Was the last regime really worse than the current Front Office?

[gunnarthor]

5 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

My ridicule of those drafts is entirely justified. The Twins had picks 4, 5, and 6 in consecutive years and produced nothing from it as the team lost 90 games over and over and over again. A bad product on the field in Minnesota and blowing draft picks left and right. It's a bad combination and absolutely deserves ridicule. Frankly, I'm perpetually confused why you're not critical of those late Ryan drafts. They sucked. Unless I'm missing someone, I don't believe even one of the 2013-2015 picks accumulated 1+ WAR in a Twins uniform. ONE WAR. That's just about the lowest bar I can set for a draft.

And in my post, I didn't imply any drafting acumen by this front office. I've liked some of their drafts and disliked others... but to have individual picks derailed by injury is a lot different than just making bad picks, as the Twins did in 2013-2015. None of Stewart, Gordon, or Jay were hit particularly hard by the injury bug, they just didn't perform. Stewart and Jay were particularly bad picks. The likes of Lewis, Cavaco, Enlow, et al are still works in progress and only time will tell where they land when the dust settles.

The books are nearly closed on those 2013-2015 drafts while the books are very much open on the 2017+ drafts. If those Falvey drafts turn out to be as atrocious as those late Ryan drafts (a nod to the 2012 draft, which was legit awesome), I'll be just as critical of them but I'm not going to declare the game over in the fourth inning.

Gads, every time this comes up, you post the same false statements and ignore things you don't want to acknowledge. It gets so freaking tiring. Stewart, Jay and Gordon . You say they were injury free but that wasn't true. Gordon missed a year and a half (although he was already not developing as was hoped) and Jay had serious shoulder injuries. And, again, while Stewart, Gordon and Jay didn't pan out as hoped, it's not that surprising considering the inherent risk of drafting, They were not bad picks. They all went roughly where they were supposed to. Finding guys like Garver and Wade, adding May and Pressly, etc showed that the FO was still acquiring talent that this FO inherited and failed to utilize correctly. But also closing the period you're looking at to only look at the failed drafts and not look at 2012 and 2016 is just dishonest. Don't worry, I'll return that favor in a paragraph or two.

Why am I not more critical of those drafts? Because I understood the risk. In 2013 the Twins drafted two high upside high school arms (Stewart and Gonsalves), two solid college arms who seemed like they could fall in the long line of Duensing, Blackburn, Slowey, etc type arms (Eades and Slegers) and a slew of catchers. That only Garver turned into a solid MLer was probably pretty unlucky but the strategy was solid. 2014 was the only draft I didn't like because the Twins went back to Johnson's fireball approach (although Burdi was a valid 2nd round talent). I didn't like the approach when he did it under Smith and I didn't like it when Ryan let him do again. In 2015, because we signed Santana and b/c Cody didn't sign, we only had one pick in the top 80. Jay was a good pick. Was injured. Didn't work out. It happens. 

Want a bad draft strategy? How about the new FO draft strategy of drafting older 1B/DH/RF types? Cripes, Brent Rooker is not even a year younger than Buxton despite being drafted in the first round five years later. Matt Wallner, another first rounder, will be 25 and has yet to hit above A+. Sabato, another first rounder, also has yet to be above A+ but he's only 23 next year. Youngster, I guess. At least Larnich (25) will, hopefully, be on the ML roster next April. Cross your fingers. 

We're far into this FO's run and they've just failed to meet the basic minimum requirements of what they should have done. But they'll get another year to turn it around. I hope they do, really, I do. But I don't think they will. 

[bean5302]

Ahhhh, yes. Bill Smith. Everybody's favorite scapegoat. He traded Wilson Ramos for Matt Capps!!!! Smith inherited an angry Torii Hunter after Terry Ryan's front office made a 3 year, $45MM extension offer and when it was apparent the Pohlads were not going to offer Santana close to market rate, Smith traded Santana to the Mets for what turned out to be essentially Carlos Gomez and 3 prospects who didn't turn out.

Instead of having the Pohlads pocket the savings like Falvey appears to be en route to this year, Smith instead pushed for and extended Nathan, Morneau and Cuddyer. In 2010, Smith successfully got the Pohlads to open their wallets to keep Joe Mauer to the tune of 7 years and $184MM.

Notable Trades: 

• Tyler Ladendorf for Orlando Cabrera and Cash
• Wilson Ramos & Joe Testa for Matt Capps
• Johan Santana for Carlos Gomez, Philip Humber, Kevin Mulvey, Delois Guerra
• Kevin Mulvey for Jon Rauch
• Carlos Gomez for J.J. Hardy
• Jason Bartlett, Matt Garza and Eduardo Morlan for Delmon Young, Jason Pridie and Brendan Harris.
• J.J. Hardy and Brendan Harris for Jim Hoey and Brett Jacobson

Notable Free Agent Signings:

• Carl Pavano 
• Jim Thome
• Orlando Hudson
• Brian Fuentes

Signed/drafted:

• Aaron Hicks (2008)
• Kyle Gibson (2009)
• Brian Dozier (2009)
• Miguel Sano (2009)
• Max Kepler (2009)
• Jorge Polanco (2009)
• Eddie Rosario (2010)

Smith had control of the Twins for 4 years. His trades were pretty bad, but his drafts and free agent signings were solid.

[RaoulDuke]

Not spending on free agents/ low balling extensions is an ownership directive.  The TV deal doesn't bring in comparable money to the big market teams and they will use that as the barometer to keep payroll mid tier at most.   

I have much more faith in this regime treading that line than Ryan/ Gardenhire/ Anderson.  This regime has modernized everything minor leagues on up, it has yet to bare significant fruit but there is a ton of potential in the upper minors now.  A new front office tomorrow would be taking over a much better organization than Falvine did.

I do think this is the pivotal year for them, pandemic pushed everything back but the system does need to graduate some impact talent (especially arms.)

[Prince William]

9 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

My ridicule of those drafts is entirely justified. The Twins had picks 4, 5, and 6 in consecutive years and produced nothing from it as the team lost 90 games over and over and over again. A bad product on the field in Minnesota and blowing draft picks left and right. It's a bad combination and absolutely deserves ridicule. Frankly, I'm perpetually confused why you're not critical of those late Ryan drafts. They sucked. Unless I'm missing someone, I don't believe even one of the 2013-2015 picks accumulated 1+ WAR in a Twins uniform. ONE WAR. That's just about the lowest bar I can set for a draft.

And in my post, I didn't imply any drafting acumen by this front office. I've liked some of their drafts and disliked others... but to have individual picks derailed by injury is a lot different than just making bad picks, as the Twins did in 2013-2015. None of Stewart, Gordon, or Jay were hit particularly hard by the injury bug, they just didn't perform. Stewart and Jay were particularly bad picks. The likes of Lewis, Cavaco, Enlow, et al are still works in progress and only time will tell where they land when the dust settles.

The books are nearly closed on those 2013-2015 drafts while the books are very much open on the 2017+ drafts. If those Falvey drafts turn out to be as atrocious as those late Ryan drafts (a nod to the 2012 draft, which was legit awesome), I'll be just as critical of them but I'm not going to declare the game over in the fourth inning.

remind me again how many decent players were picked  just after or near to Tyler Jay or  Kohl Stewart. They could have guessed better,  It is hard to say they could have picked better when the pickings are slim. 13 amd 15 were lousy years

Mitch Garver and LaMonte Wade have each more than 1 WAR

[Prince William]

Hard to say the  previous fo was awful. The current team has a roster of players signed by the previous regime.  The old regime did manage to find a quite a few position players. They even found a few that other teams found useful. They could find a few useful players in rule v. They usually had a starter developed by the team. They really did not find relatively cheap treasures in free agency. Some useful trades, some not. 

The current FO has not had anyone develop quickly, neither did the previous regime. That leaves out comparing amateur acquisitions.  Rule v? Cheap treasures in FA? nope.  The current front office made a couple good trades, some not.

Nope, as of right now with what one could compare, there isn't much difference. 

[chpettit19]

15 hours ago, Linus said:

You literally cannot know this. We have no idea how their development was affected by the new FO. To assume they would be worse if Ryan had stayed is baseless conjecture. 

Read my post again. The OP and multiple comments before mine gave the previous regime credit for the current abilities of the players on the roster that they had drafted. I said that assumption is ignoring a lot of things. I said to assume the players would have performed as they have under Ryan and their development strategies is assuming a lot. Then I gave legitimate examples of changes that were made due to the current regime and their development strategies while stating that assuming Ryan and his people would've made the same changes was assuming a lot. I never said there was no way Ryan and his people would've developed these guys as well, I just said the assumption that they would have was a bridge to far.

But the idea that Ryan would have jumped into the deep end of the analytics and technology pool like this FO has done is ignoring everything he did as the man in charge all the way up to his last day in charge.

[cHawk]

9 hours ago, gunnarthor said:

Gads, every time this comes up, you post the same false statements and ignore things you don't want to acknowledge. It gets so freaking tiring. Stewart, Jay and Gordon . You say they were injury free but that wasn't true. Gordon missed a year and a half (although he was already not developing as was hoped) and Jay had serious shoulder injuries. And, again, while Stewart, Gordon and Jay didn't pan out as hoped, it's not that surprising considering the inherent risk of drafting, They were not bad picks. They all went roughly where they were supposed to. Finding guys like Garver and Wade, adding May and Pressly, etc showed that the FO was still acquiring talent that this FO inherited and failed to utilize correctly. But also closing the period you're looking at to only look at the failed drafts and not look at 2012 and 2016 is just dishonest. Don't worry, I'll return that favor in a paragraph or two.

Why am I not more critical of those drafts? Because I understood the risk. In 2013 the Twins drafted two high upside high school arms (Stewart and Gonsalves), two solid college arms who seemed like they could fall in the long line of Duensing, Blackburn, Slowey, etc type arms (Eades and Slegers) and a slew of catchers. That only Garver turned into a solid MLer was probably pretty unlucky but the strategy was solid. 2014 was the only draft I didn't like because the Twins went back to Johnson's fireball approach (although Burdi was a valid 2nd round talent). I didn't like the approach when he did it under Smith and I didn't like it when Ryan let him do again. In 2015, because we signed Santana and b/c Cody didn't sign, we only had one pick in the top 80. Jay was a good pick. Was injured. Didn't work out. It happens. 

Want a bad draft strategy? How about the new FO draft strategy of drafting older 1B/DH/RF types? Cripes, Brent Rooker is not even a year younger than Buxton despite being drafted in the first round five years later. Matt Wallner, another first rounder, will be 25 and has yet to hit above A+. Sabato, another first rounder, also has yet to be above A+ but he's only 23 next year. Youngster, I guess. At least Larnich (25) will, hopefully, be on the ML roster next April. Cross your fingers. 

We're far into this FO's run and they've just failed to meet the basic minimum requirements of what they should have done. But they'll get another year to turn it around. I hope they do, really, I do. But I don't think they will. 

Jay and Gordon may have been hit, but they weren’t hit hard.

Jay missed 2 months with a shoulder injury and Gordon missed half of a season (144 games). Stewart wasn’t hit at all.

The current regime lost an entire year for ALL of their prospects in 2020. That’s going to slow down development for all of their prospects, and that time can’t be made up. Their #1 pick in 2017 also tore his ACL, causing him to miss another entire year, also time that can’t be made up.

To the bolded section, how was Ryan’s drafting strategy good and he just got unlucky whereas the current FO’s strategy is just bad? Seems parallel with the argument that the 2016 Twins were unlucky and the 2021 Twins were just bad (uh……no?). I don’t follow the logic there at all. The books aren’t closed on the 2017-onward drafts, and they are for the 2013-2015 draft.

[chpettit19]

16 hours ago, RpR said:

OH, the miracle analytics , I used to see thee type of people selling miracle cures at carnivals.

R. Strange McNamara used analytics to run the Vietnam War.

Oh, the miracle of ignoring what every major business in the developed world has decided is the best way to build their business. Not even just talking sports. Literally every major business in the world has an analytics team to help them make decisions. Every major sports league in North America (MLB, NFL, NBA, MLS, WNBA, NHL, NASCAR, NCAA) have their own analytics departments or pay for proprietary data from analytics companies. Then every franchise/organization/team in those leagues have their own departments and pay for different data from analytics companies. Target, Wells Fargo, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Best Buy, McDonalds, Tesla name a massive corporation and they have an analytics department. Small businesses and small college teams even have analytics departments or pay for analytics from outside sources. I know because I do analytics for a small company right now and have been paid to provide analytics services to D2 colleges in MN and WI. 

You can dislike analytics, or write them off, or whatever you want, but you're literally ignoring the smartest people on the planet. Your argument is that every sports league, every sports franchise, every corporation, and probably the majority of companies in the developed world are wrong. It's time to put this debate to bed. Analytics are superior to our eyes and guts. The verdict is in. It's time to accept it.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

11 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

Even if a GM were to (irrationally) dislike analytics, he should still be obliged to understand them if only to better understand his opponents next moves and motivations. 
 

Ryan put about as much effort into this particular area as my 9-year-old does into cleaning her bedroom.

Terry, why is this computer UNDER your desk? You need to put things AWAY after you are done using them.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

39 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Oh, the miracle of ignoring what every major business in the developed world has decided is the best way to build their business. Not even just talking sports. Literally every major business in the world has an analytics team to help them make decisions. Every major sports league in North America (MLB, NFL, NBA, MLS, WNBA, NHL, NASCAR, NCAA) have their own analytics departments or pay for proprietary data from analytics companies. Then every franchise/organization/team in those leagues have their own departments and pay for different data from analytics companies. Target, Wells Fargo, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Best Buy, McDonalds, Tesla name a massive corporation and they have an analytics department. Small businesses and small college teams even have analytics departments or pay for analytics from outside sources. I know because I do analytics for a small company right now and have been paid to provide analytics services to D2 colleges in MN and WI. 

You can dislike analytics, or write them off, or whatever you want, but you're literally ignoring the smartest people on the planet. Your argument is that every sports league, every sports franchise, every corporation, and probably the majority of companies in the developed world are wrong. It's time to put this debate to bed. Analytics are superior to our eyes and guts. The verdict is in. It's time to accept it.

I do supply chain analytics for a large manufacturing firm. I believe in my work and know that I play an integral part in my organization's capability to deliver our products to our customers. As you say, this is how we do things.

However I think we need to add some nuance here. We've been measuring stuff and doing calculations with it since the first Roman democracy. We've just gotten better at it with the advancement of computers.

As it was in 509 BC it is still today, the statistics don't make the decisions. We do.

At the beginning, Ryan embraced modern technology and tools to improve his teams decision making and his teams excelled beyond their competitors.

Towards the end Ryan's competitors adopted new and better tools to make better decisions with. You can give a rocket scientist an abacus and she can still take you to the moon. You give a computer to a rocket scientist and she'll get you there faster, cheaper, and safer.

[MABB1959]

This front office let Berrios go.  They most likely won't come close to replacing him so I give the an big fat F for their accomplishments.  They gave us Cruz and then took him away.   I don't think we will see another Berrios for a while.  I love the game of baseball not for the stats but the excitement of seeing my favorite players.  They have been going away one by one by one starting with Escobar, then Eddie Eddie, Berrios, Cruz and Astudillo. Except for Sano, Buxton and maybe Polanco there is no one left to look forward to.   Only 6 players played in over 100 games and of those Polanco holds the highest BA of .269.   Arraez has looks to be good and may be an exciting player.  Donaldson, Sano, Simmons and Kepler all of BA's under 250.  I know that is a basic stat to most on this board but it represents a chance to get on base and make the game more exciting.  Kepler .211?

[chpettit19]

3 minutes ago, Sconnie said:

I do supply chain analytics for a large manufacturing firm. I believe in my work and know that I play an integral part in my organization's capability to deliver our products to our customers. As you say, this is how we do things.

However I think we need to add some nuance here. We've been measuring stuff and doing calculations with it since the first Roman democracy. We've just gotten better at it with the advancement of computers.

As it was in 509 BC it is still today, the statistics don't make the decisions. We do.

At the beginning, Ryan embraced modern technology and tools to improve his teams decision making and his teams excelled beyond their competitors.

Towards the end Ryan's competitors adopted new and better tools to make better decisions with. You can give a rocket scientist an abacus and she can still take you to the moon. You give a computer to a rocket scientist and she'll get you there faster, cheaper, and safer.

Yes, nuance is definitely needed. This debate about the new stats and analytics and technology is just getting old. Terry Ryan refused to join the new world. It hurt the Twins greatly, and cost him his job. Like I said in my first comment, the new FO modernizing the organization gives them the W without question, in my mind. But that doesn't mean they're a great FO by any means. Doesn't even mean they're a good FO. But if we're just talking about whether or not the new FO is better than Ryan and his boys club for this current day and time there's no debate. I can't even imagine what this team would look like if Ryan were still in charge. I'm picturing Ryan and his crew riding around in a horse and buggy while the rest of MLB front offices cruise around in Teslas.

[Squirrel]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Oh, the miracle of ignoring what every major business in the developed world has decided is the best way to build their business. Not even just talking sports. Literally every major business in the world has an analytics team to help them make decisions. Every major sports league in North America (MLB, NFL, NBA, MLS, WNBA, NHL, NASCAR, NCAA) have their own analytics departments or pay for proprietary data from analytics companies. Then every franchise/organization/team in those leagues have their own departments and pay for different data from analytics companies. Target, Wells Fargo, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Best Buy, McDonalds, Tesla name a massive corporation and they have an analytics department. Small businesses and small college teams even have analytics departments or pay for analytics from outside sources. I know because I do analytics for a small company right now and have been paid to provide analytics services to D2 colleges in MN and WI. 

You can dislike analytics, or write them off, or whatever you want, but you're literally ignoring the smartest people on the planet. Your argument is that every sports league, every sports franchise, every corporation, and probably the majority of companies in the developed world are wrong. It's time to put this debate to bed. Analytics are superior to our eyes and guts. The verdict is in. It's time to accept it.

Ooou … the take down is real!

[MABB1959]

 

2 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

You can dislike analytics, or write them off, or whatever you want, but you're literally ignoring the smartest people on the planet. Your argument is that every sports league, every sports franchise, every corporation, and probably the majority of companies in the developed world are wrong. It's time to put this debate to bed. Analytics are superior to our eyes and guts. The verdict is in. It's time to accept it.

If I wanted stats I would study the stock market.  I want to watch a fun and competitive baseball team.  Sorry but all the Falvey stats have gotten us no where.  We have lost players that went to other teams to have better success?  Where is that stat?  We could call it BBT "Better being Traded"  We would have a great stat there.  Sorry but I want to see players I love playing every day.  I think many fans want the same. 

[Squirrel]

8 minutes ago, MABB1959 said:

 

If I wanted stats I would study the stock market.  I want to watch a fun and competitive baseball team.  Sorry but all the Falvey stats have gotten us no where.  We have lost players that went to other teams to have better success?  Where is that stat?  We could call it BBT "Better being Traded"  We would have a great stat there.  Sorry but I want to see players I love playing every day.  I think many fans want the same. 

Not sure how you quoted that above with me saying that. Just for clarity, that was a statement @chpettit19 made, not me.

 

[cHawk]

32 minutes ago, MABB1959 said:

This front office let Berrios go.  They most likely won't come close to replacing him so I give the an big fat F for their accomplishments.  They gave us Cruz and then took him away.   I don't think we will see another Berrios for a while. I love the game of baseball not for the stats but the excitement of seeing my favorite players. They have been going away one by one by one starting with Escobar, then Eddie Eddie, Berrios, Cruz and Astudillo. Except for Sano, Buxton and maybe Polanco there is no one left to look forward to.   Only 6 players played in over 100 games and of those Polanco holds the highest BA of .269.   Arraez has looks to be good and may be an exciting player.  Donaldson, Sano, Simmons and Kepler all of BA's under 250.  I know that is a basic stat to most on this board but it represents a chance to get on base and make the game more exciting.  Kepler .211?

We all have our biases and we all have our favorite players. I understand that. However, these things can’t really be baked into this particular discussion.

[chpettit19]

22 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

Not sure how you quoted that above with me saying that. Just for clarity, that was a statement @chpettit19 made, not me.

 

Quit stealing my rage inducing quotes! I'm the bad guy here and I don't appreciate you stealing my glory ?

[chpettit19]

33 minutes ago, MABB1959 said:

 

If I wanted stats I would study the stock market.  I want to watch a fun and competitive baseball team.  Sorry but all the Falvey stats have gotten us no where.  We have lost players that went to other teams to have better success?  Where is that stat?  We could call it BBT "Better being Traded"  We would have a great stat there.  Sorry but I want to see players I love playing every day.  I think many fans want the same. 

So you want to watch the majority of teams this FO has produced by using the stats? Falvey's teams have a .527 winning percentage. All his stats have gotten us 2 division titles and a wild card birth after being a laughing stock for 5 of the previous 6 seasons. They have also brought in players who performed better here than they did with other teams. Are you going to add that into your BBT stat?

Listen, I get it, 2021 was a complete and total disaster. Not trying to suggest you forget or ignore that, but take it for what it is. 1 season. In your earlier post you talk about liking to watch Cruz play. They brought Cruz in. So he's at worst a neutral in the BBT stat, right? You're mad with the current world of professional sports. The Dodgers just lost Corey Seager. The Red Sox traded Mookie Betts (and Manny Ramirez back in the day). The Cubs just traded their entire WS core. This isn't a Twins problem, this is a baseball (and really, sports as a whole) problem. Being mad at this specific FO for doing what everyone else is doing seems misguided. It's just how sports work now. 

[gunnarthor]

I think one of the unfair knocks on the old regime was that they didn't use analytics. Of course they did. Every team did. Ryan's methods - horde young players, don't sign vets to longterm contracts, rely on youth - became, more or less, the industry standard. But he understood that before most teams and that's why we have so many trades that got us guys like Ortiz and Bartlett, etc. Gardy's use of bullpens was far ahead of most teams in the 2000s as well as our use of shifting players defensively (KLAW, of all people, mentioned this as a reason Orlando Hudson would thrive defensively for the Twins). IIRC, the Twins, under either Ryan or Smith, were one of the first teams to subscribe to MLB's strikezone mapping software that accurately measured pitch locations and bat speed. Certainly, they didn't have access to some things we have now and they didn't use analytics as much as other teams but they weren't just "scouting" everything.

And, conversely, it's not fair to Falvine to say they only use analytics. They upgraded the analytic side a lot and made it easier to spread information throughout the organization. But they've added more scouts and given those scouts additional tools to use when scouting players. They've hired more coaches at each level. (They kept Molly around as manager in part because of his old-school knowledge which I thought was a mistake). Our scouting worldwide increased a lot under Bill Smith but the new FO has (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) expanded our footprint in the Dominican Republic. And I believe they've also used sports psychologists with players to get them to perform better. It's not all just computer spreadsheets for them. They understand that players perform better in good environments and have tried to make them, including increasing English language options for foreign born players. 

[Squirrel]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Quit stealing my rage inducing quotes! I'm the bad guy here and I don't appreciate you stealing my glory ?

Lol … I don’t want it which is why I redirected it to you! You can have all the glory, I’m fine with my role here ?

[bean5302]

There's no way to know how Terry Ryan's front office would have pushed to develop the players we currently have. Analytics often tells you the same thing as qualified scout eye tests. Telling Mitch Garver to stop moving so much when he catches pitches wasn't some sort of revelation only "analytics" could have figured out.

In any case, Falvey's front office hasn't quite enough time yet, but a verdict could be in this year. His pitching has been slow to emerge and his drafts have been bad. His free agent signings have been inadequate and his trades thus far have been lackluster. Martin and Woods-Richardson could turn out to be awesome or Martin could turn into Joe Benson and Woods-Richardson into Tyler Jay, but neither has shown anything impressive in their stint with the Twins so far. 2020 is used as the ultimate apologist go-to. Players may not have been in formal competition, but they weren't at home laying on the sofa eating Cheetos. There were off-sites and there were workout routines. You think Winder picks up all that velocity without the time to build it? Also, we're not talking about 20 year olds who missed a year. Many of the prospects drafted by Falvey's team are 24 or 25 and many of them have had injury issues. Yes. The front office gets held accountable for all their pitchers being constantly hurt. The front office drafted them (with their prior injury history in many cases) and the front office hires the team which maps out the development plans. When everybody is hurt, there's a problem with the development plan including mechanics, etc. Results are what matters and excuses start wearing thin. 2022 figures to be a huge year for Falvey's front office because there are so many prospects with big question marks around them right now. Those questions should largely be answered this year. Lewis, Rooker, Larnach, Cavaco to name a few first rounders.

Terry Ryan's front office had many years to correct what was a terrible 2011, but Ryan was unable to do it and eventually, the excuses ran out. That said, we know the Pohlad's are conservative and are not willing to open the purse strings to sign long free agent contracts. That ownership group has hamstrung the front offices quite a bit, but some of it is self inflicted as I believe the ownership chooses GM's who are also conservative. I believe that boils down to the biggest reason Smith was let go. He wasn't  a cheapskate and as soon as it looked like the money the Pohlad's were talked into spending didn't produce, they canned him. I see very little different with Falvey's front office than Ryan's front office except Ryan used the eye test and Falvey uses a computer. Neither one is going to be capable of digging out of a hole quickly with an owner who won't spend and a personal inclination to be cheap.

[Dman]

I think the OP made some good points.  I don't think that at this time the current FO has massively outperformed the Ryan regime.  Still like a lot of other posters have noted this FO has time on their side yet.  So this discussion is premature IMO.  

I am with chpettit19 though in that I think player development has improved significantly.  So much so that the Marlins stole our hitting coach and the Yankee's our catching coach.  There even rumors that Boston was looking into Falvey and Colorado into Levine so the industry doesn't appear to look on them as poorly as some of us do.

They have turned low end pitchers like Wisler and Harper into something useful in the past.  They managed to take this team to 100 wins which has only happened once before.  They have had their moments.

Still they have had their talent eval misses and their trades haven't been overly great and last year was a debacle.  Even in that 100 win season they could not win a playoff game. Sometime things just don't go as planned.  Given what I have seen they are not that much different than the Ryan regime other than their heavier use of analytics especially on the pitching side of things.  They need their moves to work out or they will end up the same as Ryan.

[kenbuddha]

Terry Ryan's front office worked really well for a very long time but eventually the old school methods just couldn't compete any longer with the rest of baseball. My complaint at the time was even if you don't believe in the new stats being used you should still do them in order to understand how your competitors are evaluating your players. The rest of baseball was moving to a different paradigm. It was time to change the Minnesota Twins organization and Terry Ryan didn't seem to want to do it, nor do I believe he was the right guy to do it. They needed a revolution, not an evolution.

The Falvey front office from day one was tasked with changing the organization. Some of you may not believe it has lead to a better fan experience but that's a baseball-wide issue. The changes that I think are good have to do with diet, conditioning, coaching and yes using new (to MN) technology to help not just evaluate players but to help the players make adjustments in how they play the game. Today's analytics aren't just in evaluating if one player is better than the other for scouting, it's in applying them to help players get better. Does it always work? Nope. But it does put us on an even keel with respect to all of the other organizations.

The modernization had to happen and it wasn't going to happen with Terry Ryan due to many things, age, knowledge, drive.

Honestly, the analytics thing is a red herring these days. Every team in every sport has moved on to better stats. You may not like it but that's the way world works.

[Dman]

21 hours ago, gunnarthor said:

I've been low on the FO for a while now. I assume this will be their last year. I assume we're looking at another 75-80 or so win season, low attendance, a

I think you might be the low man on the FO will be gone if they have another bad year bandwagon.  Not sure if you caught the quote but remember Mr. Pohlad gave his FO an A+ for their job with the team in 2021 (I assume mainly for how they dealt with adversity).   At any rate that is a pretty heavy vote of confidence to get rid of them if they have a mediocre year next year.

The Pohlads have always been pretty loyal as long as they feel the people they hired are respected in the industry. I think rightfully so Mr. Pohlad see's Falvine as competent in their roles and they have been coveted by other organizations in the past so they meet that respected criteria.  I don't see him changing his mind unless change is desperately needed.  Unless there are incompetent blunders by the FO next year I expect the A+ grades to continue.

[bean5302]

I actually think the 3 outcome approach is likely leading to vulnerabilities. It's clear the Twins' defense is being held together by the shift. Hitters like Arraez who put a lot of balls into play and hitters able to spread the ball around should be able to take advantage of the modern front office inclination to put fielders wearing lead boots and granite gloves into the infield simply because those modern front offices want homer production at shortstop.

Right now, there are some articles pointing to hitters getting around the shift by golfing balls up out of the infield entirely despite fly balls having a very low batting average if they don't leave the field. With pitch clocks coming, and discussions of shift-banning along with electronic strike zones, we may well be on the way to seeing the return of Tony Gwynns and Joe Mauers. It'd be interesting to see baseball with action again rather than knowing you'll only miss one interesting play if you get up and walk around for an hour or 3 innings, whichever comes first.

Falvey's system is weak in that regard. Relying upon analytics means you need enough data to be relevant. The data shows you opportunity that used to exist, not opportunity which exists now or is necessarily coming in the future. It'll be interesting to see if major rules changes render a lot of this front office's data and analytics obsolete and worthless. I'm not trashing the methodology, I'm just not willing to declare it as infallible.

[Dman]

15 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

I actually think the 3 outcome approach is likely leading to vulnerabilities. It's clear the Twins' defense is being held together by the shift. Hitters like Arraez who put a lot of balls into play and hitters able to spread the ball around should be able to take advantage of the modern front office inclination to put fielders wearing lead boots and granite gloves into the infield simply because those modern front offices want homer production at shortstop.

Right now, there are some articles pointing to hitters getting around the shift by golfing balls up out of the infield entirely despite fly balls having a very low batting average if they don't leave the field. With pitch clocks coming, and discussions of shift-banning along with electronic strike zones, we may well be on the way to seeing the return of Tony Gwynns and Joe Mauers. It'd be interesting to see baseball with action again rather than knowing you'll only miss one interesting play if you get up and walk around for an hour or 3 innings, whichever comes first.

Falvey's system is weak in that regard. Relying upon analytics means you need enough data to be relevant. The data shows you opportunity that used to exist, not opportunity which exists now or is necessarily coming in the future. It'll be interesting to see if major rules changes render a lot of this front office's data and analytics obsolete and worthless. I'm not trashing the methodology, I'm just not willing to declare it as infallible.

I agree with you in that the Twins seem to be all in on Hard Hit Rate to the exclusion of defense.  I don't feel like it has paid off to this point.  I think it really took root with what the Bomba squad was able to do but with the change to the ball that hasn't really replicated itself since.  They need Larnach, Rooker, Wallner and Sabato to be success stories or that will be a lot of lost draft capital to overcome.

I get HHR makes sense as it appears to lead to a higher OPS with more doubles and HR's but watching Sano you can see the downside sometimes as well.  Sometimes a well timed hit is better than a unproductive K. and yes sometimes a well timed HR is better than a single.  I just hope the Twins can make their strategy work otherwise it could be a long road back to good to great offense.

[Rigby]

5 hours ago, Sconnie said:

 

 You can give a rocket scientist an abacus and she can still take you to the moon. You give a computer to a rocket scientist and she'll get you there faster, cheaper, and safer.

Just waiting for Falvey's launch date....

[jmlease1]

I don't think there's any question that Terry Ryan's second go had some rough drafts. And it doesn't matter if some of those guys got bit by the injury bug or not: they were the guys that were chosen, and while we were enduring some pretty brutal seasons of MLB not a lot of hope came out of the top end of the draft. I do think it's fair to criticize some of this FO's picks as well, even though they're still in the development stages: Cavaco hasn't done anything yet, Sabato has had some brutal stretches where he looks like a washout, etc. But we're not at the end of the that development cycle yet, and we kind of are when it comes to Terry Ryan's last drafts. 

Of course, being the GM isn't just about drafting and developing players, it's also about who you hire to manage and coach the team, and it's also fair to question whether Ryan stuck with Gardy too long and failed to advance the resources of the on-field staff. There are a lot of people who don't like Rocco (I'm not entirely sure why, really; a lot of the complaints about Rocco don't really seem to hold water) right now, but can we really say Ryan (second edition) did better? Gardy hung on too long, Molitor occasionally seemed out of touch and was certainly out of step with the new regime.

I do think it's important to separate Terry Ryan's first run as GM from his second, though. It's really hard to have a successful second act after being away from the game, and there aren't really that many who can do it, especially if there are financial limitations imposed like the Pohlads have done. It doesn't make him a bad guy (although, wow, could he be pretty salty with people who asked him questions he didn't like) and it doesn't take away from his success in his first stint, in which he did very well, IMHO. 

[bean5302]

Here's what I would say about a GM's job responsibility order:

1. Personal Conduct
2. Team On Field Performance 
3. Draft (Scouting)
4. Develop (MiLB Coaches/Managers)
5. Free Agency
6. MLB Level Manager/Coaches
7. Trades
8. Team Medical Staff
9. Front Office Baseball Operations

Analytics has a role in most of these roles. The reason I place such a lower value on trades is trades only need to happen when 3, 4 and 5 all fail. I don't feel like the on field performance is a direct function of any of the items below it. A team can win 100 games and the World Series despite a whole bunch of things being bad below it if a new GM takes over, for instance. Even if the new GM looks like an idiot based on their draft, etc, winning will ultimately overrule all other issues, except personal conduct. i.e. if a GM gets accused of a crime or some public relations nightmare.

[RpR]

7 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Oh, the miracle of ignoring what every major business in the developed world has decided is the best way to build their business. Not even just talking sports. Literally every major business in the world has an analytics team to help them make decisions. Every major sports league in North America (MLB, NFL, NBA, MLS, WNBA, NHL, NASCAR, NCAA) have their own analytics departments or pay for proprietary data from analytics companies. Then every franchise/organization/team in those leagues have their own departments and pay for different data from analytics companies. Target, Wells Fargo, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Best Buy, McDonalds, Tesla name a massive corporation and they have an analytics department. Small businesses and small college teams even have analytics departments or pay for analytics from outside sources. I know because I do analytics for a small company right now and have been paid to provide analytics services to D2 colleges in MN and WI. 

You can dislike analytics, or write them off, or whatever you want, but you're literally ignoring the smartest people on the planet. Your argument is that every sports league, every sports franchise, every corporation, and probably the majority of companies in the developed world are wrong. It's time to put this debate to bed. Analytics are superior to our eyes and guts. The verdict is in. It's time to accept it.

Yep, R. Strange McNamara thought he was one of the smartest people in the world, shizzam!