Who Makes Up the Twins Bench?

[Doctor Gast]

3 hours ago, mikelink45 said:

If Rooker's only asset is the fact he hits right handed I am not ready to give him a spot.  He does have versatility - he can play bad defense at multiple positions. 

Gordon and Arraez 

I am not sure about Godoy since he can be right across the river if the need for a third catcher comes up. 

I think Larnach might just make it allowing Kiriloff more time at 1B.  

The Sano/Sanchez log jam is an issue.

Then I am stuck, but I hope not one of the last two - they require a DFA (if Rooker I am okay). 

Nice analyst Ted, tough choice. My choice is if possible is to send Sanchez down to work on his catching and hitting. Arraez is my regular 3B/DH and #1 Godoy is my back up catcher.  #2 Gordon's glove and versatility is our safety net, #3&4 , I'd give  Miranda and Larnach a chance to prove that they belong here until they prove otherwise.

Rooker is a butcher in the OF, him being RH not enough. Celestino is my 1st call up. Sanchez needs a lot of help but who knows he regains and improve on his past form.

[DJL44]

If Sanchez, Jeffers and Sano are all in the same lineup then

1) Obviously a lefthanded pitcher. Urshela and Garlick are also probably in the lineup.

2) I want Gary Sanchez playing 1B instead of Sano.

[Minny505]

2 hours ago, Tibs said:

Is Gary Sanchez a better DH option than Luis Arraez? I have expressed concerns regarding Arraez's power, but Sanchez has simply not made enough contact with the baseball 3 of the last 4 seasons to fill a role whose sole purpose is to hit a baseball.

If he turns it around then sure absolutely. I don't think he should be penciled in anywhere though.

I don't understand the assumption that Sanchez, a league average hitter, will get the majority of DH starts. 

Arraez is projected to have a better OPS by just about every projection system on the planet.

Sanchez should probably DH against LHP, sliding Sano to 1B where his defense is tolerable for the tradeoff against LHP, , but that's about it. 

Arraez seem like a better candidate to be the strong-side of a platoon at 3B on most days, with Sano at DH.

[DJL44]

42 minutes ago, Sconnie said:

1) Urshela and Arraez in aggregate seem to be very similar hitters. It should be a very open competition on who starts at 3B.

Not competition - platoon. They're complementary hitters.

[beckmt]

Arraez will DH and play 3B.  Sano will play 1B and DH.  My guess is that Sano and Sanchez will sit against tough rightes on righties.  You will need a RH hitting outfielder to play when the opposition starts a leftie (Kepler should not be an option, unless the Lefty does better against righties.  Rooker and Laurach should be in St. Paul.  To start the season I am expecting 15 pitchers because of the short spring training.  Gordon should give you a lot of coverage for a short term.  We will be fine.

[Riverbrian]

I don't believe in a bench. 

Buxton, Correa and Polanco should be in the lineup close to every day.  

Everybody else on the roster needs to compete for the most playing time at the available positions. 

 

 

 

[USAFChief]

Just wanted to concur with the idea there is no need for a 3rd catcher. Carrying dead weight just on the off chance you MIGHT lose a DH AB is foolish. Why are we DHing Sanchez anyway?

What we REALLY need is a SECOND catcher, BTW. Actually, scratch that...we need a first catcher. 

Also like the idea of an Urshela/Arraez platoon.

I'd also carry Rooker and sit one LH hitting OFer against most lefties.

I'd imagine 14 pitchers to start the season, until the 28 man roster goes away.

[Mark G]

37 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

I don't believe in a bench. 

Buxton, Correa and Polanco should be in the lineup close to every day.  

Everybody else on the roster needs to compete for the most playing time at the available positions. 

 

 

 

I think all of us can agree with line #2.  After that, it would be an interesting debate.  In your scenario I can only draw the conclusion that you believe we have 3 everyday players and 10 role players, all of whom would be juggled in and out of the lineup throughout the year competing, as you say, for the other 6 positions in the lineup.  Personally, I believe you put your best 9 players in the lineup every day and have bench players who come in as needed for injuries, or just tough pitching match ups where they bench player may have a better look.   Earl Weaver would have agreed with me; I have a hunch Rocco is going to agree with you.     

[Riverbrian]

7 minutes ago, Mark G said:

I think all of us can agree with line #2.  After that, it would be an interesting debate.  In your scenario I can only draw the conclusion that you believe we have 3 everyday players and 10 role players, all of whom would be juggled in and out of the lineup throughout the year competing, as you say, for the other 6 positions in the lineup.  Personally, I believe you put your best 9 players in the lineup every day and have bench players who come in as needed for injuries, or just tough pitching match ups where they bench player may have a better look.   Earl Weaver would have agreed with me; I have a hunch Rocco is going to agree with you.     

Who are the best 9 is the question that no one knows the answer to and how big of a difference is there between number 4 and number 13 is also an important question to be asked? 

The answer to that question can only be determined on the field. 

Sing for your supper... let the best man win. 

 

 

[RpR]

Who is Cole Sturgeon?

[Mark G]

3 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

Who are the best 9 is the question that no one knows the answer to and how big of a difference is there between number 4 and number 13 is also an important question to be asked? 

The answer to that question can only be determined on the field. 

Sing for your supper... let the best man win. 

 

 

Agreed.  I would only lament that on this club the winners are never declared.  They spend multiple seasons "competing" for the different positions, but no one is ever declared the winner and, therefore, starter.  

Having said that, I know that Kepler, Sano, and before this year Donaldson played the majority of the time at right, 1st, and 3rd. Even Simmons played a lot of SS.  But how many games?  We treat our position starters like we treat our pitching starters, and our role players like like our relief pitchers.  Can't work anyone too hard; we might hurt them.  We had one pitcher with more than 125 innings (counting JB's time with Toronto), and one player with more than 500 at bats (3 if you go all the way to total plate appearances).   One was Donaldson, so hopefully Buck will take on that total, the other 2 were Polanco and Sano.  With a healthy Kirilloff (hopefully), will Sano still get his at bats?  Will Kirilloff get them?  If so, where?  OF or 1st base?  Where does Arraez get his?  We know Correa will get his, and Polanco will get his.  Buck if he is healthy.  Who else, and where will they play?  Or will we just shuffle the other 10 around the field and the batting order as we have in the past?  My long winded way of saying I long for the days when you knew who would play and who would sub, or in some cases who would platoon.  I didn't use to need a scorecard, and I used to recognize the box scores.  Ah, the good old days.     

[Minfidel]

7 hours ago, beterday said:

Cave!!!  You forgot Cave.  I can't believe Rocco will leave Cave behind.

Cave will be left behind, even if I have to personally go to Florida and duct-tape him to his locker. 

[Riverbrian]

1 hour ago, Mark G said:

Agreed.  I would only lament that on this club the winners are never declared.  They spend multiple seasons "competing" for the different positions, but no one is ever declared the winner and, therefore, starter.  

Having said that, I know that Kepler, Sano, and before this year Donaldson played the majority of the time at right, 1st, and 3rd. Even Simmons played a lot of SS.  But how many games?  We treat our position starters like we treat our pitching starters, and our role players like like our relief pitchers.  Can't work anyone too hard; we might hurt them.  We had one pitcher with more than 125 innings (counting JB's time with Toronto), and one player with more than 500 at bats (3 if you go all the way to total plate appearances).   One was Donaldson, so hopefully Buck will take on that total, the other 2 were Polanco and Sano.  With a healthy Kirilloff (hopefully), will Sano still get his at bats?  Will Kirilloff get them?  If so, where?  OF or 1st base?  Where does Arraez get his?  We know Correa will get his, and Polanco will get his.  Buck if he is healthy.  Who else, and where will they play?  Or will we just shuffle the other 10 around the field and the batting order as we have in the past?  My long winded way of saying I long for the days when you knew who would play and who would sub, or in some cases who would platoon.  I didn't use to need a scorecard, and I used to recognize the box scores.  Ah, the good old days.     

Options to choose from and utilize is a terrific problem to have.  

Back when I was programming rock radio stations. 

Radio Stations all over the country were using test scores to determine playlists. Listen to the Music by the Doobie Brothers tested at a 75 so I could play it without a consultant crawling up my... China Grove tested at a 74 so I couldn't play it or the consultant would crawl up my...

75 was the line. The end result: Listen to the Music was the only Doobie Brothers song that played in a playlist of 200 songs spanning the 60's, 70's and 80's and China Grove is gone to fade into oblivion. 

That's a small difference and a hard line that produces a needless tight play list and eventually Listen to the Music stops working for ya. 

Urshela and Kepler are Listen to the Music

Arraez and Larnach are China Grove  ?

 

 

[ashbury]

3 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Actually, scratch that...we need a first catcher.

When's the last time in your estimation we had one of those?

[Otto von Ballpark]

1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

Urshela and Kepler are Listen to the Music

Arraez and Larnach are China Grove  ?

Well, that’s just What A Fool Believes.

[Mark G]

1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

Options to choose from and utilize is a terrific problem to have.  

Back when I was programming rock radio stations. 

Radio Stations all over the country were using test scores to determine playlists. Listen to the Music by the Doobie Brothers tested at a 75 so I could play it without a consultant crawling up my... China Grove tested at a 74 so I couldn't play it or the consultant would crawl up my...

75 was the line. The end result: Listen to the Music was the only Doobie Brothers song that played in a playlist of 200 songs spanning the 60's, 70's and 80's and China Grove is gone to fade into oblivion. 

That's a small difference and a hard line that produces a needless tight play list and eventually Listen to the Music stops working for ya. 

Urshela and Kepler are Listen to the Music

Arraez and Larnach are China Grove  ?

 

 

I understood every word you said all the way through problem to have.      Just kidding...............sort of.  

Understood; not convinced.  Especially if Kepler tests higher than Arraez.     

In the end, options to choose from, to me at least, comes in the off season and spring training.  Yea, yea, spring training was short this year, so let's extend it into April and let the teams have 28 players, then reduce it.  But by May, I want to have chosen.  And utilized.  For better or worse, we will know our players by then.  Play the best where they play the best..............oh, you know what I mean.     

[ashbury]

34 minutes ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

Well, that’s just What A Fool Believes.

Ugh. Wrong era of the Doobs' repertoire.  Tom Johnston, Patrick Simmons, or GTFO.

[Riverbrian]

2 hours ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

Well, that’s just What A Fool Believes.

"No Wise Man has the Power... To Reason Away". 

[jorgenswest]

Rooker bats right handed but he hasn’t really hit left handed pitching very well. He has reverse splits.

Combining his majors and minors his OPS against left handed pitching the last three years are 714, 762 and 738.

The Twins don’t need a right handed bat. They need a hitter that can hit lefties. Rooker does not check that box.

[USAFChief]

18 minutes ago, jorgenswest said:

Rooker bats right handed but he hasn’t really hit left handed pitching very well. He has reverse splits.

Combining his majors and minors his OPS against left handed pitching the last three years are 714, 762 and 738.

The Twins don’t need a right handed bat. They need a hitter that can hit lefties. Rooker does not check that box.

Reverse splits are a temporary illusion. Always.

[jorgenswest]

6 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Reverse splits are a temporary illusion. Always.

This is often true for a season because of the sample size. It could be a four year temporary illusion or it could be that he sees right handed pitchers better. His string of OPS against mostly minor league left handed pitchers doesn’t suggest to me he would be a good platoon option. I would have more confidence in Garlick.

[Riverbrian]

13 hours ago, Mark G said:

I understood every word you said all the way through problem to have.      Just kidding...............sort of.  

Understood; not convinced.  Especially if Kepler tests higher than Arraez.     

In the end, options to choose from, to me at least, comes in the off season and spring training.  Yea, yea, spring training was short this year, so let's extend it into April and let the teams have 28 players, then reduce it.  But by May, I want to have chosen.  And utilized.  For better or worse, we will know our players by then.  Play the best where they play the best..............oh, you know what I mean.     

There are a lot of people who feel the way you feel. 

However, if you are willing to dedicate exclusive playing time to a selected few based on very very very small margins. You have to be right... I mean you haaaavvvvve to be right...  because the wrong will keep being wrong like a church bell while you have been injecting pentobarbital into the right player,   

When that happens... we never really know what we lost but that's ok because the continued playing time of the failed chosen player is always justified with the standard "Well... there is nobody else to play anyway". ?

 

[Heiny]

My biggest complaint here is that we would DH Sanchez because of the amount of his paycheck.  We already have a right handed strikeout master to play DH in Sano.  Let Sanchez catch twice a week to give Jeffers a break and stash him away in a closet the rest of the week.

[Mark G]

5 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

There are a lot of people who feel the way you feel. 

However, if you are willing to dedicate exclusive playing time to a selected few based on very very very small margins. You have to be right... I mean you haaaavvvvve to be right...  because the wrong will keep being wrong like a church bell while you have been injecting pentobarbital into the right player,   

When that happens... we never really know what we lost but that's ok because the continued playing time of the failed chosen player is always justified with the standard "Well... there is nobody else to play anyway". ?

 

While I would love to jump on the bandwagon, so to speak, it scares me to think we have 3 or 4 players who are clear stars, and 9 or 10 who we can't choose between because there is very little discernable difference in overall ability. (which is what we are starting our BP with)  I know it is impossible to prove a negative, but in the same way we would be playing the wrong player if we judge him overly strong, we won't play him enough if we judge him weaker than he may turn out to be.  I guess I may be one of those folks who would rather be wrong and own it, than play it safe and never know.  But, then, my job doesn't depend on it, does it?  I will just face a lot of I told you so's on TD.    

[Riverbrian]

14 minutes ago, Mark G said:

While I would love to jump on the bandwagon, so to speak, it scares me to think we have 3 or 4 players who are clear stars, and 9 or 10 who we can't choose between because there is very little discernable difference in overall ability. (which is what we are starting our BP with)  I know it is impossible to prove a negative, but in the same way we would be playing the wrong player if we judge him overly strong, we won't play him enough if we judge him weaker than he may turn out to be.  I guess I may be one of those folks who would rather be wrong and own it, than play it safe and never know.  But, then, my job doesn't depend on it, does it?  I will just face a lot of I told you so's on TD.    

I'm already saying I told you so... just not publicly. ?

[Mark G]

1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

I'm already saying I told you so... just not publicly. ?

Touche'