120 thoughts on “May 19, 2014: More to Come”

  2. Ricky Nolasco has given up 70 hits this year (2nd most in the AL), 13% of those have been extra base hits.
    Thats not good.

      1. This year there have been 5610 hits. 1872 of those hits were for extra bases; that's 33.4%. 13% sounds quite good to me. The 70 hits however, not so much.

        1. I calculate his pre-2014 average to be 33.6%.

          Looking into how you got 8%, it's percentage of plate appearances that result in an extra base hit. League average is 7.8% and Nolasco, through 2013, is 8.3%.

  3. Near the end of this morning's Effectively Wild, Ben & Sam speculated about what MLB would be like if a rule were instituted requiring managers to be on the active roster (i.e., take up a spot on the 25-man roster). They wondered whether all thirty teams would begin carrying player-managers younger than 40, and what (if any) difference that really would make. Would carrying a Maddon, La Russa, or Weaver instead of a player-manager be a concession, or would that be a sign the team thought that manager was worth at least two wins? (I raise my eyebrow at this - there's no reason a Maddon/La Russa/Weaver-caliber manager couldn't simply become the "bench coach.")

    Still, it's an interesting idea. My thoughts led me to other questions: What positions would these player-managers be most likely to play? Would they all emerge from the pool of aging sluggers/professional hitters? How else would this rule affect roster construction? And finally, who would I want managing the Twins?

    1. Makes it understandable how catchers tend to dominate the managerial corps. I can't picture an OF being a player manager. Or a relief pitcher.

    2. 'My answers to my own questions' SelectShow
      2. 'Catchers and Utility Infielders' SelectShow

          1. Heh, yeah, that's true- doesn't hurt the Twins any to have Jeter playing SS. But he made attempted to make a play "diving" to his left that made me shake my head in disbelief. It's only a matter of time before he's hurt again.

      3. I don't see how an OF can be a player manager, particularly one in the ballgame. You are pretty far removed from the action to be making any moves. Likewise any relief pitcher in the bullpen. It's going to have to be an infielder or someone typically riding the bench, I would think.

        1. I can see the distance from the immediate action as problematic, but not insurmountable. A starting outfielder might be a bit unlikely, but what about a fourth outfielder?

          A relief pitcher need only be in the bullpen when he's warming up before entering the game.

          1. see, when you're talking fourth OF or relief pitcher in those context, they're typically riding the bench (or can be riding the bench). I'm just trying to eliminate the unlikeliest of players.

            Actually, I think a starting pitcher could make a good player manager; it'd only be a problem 1 out of 5 games, and you'd just designate someone else to manage on the day you started.

            1. I thought about a starter, but ruled it out based on their throwing & PT regimens and how isolating that seems like it could be from the day-to-day activities of a manager – throwing BP, working with young players, observing practice, etc. Of course, these things might be just as hard for a backup catcher to juggle along with staying familiar with the pitching staff. I can definitely appreciate the advantages you mentioned for a starter serving as player-manager, though.

        2. I don't see how an OF can be a player manager, particularly one in the ballgame.

          The Ghost of Tris Speaker protests.

    1. I gave a listen a couple days ago when the stream first went up. Initial thoughts: it doesn't have the "grab you by the ears and force you to pay attention" songs of Tramp, but it might be the stronger album. I really liked what I heard.

      1. RE: Art-a-whirl:
        Many apologies, but the little kids delayed things a bit and when we got there we saw a more difficult parking situation than I anticipated and finding parking further away and strollering through the masses to your building would have taken more time than we really had until the little ones needed dinner. It would have been all tears before we got to your studio, so I made the tough decision to bag it. If next year is possible, I'll have a better idea of what to expect and plan accordingly (and the kids will be another year older).

        It wasn't largely out-of-the-way, EAR was dog-sitting her sister's dog in Uptown. So we just went back there and hung out with the dog a bit.

    3. RE: Art-a-Whirl: Many apologies we weren't able to see your stuff. Ended up at the Saints game Sunday afternoon courtesy of my mother...of course they got blown out, but it was a gorgeous day for baseball. Hope it went well!

      1. No worries to either of you. I still think the best time to stop by is on a First Thursday, which as the name suggests takes place every month on the first Thursday from 5-9. Many of the 200 or so studios in my building are open, with far less hullabaloo and plenty* of parking. I'd have more time to chat, as well.

        *relatively speaking

        1. As someone who has gone to First Thursdays and stopped in on the painter, I can attest to this as well.

          1. something tells me that a "Is It First Thursday?" reminder on the main page might be helpful to some around here....

    4. Her voice is magnificent. So much emotion conveyed without resorting to histrionics. The first and last cuts hit hardest the first time through, though I'd wager to bet I'll love the whole thing after multiple listens.

  5. Monday Starting Pitching Report

    # Name W L SV G GS IP K/9 BB/9 HR/9 BABIP LOB% GB% HR/FB ERA FIP xFIP WAR
    1 Phil Hughes 4 1 0 8 8 47.1 7.61 1.14 0.76 .329 73.0 % 31.8 % 5.9 % 3.61 2.92 3.72 1.3
    2 Kyle Gibson 4 3 0 8 8 45.0 4.20 4.00 0.20 .288 69.7 % 52.2 % 2.1 % 4.20 3.76 4.88 0.7
    3 Ricky Nolasco 2 4 0 9 9 55.2 5.98 2.43 1.46 .335 70.4 % 42.6 % 12.9 % 5.50 4.65 4.21 0.3
    4 Kevin Correia 1 5 0 8 8 42.1 4.25 2.55 1.06 .342 56.9 % 41.9 % 7.2 % 6.80 4.58 5.19 0.3
    5 Samuel Deduno 1 1 0 3 3 17.0 5.82 2.65 0.53 .245 59.1 % 59.3 % 6.3 % 4.24 3.60 4.08 0.2
    6 Kris Johnson 0 0 0 1 1 4.1 10.38 12.46 0.00 .364 100.0 % 60.0 % 0.0 % 0.00 4.92 5.22 0.0
    7 Mike Pelfrey 0 3 0 5 5 23.2 3.80 6.85 1.90 .286 61.9 % 43.7 % 15.2 % 7.99 7.51 6.60 -0.5

    Hughes' numbers continue to improve: he looks like a bargain. Low HR/FB rate, is Target Field helping him? Gibson has dreadful K and BB numbers and an unsustainably low HR/FB rate. He's not, I don't think, a future piece. Nolasco's numbers have improved and he's pitching some innings, which is good. Not much to say about the rest of them.

    Twins starters are still last in xFIP, but have improved 28th in ERA and 26th in FIP. Last in K/9, but up to just 23rd in BB/9. So, we are seeing some improvement relative to the rest of the league. That will happen when the sample size grows. Also, when you take Mike Pelfrey out of the rotation.

      1. We've seen a lot of guys in the past with not much room for error run out of room. That's the problem.

      2. Gibson's K/9 in the majors is not in line with his minor league numbers of 8 K/9, which really didn't change after TJ. I think it's too soon to say whether he's a future piece after less than 100 IP in the majors. Would you have said Dozier was a future piece one year ago today?

    3. I definitely think that Hughes getting out of The Toilet has helped his home run tendencies immensely. Of the 116 homers he has given up in his career, 71 were given up in the bandbox in the Bronx. And only 1525 of his career 3532 PAs are in that dump.

    4. Here's something to chew on: league averages

      # Season W L SV G GS IP K/9 BB/9 HR/9 BABIP LOB% GB% HR/FB ERA FIP xFIP WAR
      1 2014 649 643 335 5039 1301 11589.0 7.83 3.09 0.91 .293 73.2 % 45.6 % 10.1 % 3.76 3.78 3.79 117.7

      Note how close the league average ERA, FIP, and xFIP are. From this I guess we can say that in a large sample size, they converge, right? But, for individuals, xFIP (especially) and FIP are supposed to be a better indicator of a pitcher's effectiveness.

      Edit: that was for all pitchers on active rosters. Below is for all starters, period.

      # Season W L SV G GS IP K/9 BB/9 HR/9 BABIP LOB% GB% HR/FB ERA FIP xFIP WAR
      1 2014 438 441 0 1304 1304 7724.2 7.47 2.85 0.96 .295 72.5 % 45.7 % 10.5 % 3.87 3.86 3.81 94.5

      The same comment about ERA, FIP, and xFIP applies. The average starter is at 7.47 K/9. Also, the results are pretty close to pitchers overall. I would expect a little wider disparity between starters and the population as a whole.

      1. I think the idea is that xFIP (and to a certain lesser extent, FIP) are better predictors of a pitcher's future ERA than his current ERA. So them converging within a league-wide sample size seems appropriate.

        1. I think there's a small, but not insignificant, chance that Mike Pelfrey has toed the rubber for the big club for the last time.

          1. Considering the way they "had a meeting" then suddenly he "had an injury", I think its larger than a small chance that he's done with the team unless he is willing to accept an assignment.

      3. Starters are 66.6% of the innings. Looking up just relievers, they strike out an extra batter, walk about four-fifths more, and give up a tenth fewer homers per nine innings. The xFIP is very close, but they are a .15 better in FIP and .18 better in ERA. The BABIP is closer than I expected.

        1. I would have thought that the differences would be larger. Then again, my point of reference is the Twins.

  6. For some reason, both the game recap and Minor Details got the dreaded "Missed Schedule". They're both up now.

  8. Thinking about the Kevin Love situation, I am reminded, as always, what I got myself into by investing in this team emotionally. I was able to extricate myself from the Vikings. Can I do it with the Wolves?

    I'm so old that I can remember a time when Glenn Taylor was making noise about buying the Twins from the Pohlads and I was hoping that'd happen because I was convinced that he'd run the club better than the Pohlads. That's obviously not true. The last three years have been grim at Target Field, but I have more confidence that the Pohlads will pull the Twins out of their current malaise. Maybe the bros can buy from Glenn?

    1. It'll be harder to extricate from the Wolves because the NBA doesn't have the built-in aid of concussions/CTE.

      But yeah, Taylor is not so great an owner. I do still have some confidence that, if the Wolves were to make the playoffs next year, Love would take a contract from them because money. It's fleeing confidence, but I've still got myself talked into it.

      1. Obviously, the fact that the Wolves don't have a coach yet is a problem. And now, it's going to be Sam Mitchell? On the one hand, I kind of like Sam and apparently, he was a big deal in KG's development. On the other hand, the fact that it's probably him is a signal that Love is going to be gone.

        My fandom survived the KG trade and the Kahn Dynasty. It can survive this, I guess. It'd be nice to have a payoff for all this investment once in a while, though.

      2. I was able to walk away from the NBA some time ago. For me, a poorly run home team, compounded by league-wide "coincidences" (like the draft) that routinely seemed to affect favored markets positively and least-favored markets negatively, made it fairly easy to give it up. In fact, it was after the horrible officiating in the Wolves/Sacramento series (which the Wolves improbably managed to win) that I decided I was done. Yes, I stopped following the Wolves after their most successful season ever, because it was clear that it was not supposed to happen, and wouldn't ever happen again.

        1. That series, and the one after, are the ones that made me decide to walk for a long time as well.

          Now the officiating is much better (usually), but the Wolves are run poorly, and every time I start watching regularly I find a reason to stop. The upside is that I really just like watching good basketball, so I watch the playoffs regardless of who's in them.

          1. I was thinking that the Wolves would be right back in position the next year. Then, Sam and Spree did their thing and the whole thing fell apart and pretty soon Mad Dog was jacking up threes, KG was gone, and Rambis and Flynn and Wes "Smiley" Johnson and the Caged Lion and Rickey's knee and the best SRS to never make the playoffs and here we are now, about ready to hit reset again. Oy vey. I fully expect Phoenix to hit the lottery, which will push the Wolves into the 14th spot, causing them to forfeit their draft pick to Phoenix.

          2. I tuned in for the end of the Wolves/Heat match earlier this year (the one that went into OT and the Wolves won). At the end of the game there was an absurd foul call where LeBron and some no-name were involved. It looked a whole lot like the crap I used to see, and made the game a lot less fun to watch.

        2. I didn't grow up a basketball fan, so the things you describe – the league-wide "coincidences" favoring pet franchises/markets and the reputation for awful officiating – are things that have made it very unlikely I'll ever become one.

          1. the league-wide "coincidences" favoring pet franchises/markets

            This is something I've never understood. The league has rigged it so certain franchises get favorable results and they've managed to keep it secret for years, decades even. Obviously the fans are just too smart.

            1. It hasn't been kept secret at all. And, of course, the lottery happening with a small crowd behind closed doors... open it up to the public and it's a different story.

              1. Well, they have people from Ernst & Young in the room as well as representatives from all the teams and the E&Y folks do certify the results. So, if the fix is in, there are a lot of co-conspirators, including the aggrieved teams themselves and a Big Five accounting firm.

                It's not good tv to have the drawing live. I absolutely do not believe that the lottery is rigged*.

                *Except maybe for that first one where Ewing went to the Knicks when David Stern himself grabbed one of two envelopes out of a container.

                1. You'll have to forgive me if I don't trust big accounting firms conducting secret business.

                  I just don't see any reason the draft shouldn't be public, unless certain results are desired. Needing an accounting firm, etc. is a function of conducting business in a way that doesn't appear on the up and up. They should just do it on the up and up instead.

                  1. Are you aware of the mechanism of the lottery? I don't think this is good television and the lottery is an event that the NBA likes to show during a playoff game to boost viewership. I would like to watch it, perhaps on NBATV, but I understand why they don't show it during the game.

                    1. Yes, I'm aware.

                      But I'm not saying it should be televised. I'm saying it should be public. I don't care about whether it's good TV. I care about legitimacy.

              2. I'll also say that I'm not talking about full-blown conspiracies here, or anything. But the draft is a big one, refs have admitted to being told to help games achieve results, and I always perceived a pattern of inconsistent discipline coming from the Commish's office, such that leniency was offered to favored markets and harshness was meted out to the non-favored markets. I think the league seems slanted, and those things contribute to that.

            2. The extended ineptitude of the New York Knicks makes it tough for me to buy into the "league is rigged" thing whole-heartedly. And why has a team in the 25th-largest metropolitan area won four titles in the last fifteen years?

              1. And it would have been five if Ray Allen hadn't hit a miracle three last year. The NBA was wheeling the trophy onto the court.

                Counting on someone making threes at the buzzer is a really bad way to rig a series. Unless of course, the NBA wanted SAS to win and Ray foiled their plans?

              2. Again, it's not a whole-hearted rigging. You're right, that claiming that is absurd. But there are clearly problems with the way the league is run, and lots of people see these issues. And most of them could be dealt with fairly simply (hold the draft in public) but the league resists that, and instead punts to apologists to defend them so that they can keep doing things the way they want to.

                I believe the product on the court is largely the result of players abilities and teams' abilities to collect/coach that talent. But at the highest levels of a sport, the margins are small, so any slanting the league does will appear to have a significant impact.

                1. The biggest problem, if you want to call it that, is that the balance of power in the league can be swayed by one or two players. The Lakers were able to land Kobe Bryant, which was a huge deal by trading Vlade Divac and some other flotsam to Charlotte.

                  When superstars get traded the team getting the superstar wins the trade. Period. The one exception, arguably, is the Carmelo Anthony deal. Arguable because I don't think he's a superstar. But, the Wolves will not win the Kevin Love trade, just as they got slaughtered in the KG trade.

                  1. Thus my claim that the product is largely the result of players abilities and teams' abilities to collect/coach. I think the Spurs are a great example, as I don't think they're a favored franchise/catch lucky breaks a ton (at least, they didn't back when I watched).

                    1. SAS has had some luck. For example, they had the first pick the year that David Robinson came out. That was pretty lucky. Then Robinson got hurt and missed the entire season one year and so they ended up winning the lottery the year that Tim Duncan came out. That was even luckier. So, as an organization they've been good, but those two pieces of luck are the foundation of their success.

                    2. SAS has indeed had some luck. Not only did they have the first pick the year the Admiral came out, but they had to wait two years for him to complete his military service. (In 1988, SAS had the 10th pick, Willie Anderson, who became a pretty good swing player; in 1989, they snagged Sean Elliot with the 3rd pick).

                      Perhaps the closest contemporary comparison might be Blake Griffin for the Clippers: picked first overall, then missed his rookie year with knee surgery. In 2010, the Clips took Al-Farouq Aminu, who played well as a rookie, then was packaged with Eric Gordon, Chris Kaman, and a 1st-round pick (Austin Rivers) for Chris Paul.

                    3. I forgot about that military service period. They had a future HOFer in their back pocket, plus they still sucked, so they could pick up more pieces through high draft picks. And the Duncan thing. But, they also found Parker and Ginobili with low picks. So, also good. But, yes, they've had some HUGE lucky breaks.

                    4. The Timberwolves, on the other hand, have had absolutely no good luck in the draft, starting with landing the third pick in the draft where the first two dudes were Shaq and 'Zo and as a consolation prize, we got Laettner.

                    5. That's National Champion and Olympic Champion Christian Laettner to you, buddy.

                    6. 2-time national champion. And remember that shot he hit against Kentucky? Yeah, that was a pretty good shot. Also, it was cool how he dissed KG when KG arrived. Made it real easy to dump him.

                  2. The biggest problem, if you want to call it that, is that the balance of power in the league can be swayed by one or two players. The Lakers were able to land Kobe Bryant, which was a huge deal by trading Vlade Divac and some other flotsam to Charlotte.

                    Right. And Kobe was the first and, so far, last, 2-guard to come straight out of h.s. to become a first-ballot HOFer performer in the league [and as a thirteenth pick].

                    There just are not that many game-changing players to arrive per year in the league. I enjoy the conspiracy talk (to a point), but it is really ridiculous. No matter how hard the 4ltr tries to make the league all about the NYK and LAL, they can't do it.

                    1. From what I understand about that situation, Jerry West was pretty sure that Kobe was the real deal. Mr. West, in his day, seemed to know a thing or two about the game. They also benefited from the fact that Kobe was taken only a year after KG. That was still a time when HSers were seen as a pretty big risk. If he was five years younger, he is probably the first pick, right? The Lakers were just smarter than everyone else on that one.

                    2. From the Repository:

                      The first guard to ever be taken out of high school, Bryant was chosen as the 13th overall draft pick by the Charlotte Hornets in 1996.[25] According to Arn Tellem, Bryant's agent at the time, Bryant playing for the Charlotte Hornets was "an impossibility".[26] However, Bill Branch, the Hornets' head scout at the time, said that the Hornets agreed to trade their draft selection to the Lakers before picking Bryant. The teams agreed to the trade the day before the draft and the Lakers did not tell the Hornets whom to select until five minutes before the pick was made.[27] Branch said that prior to the trade agreement, the Hornets never even considered drafting Bryant. Prior to the draft, Bryant had worked out in Los Angeles, where he scrimmaged against former Lakers players Larry Drew and Michael Cooper, and according to then-Laker manager Jerry West, "marched over these people".[28] On July 1, 1996, West traded his starting center, Vlade Divac, to the Hornets in exchange for Bryant's draft rights.[29] Since he was still 17 at the time of the draft, his parents had to cosign his contract with the Lakers until he was able to sign his own when he turned 18 before the season began.[30]

                      Until five minutes before the pick, the Lakers never told them what they were going to do and the Hornets never even considered drafting Bryant. Can you believe it? They had to think something was up when the Lakers were trading Divac for the 13th pick, though, right?

      3. I do still have some confidence that, if the Wolves were to make the playoffs next year, Love would take a contract from them because money. It's fleeing confidence, but I've still got myself talked into it.

        Yeah, I have this feeling too. So I'm fully expecting him to be traded for David Lee and Harrison Barnes.

        1. That trade will seriously impact my ability to hang on. That is the nightmare scenario.

          1. Read through a dozen trade scenarios last night over at Canis. I came away thinking that the teams they'd trade picks & players for would be no-go's for Kevin and the teams that would be appealing have either poor picks, few quality young players or both. Coupled with my lack-o-faith in the Wolves FO getting it right, even if they do luck into the lottery, and any scenario takes on nightmare qualities.

            If Kahn & Glenn had done right by K-Love contract-wise, they'd still have 3 seasons to play with here. Instead, we're discussing the trade of arguably only the 2nd marquee/HOF-type player this club has managed to land in 2+ decades.

            1. I still think they should hold on. One year of Love and five strsight years of lottery picks is worth more than a couple players that keep them in the 35 to 45 win range.

              1. Unless they get blown away picks/players, I'm inclined to agree. And by blown away, it'd have to be multiple first round picks, lottery protected, etc., etc. and some combination young talent and expiring contracts that I don't even have the knowledge to dream up.

              2. I think I agree with this. It's going to be hard to improve the team much, but I say go for it with what you have. I think that an engaged coach with the current roster could get this club into the tournament. I'd take that instead of having them being in limbo for the next five years.

                1. the hardest part about blowing a team up is the severe uncertainty about how long it will take to get good again. If you get lucky (Cleveland with LeBron, SAS with DRob), turnaround can be very quick. Or you could wander in the wilderness for decades (LA Clippers before Griffin and Paul) despite numerous lottery picks.

                  1. I'm trying to think of another club that wandered around in the wilderness for years after blowing it up. Oh yeah, the Timberwolves of the last 7 or so years.

                2. I think ultimately the issue is if you trade Love for a poo poo platter of players, contracts, and draft picks you have a 0% chance of having Love around in 15-16. If you somehow luck out in the draft, get a coach who can coax what he can out of the roster, and some balls bounce their way, they can make the playoffs. Maybe they even win a series. Then maybe Love looks at the teams with cap space and sees that the situation in Minnesota is similarly bright, and he can make a bunch more money.

                  A non-zero chance of keeping Love is better than zero chance of keeping Love.

                  1. That's a 0% chance of keeping Love and a 100% chance of missing the playoffs again.

            2. Does Love have a no-trade clause? Does he even get a say in where he goes? Or is it just that whoever trades for him will want him to sign an extension?

              1. The latter. The only player in the NBA with a no-trade clause AFAIK is Kobe Bryant. But, he could pull a Dwight Howard and leave.

                1. It is not true that Kobe has the only no-trade. There are some limited no trade clauses (i.e. one-year no trade clauses), but four players in the NBA have full no-trade clauses: Kobe, Duncan, KG, and Dirk. They are hard to get. You have to be an eight year guy, four years with the same team, and it has to be part of a new deal, not added in an extension.

              2. Perhaps a top-ten all-coherence team comment, in the Randball column/blog post today:

                kev5115 May. 19, 14
                1:34 PM

                This is one of the worst ran organizations in all of pro sports. They need to dump Love ASAP and make sure they get something they can use and build on for the future. Everytime the Wolves have picked a decent player in the draft they trade him. Although most of their 1st rd. lotto picks haven't panned out at least not in a wolves uniform.

                Worst-"ran" organizations. Dump Love. Make sure they get something for him. Every time the worst-ran organization trades a decent player, it ends in disaster. Umm, yea.

    2. I don't see what the big deal is. As Phil says, The lottery is rigged and the Wolves will get a top 3 pick to keep the Minnesota market happy and keep a player like Love (A TACO BELL COMMERCIAL STAR) in his current market.

  10. Family Feud update

    Steve: Top four answers on the board - Name a country were they predominately speak English.
    Lady: Europe.

    X

    The answers were, in order - USA, England, Australia, Ireland. Strangely enough, "Canada" was a strike.

    1. And the same family just got 199 in Fast Money. They had 130some after the first, then 191 with two questions remaining. They got 4 & 4 on the last two. So so close.

      1. I wonder if the contestants are being told to be morons. There seems to be a rash of it and I imagine it's good for ratings. I smell a conspiracy.

    1. Probably because A.J. is a dink who doesn't sign very many cards.*

      *I have no proof of that, empirical or anecdotal, but it seems like a valid conclusion

      1. I'm not talking about IP* or TTM** cards, I'm talking about autographed cards commissioned and certified by the card company, of which there are at least two different sets (as a Twin) with maybe a couple different versions of each. The prices just don't match the player in his case, and someone is snagging them.

        *in person
        **through the mail

  13. This just in: san antonio is really good and ok city is in deep trouble without Ibaka.

  14. Someone stop me. I just downloaded a GBV live concert from November 1994, which is between when Bee Thousand and Alien Lanes were released. So it has some of the first recorded versions of Alien Lanes songs.

    1. After closing at a "restaurant" in S. Fargo I would usually shoot hoops for a while at Bennent before going home farther south. It is very windy. Thanks for sharing bS, I forwarded it to some fun people.

Comments are closed.