto/whatever else the Twins through out at SS and Hudson is replacing Casilla/Punto/whatever else the Twins through out at 2B. The Twins' offensive lines at those positions in 2009 -- which I quoted already -- speak for themselves. Are you being intentionally ignorant?
I'm sure there are clearer examples, but none by you.
Uh yeah that's actually a pretty terrible example. Me saying that Hardy has the "potential to provide serious power from the bottom of the lineup" is the same as me saying I expect him to hit the same way he did a couple years ago?
I couldn't care less whether you put any stock in it. All you have to do is look to find critical reports on Hardy's defense last year
Looked at his UZR. Same in '08 and '09. Read the report on my blog entry you linked to in your comment with a breakdown from a Brewers blogger who watched every game and said Hardy is "a very good defensive shortstop." Where exactly should I be looking?
"Looked at his UZR."
Exactly - a lot of the claims about Hardy's defense aren't based on watching him play, they are based on watching a pseudo-measurement of defense. Try Google and look for opinions that don't support yours instead of those that do. You will find plenty of comments about his defense having slipped when he was sent down. You can also find complaints by some Brewer fans before he was sent down.
"Um, no, because Crede and Cabrera each only played about half the year for the Twins."
As opposed to Buscher who spent half the year in the minor leagues? You were comparing these guys to last year's players, not me. I was comparing them to the over-sized expectations that seem to be out there right now.
The fact is Punto is still going to be in the lineup. No one is replacing Punto's at bats - the largest chunk replaced is going to be Crede's. And Cabrera had more plate appearances than anyone else at shortstop. But part of the optimism is comparing optimistic projections to the worst players at positions last year.
I suggest you reread what you say about Hardy - in particular your reference to how good he was a couple years ago. That is the only measure of why he was a good pickup.
Hardy is not some guy who was picked up off the scrap heap. The Twins gave up a lot of potential to get him. And Gomez would be more valuable than Hardy right now based solely on their performance last year. Gomez defense alone made him more valuable.
Hardy was sent to the minors last year for poor performance. If he had spent those two months in the major leagues his averages would likely have been a lot worse than they were based on his performance before and after that stint. If he plays like last year, the Twins dealing Gomez for him was a huge mistake, even if his numbers are better than Nick Punto's last year when Punto was at shortstop.
As we looked at optimistic projections one more comment on Hardy:
Here are his numbers in the second half of last year with 130 plate appearances:
.224/.302/.302 with zero home runs
His first half:
.232/.301/.379
So it IS somewhat optimistic to say "Twins' shortstops hit .263/.309/.374 last season, and it's not a stretch to believe Hardy can best that." What is the basis for that "belief"?
Exactly - a lot of the claims about Hardy's defense aren't based on watching him play, they are based on watching a pseudo-measurement of defense.
I like how you selectively overlooked the part where I quoted a person who watched him play extensively last year, which I'm fairly certain you didn't. But the thing about numbers is that while you might not agree with their methodology, they are at the very least objective. Brewers fans who were grumpy about Hardy's poor offensive season and may have had their view of his defense affected by it may not be so objective.
You were comparing these guys to last year's players, not me. I was comparing them to the over-sized expectations that seem to be out there right now.
I don't care about these phantom expectations you keep referring to. What I care about is whether these guys are likely to improve the team from last year. I think it's a good bet that they will.
So it IS somewhat optimistic to say "Twins' shortstops hit .263/.309/.374 last season, and it's not a stretch to believe Hardy can best that." What is the basis for that "belief"?
I just don't think it's "optimistic" to assume Hardy is going to be a better hitter this year than he was last year. I think it's logical. The fact that he was a very good hitter the two years prior is not irrelevant. People have down years and it's not often that people just fundamentally forget how to hit at the age of 27.
I think it's more appropriate to compare the players on the team at the end of last year than at the beginning, so I think in some respects, comparing Hudson, Hardy and Thome to Punto, Casilla and Buscher maybe isn't quite right. It's more comparing Hudson, Hardy and Thome to Cabrera, Punto and Buscher.
It's true that it is certainly overly optimistic to expect Hudson to put up his sick .315/.396/.444 line that he did at the beginning of last year. Assuming that, even absent such production, he will provide a massive upgrade at second is not overly optimistic.
Hardy versus Cabrera is a closer call, but the possibility of a rebound year certainly is not overly optimistic. He's on the right side of 30, and various scouting reports have said that he had a mechanical problem in his swing (opening up too early) that he is aware of and has corrected. Furthermore, Hardy's defense is much better than Cabrera, and that's just a fact. Looking at UZR is not the same as watching Hardy play. It's actually better, b/c it's a statistic compiled by many impartial eyes observing Hardy and assessing his defensive value. One set of eyes watching Hardy all year won't be as reliable as UZR/150 data.
One can make the case (as TT does) that Thome to Buscher isn't a fair comparison because he wasn't with the team for the entire '09 season. Fair enough. Thome is replacing some combination of Buscher, Harris, Tolbert and Morales, inasmuch as any one of those four players was in Thome's bench spot and occasionally called on to pinch hit or DH. Either way, Thome is a hall of fame player who still hit for plenty of power and drew plenty of walks before switching leagues and being subjected to a very small sample size on the west coast. Taking this as evidence that he's on the decline is foolish. It's certain that he won't be the monster he used to be. It's certainly not unreasonable to think he might have a slight dropoff. But to think that he won't be an improvement over the scrap heap that sat on the bench last year, well, that to me would be as foolish as expecting JIM THOME, THE MAN, THE MYTH, THE LEGEND to lead the Twins to World Series glory.
Finally, any player can suddenly fall off a cliff. Maybe Mauer won't have a .373+ BABIP, keen eye, and usual high line drive percentage. Maybe Cuddy will start hacking at everything again. Maybe Baker will suddenly suck. Maybe Hudson can't do what he's done his entire career (get on base well and hit for ok power) despite being only 32. Maybe Thome is too old. Maybe maybe maybe. It seems silly to posit that all of these "maybes" are a reason not to be excited and optimistic about this team.
Nick, here is your Brewer's fan "observation" on Hardy's defense:
"Even if Hardy doesn't bounce back offensively, he's a very good defensive shortstop. FanGraphs has him listed as saving 29.7 runs in the field over the last three seasons, good for roughly three wins. "
"The fact that he was a very good hitter the two years prior is not irrelevant."
If he can't repeat it this season, it is completely irrelevant. We are back to your original denial that people are projecting Hardy based on his performance two years ago.
"it's a statistic compiled by many impartial eyes observing Hardy"
No, it isn't. Its a calculation based on a lot of assumptions, most of which are undocumented. There are no "impartial eyes" observing how many runs each shortstop saves his team because that isn't observable. The actual observations that are made and used as one element in the calculation are also undocumented. There is no way to evaluate the observations, the calculations or the logic behind them.
"he will provide a massive upgrade at second is not overly optimistic."
I see absolutely no reason to think Hudson with be a "massive upgrade" over Punto at second. Punto is an outstanding defender. If you mean a massive upgrade in the number two spot in the order, then the comparison is to Cabrera and it is not certain that will be an upgrade at all, certainly not "massive". But the reason Hudson is on this list is that, while his stats seem to show he will be an improvement in the number two spot, his demotion in LA is still troubling.
"it's not often that people just fundamentally forget how to hit at the age of 27."
No - it isn't. But clearly Hardy forgot how to hit last year. What makes you think he will wake up this spring with his memory restored?
Just to be clear, I supported the deal for Hardy. His numbers two years ago make him worth the gamble. But he could easily turn out to be completely useless.
"still hit for plenty of power and drew plenty of walks before switching leagues and being subjected to a very small sample size on the west coast."
The question with Thome is more whether he can come off the bench as a pinch hitter playing on an irregular basis for the first time in his career. It is a limited sample, but he didn't show he could do that when asked to last year. If you look at Buscher's performance in that role, Thome will have to be pretty good at it to be better.
"Finally, any player can suddenly fall off a cliff. "
I don't think that is really true. Very few players "fall off a cliff" with no sign that might happen. None of the projections here are of players unexpectedly "falling off a cliff", they are all real questions people ought to have about the Twins chances.
In fact, most of the players on this list need to improve on some of their performance last year or they will be disappointments.
Its a calculation based on a lot of assumptions, most of which are undocumented. There are no "impartial eyes" observing how many runs each shortstop saves his team because that isn't observable. The actual observations that are made and used as one element in the calculation are also undocumented. There is no way to evaluate the observations, the calculations or the logic behind them.
It seems that you would change it from "UZR" to "UCR" - "Ultimate Conspiracy Rating." Ridiculous.
"Ridiculous."
What is ridiculous is suggesting that requiring independent verification of someone's data, calculations and results is subscribing to a "conspiracy theory".
That requirement for transparency is pretty basic to scientific inquiry. You don't accept conclusions on faith.
That requirement for transparency is pretty basic to scientific inquiry. You don't accept conclusions on faith.
Indeed. And you can find explanations of UZR all over the internet (such as at http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primate_studies/discussion/lichtman_2003-03-14_0/ and http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/uzr-on-fangraphs/ and http://www.blessyouboys.com/2010/1/9/1240320/saber-101-ultimate-zone-rating)
Also, it's pretty basic to assessing a player's fielding ability to accept that such an assessment is inherently an inexact, subjective science. That's why, in assessing how many balls a player got to in his zone, not just one set of eyes is used, but rather many observations of a player are used. I have a hard time understanding why a particular "report" that Hardy's defense is subpar is more reliable than looking at UZR data over the last three years and basing an evaluation on that data. While you don't have access to the actual notes of the people who observed him and arrived at the UZR data, you do have plenty of information on the methodology and assumptions of the system, and can at least get a pseudo-scientific assessment of a player's ability. It's not as good as concrete offensive stats like AVG, OBP, SLG, but it is the closest thing to a scientific, objective evaluation of defense available.
"such as at http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primate_studies/discussion/lichtman_2003-03-14_0/ and http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/uzr-on-fangraphs/ and http://www.blessyouboys.com/2010/1/9/1240320/saber-101-ultimate-zone-rating)
"
Neither provide sufficient information to reproduce their results, even if you had access to their data set. They provide little more than a description of how they collected the data and the conclusions they drew.
"is inherently an inexact, subjective science."
Yes it is and you might want to know how inexact and what subjective judgments were made.
"I have a hard time understanding why a particular "report" that Hardy's defense is subpar is more reliable than looking at UZR data over the last three years and basing an evaluation on that data."
You don't have the data. And, just as Hardy was a different hitter two years ago than last year, the reports are that he was also struggling in the field.
"you do have plenty of information on the methodology and assumptions of the system"
No, you don't. You have a claim about how many runs a player saved or cost his team. You have virtually no idea of how anyone got from charting where balls were hit to that conclusion. And the idea that you can get from that data to that conclusion by any legitimate analysis is dubious at best.
You are taking on faith, not only that they can, but that they did so without distorting the result. It is hardly unusual, even in professional scientific circles, for researchers to stretch to conclusions beyond what their data actually supports. That is the reason you require real transparency, not vague descriptions.
Post a Comment