Fangraphs (and other national publications) on the Twins

[Mr. Brooks]

But it's thrown around casually and recklessly with no facts to back it up. Ignoring how many players we have listed in top 100 lists and where are system has been ranked the last few years. Our success in the minor leagues. His own site has written multiple articles on Max Kepler this past week alone. I'm not saying everything is perfect and we deserve org of the year. I think if you dig around you would be surprised at some of the things we are doing and have accomplished.

I don't disagree.

We don't know all the facts, so we have to go off of what we do know.

I really like a lot of the talent in our organization, and I'm guessing the fangraphs commentator does too.

Somewhere in the organization there is a disconnect that is preventing it from showing up in on field results.

 

Sure, his specific comment may be lazy, but again, I think it was intentional hyperbole.

[jimmer]

 

I don't disagree.
We don't know all the facts, so we have to go off of what we do know.
I really like a lot of the talent in our organization, and I'm guessing the fangraphs commentator does too.
Somewhere in the organization there is a disconnect that is preventing it from showing up in on field results.

Sure, his specific comment may be lazy, but again, I think it was intentional hyperbole.

not only that, but chats don't really allow for in depth analysis.  

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

not only that, but chats don't really allow for in depth analysis.

 

which should only make it easier for a serious journalist to ignore that type of question.

[Mike Sixel]

People want chats to ignore silly questions? So, no chats then?

 

I thought the comment was clearly off the cuff, but I have no idea. I merely post stuff as I see it, and rarely say if I agree or not.

 

I would think if someone wants to know why he typed it, they should ask him.

[Jham]

 

Based off what? I think this is pretty lazy all things considered. 

Obviously, it HAS to be the organization.  Otherwise these publications, prospect lists, and experts would be wrong in their player evaluations and projections which is a virtual impossibility as we all know.

[Taildragger8791]

 

But it's thrown around casually and recklessly with no facts to back it up. Ignoring how many players we have listed in top 100 lists and where are system has been ranked the last few years. Our success in the minor leagues. His own site has written multiple articles on Max Kepler this past week alone. I'm not saying everything is perfect and we deserve org of the year. I think if you dig around you would be surprised at some of the things we are doing and have accomplished.

 

Jack, the issue you skipped over is the disconnect between minor league success and major league results. I think many would agree the Twins have done better lately at identifying and bringing in young talent, thus the strong farm system. But at some point, to borrow from Mike Zimmer of the Vikings, we transition to a "don't tell me about the labor, show me the baby" attitude in which on-field results with the big club is what matters. We can talk about the prospects and projections until the cows come home but at some point there must be results, and at best there's only been fleeting glimpses of it. The repeated struggles of young talented players gives the impression that our lovable team is somehow holding back talent instead of maximizing it. We certainly haven't overachieved at any aspect.

 

Sure the chat response was hyperbole. But I don't think it's unfair to criticize an organization that has developed and retained very few players with sustained MLB value in the last 10 years. This next year or two could change the conversation and build a lot of equity for the system, but I hope you understand that it's hard to give credit ahead of time when considering recent results.

[Mike Sixel]

Obviously, it HAS to be the organization. Otherwise these publications, prospect lists, and experts would be wrong in their player evaluations and projections which is a virtual impossibility as we all know.

By this logic, the twins are also wrong, since they picked and traded for these guys.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Based off what? I think this is pretty lazy all things considered. 

 

BTW, I think Kepler is a good counter argument to his statement. He was a raw kid with little real experience against good (even ok) opponents. Y'all did something right with him.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

BTW, I think Kepler is a good counter argument to his statement. He was a raw kid with little real experience against good (even ok) opponents. Y'all did something right with him.

And Sano.

 

The jury is still out on Berrios.

 

The only big "failure" thus far has been Buxton and it's waaaaaayyyy too early to close the book on that guy.

 

I think the comment was an unnecessary cheapshot, something I see too frequently lately in these chats (like the other guy who said the Twins were the most hopeless team in MLB).

[Mike Sixel]

 

And Sano.

 

The jury is still out on Berrios.

 

The only big "failure" thus far has been Buxton and it's waaaaaayyyy too early to close the book on that guy.

 

I think the comment was an unnecessary cheapshot, something I see too frequently lately in these chats (like the other guy who said the Twins were the most hopeless team in MLB).

 

I bet if we watched, we'd see shots at some other teams also......

 

Look, the drafts for like 5 years were terrible. Buxton, who nearly everyone thought was can't miss, looks hopeless. That's going to cloud how people perceive this team for some time.

[alarp33]

 

And Sano.

 

The jury is still out on Berrios.

 

The only big "failure" thus far has been Buxton and it's waaaaaayyyy too early to close the book on that guy.

 

I think the comment was an unnecessary cheapshot, something I see too frequently lately in these chats (like the other guy who said the Twins were the most hopeless team in MLB).

 

Definitely way to early to close the book on Buxton. But that's really the only failure you could come up with?  If that was the case don't you think this team would be in a little better spot? 

 

Alex Meyer?

Eddie Rosario? (debatable, I know)

Can't it be considered a failure that not one of the college relief pitchers drafted have helped the team yet? 

Aaron Hicks?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I bet if we watched, we'd see shots at some other teams also.....

No doubt. My statement wasn't directed solely at Twins talk, more the attitude I often see in those chats.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Definitely way to early to close the book on Buxton. But that's really the only failure you could come up with?  If that was the case don't you think this team would be in a little better spot? 

 

Alex Meyer?

Eddie Rosario? (debatable, I know)

Can't it be considered a failure that not one of the college relief pitchers drafted have helped the team yet? 

Aaron Hicks?

Alex Meyer is definitely questionable and I was adamantly against many of the moves the Twins made with him but his core problem has been injury. I'm not sure that can be laid at the feet of the Twins, though they certainly didn't do the guy any favors.

 

Eddie Rosario has been just fine. I don't know if the Twins could have done anything more with the guy but given that he's been a productive MLB player, I'd call that a small win.

 

Aaron Hicks was mismanaged in my opinion but given his play with the Yankees, I'm not going to get too down on the Twins for how he turned out.

 

The college relievers have definitely been a disappointment, though we still haven't seen that play out completely. The Twins are currently in the negative but we'll see.

[alarp33]

 

Alex Meyer is definitely questionable and I was adamantly against many of the moves the Twins made with him but his core problem has been injury. I'm not sure that can be laid at the feet of the Twins, though they certainly didn't do the guy any favors.

 

Eddie Rosario has been just fine. I don't know if the Twins could have done anything more with the guy but given that he's been a productive MLB player, I'd call that a small win.

 

Aaron Hicks was mismanaged in my opinion but given his play with the Yankees, I'm not going to get too down on the Twins for how he turned out.

 

The college relievers have definitely been a disappointment, though we still haven't seen that play out completely. The Twins are currently in the negative but we'll see.

 

Right or wrong, Meyer, Hicks, etc. were highly thought of by prospect evaluators, and the Twins.  I don't think you can just give them a pass on those guys.  Lack of developing any pitching? Drafting?

 

I mean there are issues that go far beyond what Buxton has done in 350 at bats is my point

[Jham]

 

By this logic, the twins are also wrong, since they picked and traded for these guys.

I think that's a possibility.  But that logic is incomplete as it is premised on the idea that the Twins had the exact grades and predictions as the publications and experts.  Often not the case.  In fact, I'd be extraordinarily disappointed if the FO used expert prospect lists over their own evaluations, at least when it comes to our own talent who we can work with every day.  EG, I'm guessing the Nats did not have Alex Meyer ranked as high internally as the experts, lists, and rest of the league.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Right or wrong, Meyer, Hicks, etc. were highly thought of by prospect evaluators, and the Twins.  I don't think you can just give them a pass on those guys.  Lack of developing any pitching? Drafting?

 

I mean there are issues that go far beyond what Buxton has done in 350 at bats is my point

I'm not giving them a pass, I'm acknowledging that not all prospects pan out.

 

Could the Twins have done better? Probably. Do we know for sure at this point in time? No, not really.

 

If Meyer thrives with the Angels, that's a damning indictment. If Hicks turns it around with the Yankees, the same applies.

 

Thus far, we haven't seen Meyer and Hicks is floundering with the Yankees.

 

The Twins have thrown a bunch of prospects into the majors over the past few years. A few have thrived. A few have been acceptable. A few have bombed.

 

How those ratios play out over 4-5 years will tell us a lot more than we know today.

[Mike Sixel]

If the Twins didn't think Buxton was the best player...why did they pick him? 

 

I think your post, frankly, was snarky and assumed the worst of the authors and sites. That's cool, I understand cynicism, but stating that the sites only rip on the Twins to protect their own interests, when the Twins have been awful for some time now....well, that seems a bit unfair to me. YMMV, of course.

[alarp33]

 

I'm not giving them a pass, I'm acknowledging that not all prospects pan out.

 

Could the Twins have done better? Probably. Do we know for sure at this point in time? No, not really.

 

 

 

Whether Meyer or Hicks are the Twins fault or not is probably a bit beyond the original point  The Twins get ripped nationally not just because of 2 players like that, or the beginning of Buxton's career... but the greater whole... I mean who was the last starting pitcher the team drafted and developed and pitched multiple years in the Majors? 

 

Kyle Gibson

Matt Garza

 

Am I missing anyone?

 

That is an organizational failure at some level, and why the national media talks about them that way

[nicksaviking]

 

 

That is an organizational failure at some level, and why the national media talks about them that way

 

The national media talks about them this way because they are losing a lot the last half decade. They are an easy target, just like how making fun of the Browns is seen as good sport. If the Twins had been hitting on free agents as of late and had been a .500 team the last several years, national publications wouldn't be making jabs at player development, it wouldn't even be on their radar.

 

I'm not saying there isn't criticism to go around, simply that nationally the Twins only get scrutinized because people love to stare and play Captain Hindsight with the guy who's losing the fight.

[alarp33]

 

The national media talks about them this way because they are losing a lot the last half decade. They are an easy target, just like how making fun of the Browns is seen as good sport. If the Twins had been hitting on free agents as of late and had been a .500 team the last several years, national publications wouldn't be making jabs at player development, it wouldn't even be on their radar.

 

I'm not saying there isn't criticism to go around, simply that nationally the Twins only get scrutinized because people love to stare and play Captain Hindsight with the guy who's losing the fight.

 

Fair.  Though I would add sometimes its the way they lose.  The Jaguars lose as much as the Browns, but aren't quite the laughingstock like the Browns (because of the QB carousal in Cleveland).  

 

The Twins may not be quite the laughingstock had they not stubbornly continued to draft raw toolsy OFers, only to fail and develop them (I'm not including Buxton in this, he'll be fine), or draft pitch to contact pitchers, who fail to make the majors or get shelled when they do.  

 

There's a perception, and I wouldn't say its only because of the losing.  

[Jack Goin]

 

Jack, the issue you skipped over is the disconnect between minor league success and major league results. I think many would agree the Twins have done better lately at identifying and bringing in young talent, thus the strong farm system. But at some point, to borrow from Mike Zimmer of the Vikings, we transition to a "don't tell me about the labor, show me the baby" attitude in which on-field results with the big club is what matters. We can talk about the prospects and projections until the cows come home but at some point there must be results, and at best there's only been fleeting glimpses of it. The repeated struggles of young talented players gives the impression that our lovable team is somehow holding back talent instead of maximizing it. We certainly haven't overachieved at any aspect.

 

Sure the chat response was hyperbole. But I don't think it's unfair to criticize an organization that has developed and retained very few players with sustained MLB value in the last 10 years. This next year or two could change the conversation and build a lot of equity for the system, but I hope you understand that it's hard to give credit ahead of time when considering recent results.

A couple of things about your point. I may have skipped over it in a post but I'm aware of that perception. Results matter at the Major League level. Nobody in this office is denying that. Remember, we fired Bill Smith at the end of 2011. So we already fired one GM. I think if Terry came from another organization he would have been given more leeway from the public. Brad Steil took over as Minor League Director in 2013 and made a lot of changes to how we do things in the minor leagues. He has turned over about 50% of his staff the last few seasons. Again, if Brad came from outside the organization the perception of our player development system might be slightly different. We fired a manager and a major league coaching staff. People have been held accountable for the losing. But change in baseball takes time. Look at the Pirates, Royals, Nationals, Indians rebuilds. All of those rebuilds took around 8 years. I'm not complaining but this is how I see it from my perspective. Changes have been taking place for the last four or five seasons and you are now starting to see some of the results. We deserve criticism. We've lost 95+ games in 11, 12, 13, & 14. We took a big step forward last year and now took a step back in '16. But I think you can see the entire system is not broken.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Brad Steil took over as Minor League Director in 2013 and made a lot of changes to how we do things in the minor leagues. He has turned over about 50% of his staff the last few seasons. Again, if Brad came from outside the organization the perception of our player development system might be slightly different.

Thank you Jack, this is an invaluable point that is too readily glossed over by posters.

 

Part of that is because it's hard to gauge internal turnover at the ground level of an organization, part of it is because people make bad assumptions based on very little information.

[Mike Sixel]

It's also kind of hard to see/remember what has or has not changed at the minor league level. While this board can be a bit obsessive.....even we have a hard time remembering all the change.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It's also kind of hard to see/remember what has or has not changed at the minor league level. While this board can be a bit obsessive.....even we have a hard time remembering all the change.

Sure, and that taps into the first part of my point.

 

But there is willful ignorance on this board at times. I've seen people bitch about the medical staff of the Twins and I know full well those posters are aware of the turnover that happened in that department a few seasons ago. They forget because they want to forget.

 

The inverse is also true.

[alarp33]

 

Thank you Jack, this is an invaluable point that is too readily glossed over by posters.

 

Part of that is because it's hard to gauge internal turnover at the ground level of an organization, part of it is because people make bad assumptions based on very little information.

 

Well on this board, and nationally. what we have to go off of is what we see.  It's really hard to argue there has been major, positive changes going on, when what we see is; losses piling up, the GM going from TR, to his admin assistant, back to TR.  The coaching staff going from Gardy to a no experienced, yet part of Gardy's staff, Paul Molitor, etc.  The minor league director just coming from an internal promotion, etc.  

 

I mean if we can't criticize any of this because we don't have the in depth knowledge needed to form an opinion, there's probably not a point of a message board like this... 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Well on this board, and nationally. what we have to go off of is what we see.  It's really hard to argue there has been major, positive changes going on, when what we see is; losses piling up, the GM going from TR, to his admin assistant, back to TR.  The coaching staff going from Gardy to a no experienced, yet part of Gardy's staff, Paul Molitor, etc.  The minor league director just coming from an internal promotion, etc.  

 

I mean if we can't criticize any of this because we don't have the in depth knowledge needed to form an opinion, there's probably not a point of a message board like this... 

Of course we can criticize. I didn't mean to imply that at all.

 

But the breadth and depth of the criticism is eye-rolling at times. People make way too many snap judgments and casually speak well outside their realm of knowledge.

 

With the exception of one person in this thread, we're all laymen. It's important to keep that in mind.

[Jack Goin]

 

Thank you Jack, this is an invaluable point that is too readily glossed over by posters.

 

Part of that is because it's hard to gauge internal turnover at the ground level of an organization, part of it is because people make bad assumptions based on very little information.

Thanks Brock. That was part of my point. Our 3A manager was the Cubs former major league manager. Our infield coordinator has 30+ years of big league experience with other organizations. We have a new hitting coordinator who has worked for several major league teams, Team USA, University of Kentucky, etc.. Even though Mientkiewicz has ties to the club he also played for BOS, NYM, KC, NYY, PIT, LAD, and Miami. I'm guessing he picked up things along the way. We have overhauled nutrition, strength training and athletic training. I know these things are difficult to judge from a fan's perspective. The results at Target Field matter MORE THAN ANYTHING. But I think a lot of areas people think we are not doing we are doing. There was an article in the Pittsburgh Tribune the other day about the Pirates use of Omegawave and Statcast data. We are doing the exact same thing as they are. We created this horrible perception. I'm just trying to shed a little light on what reality is.

[Taildragger8791]

 

A couple of things about your point. I may have skipped over it in a post but I'm aware of that perception. Results matter at the Major League level. Nobody in this office is denying that. Remember, we fired Bill Smith at the end of 2011. So we already fired one GM. I think if Terry came from another organization he would have been given more leeway from the public. Brad Steil took over as Minor League Director in 2013 and made a lot of changes to how we do things in the minor leagues. He has turned over about 50% of his staff the last few seasons. Again, if Brad came from outside the organization the perception of our player development system might be slightly different. We fired a manager and a major league coaching staff. People have been held accountable for the losing. But change in baseball takes time. Look at the Pirates, Royals, Nationals, Indians rebuilds. All of those rebuilds took around 8 years. I'm not complaining but this is how I see it from my perspective. Changes have been taking place for the last four or five seasons and you are now starting to see some of the results. We deserve criticism. We've lost 95+ games in 11, 12, 13, & 14. We took a big step forward last year and now took a step back in '16. But I think you can see the entire system is broken.

 

I appreciate the internal perspective you give, Jack. From the outside we only see the field staffs and the big guys in the front office, so that's what we can base evaluations off of. It's tough to see the changes that have taken place at the middle and lower levels since they aren't that visible. As a result it feels more like shuffling deck chairs than actual change when the front office is rotating the same names around for a couple of decades. Hopefully the changes you mentioned start proving themselves out at the bigger picture level. And hopefully the upcoming change in leadership will push us in a positive direction.

[Platoon]

I have always found it odd, that when a poster expresses an opinion, it can be perceived as without inside knowledge. And then you have the guys inside, who cannot or will not tell the whole story, because doing so would cause their access and sources to dry up. And even when you have the rare article by a veteran writer, say a Reusse or even a Souhan, it is often cast as the ravings of a malcontent. Bottom line, is that's your three choices. and all three of them lack some form of complete information.

[bird]

 

Definitely way to early to close the book on Buxton. But that's really the only failure you could come up with?  If that was the case don't you think this team would be in a little better spot? 

 

Alex Meyer?

Eddie Rosario? (debatable, I know)

Can't it be considered a failure that not one of the college relief pitchers drafted have helped the team yet? 

Aaron Hicks?

 

 

Throwing out a list of names is always the easiest way to "prove" a point. Of course there will be failures. What does that prove? Show me data that proves that other teams have fewer failures. And if someone wanted to "prove" the opposite point, his/her post would read like this:

 

Trevor May?

 

Max Kepler? (debatable, I know)

 

Can't it be considered a success that so many of the relief pitchers drafted have either already had ML success (Duffey) or, despite almost each and every one of these guys being out for a season, or more, that they are still considered to be exceptional relief pitching prospects by the experts? I'm talking about Chargois, Burdi, Reed, Jones, Hildenberger, Melotakis, Peterson, Jay, Cedaroth, Bard.....the list goes on....and MOST, not some, of these guys have been delayed only because of injury.

 

Aaron Hicks? Okay, tell me how well the five guys drafted BEFORE Hicks and AFTER Hicks are doing? That way, we can tell a little something about the available talent that year. Who knows, maybe some would form an opinion that, given the situation, Hicks wasn't that bad of a call.