Why the Twins Were Right to Demote Alex Kirilloff to Minors

5 hours ago, MABB1959 said:

He needs to go down but if he is injured they need to figure out how to help prevent injuries.  Seems many of the prospects are injury prone once they get here.

Problem is, we've seen this movie before with Kirilloff. I'm sure he's like a lot of young pro ballplayers in that he's justifiably terrified of being one of those guys that's always got something wrong with him that stops him from realizing his talent. This is like a pitcher that can't throw without developing a blister on his middle finger, or an infielder with chronic planar fasciitis. These things can end a career before it really gets going. Sadly, we may be watching it happen to another great Twins prospect. 

6 hours ago, mikelink45 said:

I asked this question in the minor league report - what are the hitting coaches doing in MPLS?  Wallner, Kiriloff, Julien have all been sent down for hitting issues.  That is a lot of potential being lost. 

I think they had no choice but to send Alex down - but it is time to assess the massive coaching team for their abilities too. 

I do think that they could reevaluate the hitting coaches, but IMO Popovich is doing a good job. IMO the main problem is the team's hitting (all or nothing) philosophy that influences our scouting, draft picks, development, FA signing & maybe to some extent the hitting coach hirings. Firings of coaches (like they did a couple of years ago) won't do any good if they don't change their philosophy priority. That change will produce a massive overall of the system over several years to undo it.

2 hours ago, DJL44 said:

His value could be even lower next spring.

Is there a difference between being worth next to nothing vs nothing in this case?  The upside is far greater than the downside at this point.  Not the time to sell.

52 minutes ago, arby58 said:

Yeah, but if nobody is buying now, it doesn't really matter. My guess is nobody will buy now - why would they?

Somebody bought on Nick Gordon. 🤷‍♂️

Kiriloff was healthy to begin the season & his hitting reflected that. Because of his past arm problems, he should have been limited to 1B/ DH, but because of Santana, Kiriloff played mainly OF. The longer he played OF, the worse his hitting got, Kiriloff is a pure hitter so any mechanical problem is minor & quickly resolved. This problem only got worse. IMO his shoulder has been giving him problems so he can't maintain his swing but not serious enough to land on the IL. 

So should he have been sent down? I say no, but because of Santana, he had to be sent down to rest his arm & get it back in shape. The combination of Kiriloff, Miranda & Julien would have been a far superior choice than Santana.

6 hours ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

Gut feeling is actually the thing that someone’s experiences have told them is the right thing to do — which incidentally is what analytics are, perhaps more carefully measured.

Disagree. Analytics are not the same. Gut feelings are wholly dependent upon whose gut we’re talking about. Analytics are supposedly absolute. (At least they are on this team). If they don’t produce the desired results, they are still “correct”. It’s just chalked up to “bad luck” or an “aberration”.   Why are the “expected” numbers almost always much more optimistic than actual results?  Maybe the data is wrong or incomplete or not being interpreted correctly?  Since we have several different groups producing and interpreting raw data with different methods, maybe it’s just too early to rely on this questionable data?  I know what is absolutely reliable and can be counted upon without question: ACTUAL results. Not guesspected results. What are they producing right now and in the immediate past?  Not, they “MASHED” lefties 5 years ago, but what have they done lately?  Analytics as practiced by this organization do not allow for ANY flexibility that goes against the spreadsheet, and it shows. 

2 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Odds are that plane you get on won't crash, but it still might....that is the nature of "odds". There is ZERO absolutism in analytics. Zero. 

Absolutely disagree. The way this team practices analytics is completely absolute to the point of insanity (Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result). It doesn’t allow for slumps (or simple decline) and it doesn’t allow for the hot hand. All this platooning doesn’t allow for players to improve their weak side or keeps the best players on the bench due to a pitching change that only lasted 3 batters. The analytics themselves might not be absolute (Given how inconsistent they are, I tend to agree) but the decisions made using their “insight” are absolute as practiced by this organization. 

9 hours ago, MABB1959 said:

All coaches including the majors.  Players seem to do good in AAA and come up and fizzle.  Not pretty when 2-3 in the line-up could/should go back to the minors.

You have to admit it makes a nice start to a AAAA all-star team...

38 minutes ago, Reptevia said:

Disagree. Analytics are not the same. Gut feelings are wholly dependent upon whose gut we’re talking about. Analytics are supposedly absolute. (At least they are on this team). If they don’t produce the desired results, they are still “correct”. It’s just chalked up to “bad luck” or an “aberration”.   Why are the “expected” numbers almost always much more optimistic than actual results?  Maybe the data is wrong or incomplete or not being interpreted correctly?  Since we have several different groups producing and interpreting raw data with different methods, maybe it’s just too early to rely on this questionable data?  I know what is absolutely reliable and can be counted upon without question: ACTUAL results. Not guesspected results. What are they producing right now and in the immediate past?  Not, they “MASHED” lefties 5 years ago, but what have they done lately?  Analytics as practiced by this organization do not allow for ANY flexibility that goes against the spreadsheet, and it shows. 

Let's take a specific example that is (or maybe already was) quite popular - the "sweeper" style slider. The stats show it to be (at least at one specific time) the hardest pitch to hit.  The end result of this discovery was to have everyone and his dog learn the sweeper because it is the most difficult pitch to hit.

No though that the reason the pitch was, at one specific time, so tough was because only a few guys threw it.  Possibly even they were the most suited to using it due to one of several other factors such the rest of their arsenal, arm angle, or simply having a "knack" for it that can't be quantified or qualified (think Mariano Rivera and his 99.9% cutter usage - no one else could throw it that often without getting teed up).

To paraphrase, there are lies, damnable lies, and then there are statistics....

I used to think the Twins were bad at developing prospects. However, this recent Fangraphs article has a reasonable methodology, and their model shows that the Twins are pretty good - especially with hitting prospects. I'm not sure I 100% buy the model, but it's tempered my scorn for the Twins' prospect development a bit. I think it's just that young players are hard to develop, and there's a high failure rate.

Also - has anyone checked out Brent Rooker's stats lately? The guy has an 868 OPS this year. Sometimes it just takes them a while.

3 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

I'm curious how you know this to be true?

Logic and by watching this team play. 

2 minutes ago, singlesoverwalks said:

I used to think the Twins were bad at developing prospects. However, this recent Fangraphs article has a reasonable methodology, and their model shows that the Twins are pretty good - especially with hitting prospects. I'm not sure I 100% buy the model, but it's tempered my scorn for the Twins' prospect development a bit. I think it's just that young players are hard to develop, and there's a high failure rate.

Also - has anyone checked out Brent Rooker's stats lately? The guy has an 868 OPS this year. Sometimes it just takes them a while.

So, were the Twins just not patient enough, or did these prospects flourish after they got out of Minnesota and into a different system?

10 minutes ago, Reptevia said:

So, were the Twins just not patient enough, or did these prospects flourish after they got out of Minnesota and into a different system?

I think when you look for blame in every situation it can obscure the truth. I mean look at a guy like Caleb TBar. He was a set up for a post playing career as a pitching coach for a small college when the Twins called. Well into his 30's. It is a tough racket at a certain point perseverance is the most important thing. Roster rules dictate how much patience a team can have, then it just comes down to picking the players you hope will perform. Sometimes there is no one to blame.

Willi Castro!

26 minutes ago, Reptevia said:

So, were the Twins just not patient enough, or did these prospects flourish after they got out of Minnesota and into a different system?

It's a good question. Who knows. The patience question seems a lot like asking whether a investor should hold an under-performing stock or sell. You can come up with all kinds of fancy ways of answering that question, but in truth the stock could go either way, and you just don't know. But some investors are better at holding the stock for the right amount of time than others.

Flourishing in a different system: I think that's definitely a thing. Prospects are people, and a new employer can make a big difference.

I love it. This shirt popped up in one of the ads posted on this site:

I've read some about changes to the ball this year causing it to not carry as far, I wonder if or how this affects hitting approaches with some of these players, maybe they have to focus more on contact and putting the ball in play than hitting homers as hits that in previous years would be homers are outs this year. 

22 hours ago, Original_JB said:

I love it. This shirt popped up in one of the ads posted on this site:

 

If the data isn’t accurate or useful, it’s as valuable as no data. 

8 minutes ago, Reptevia said:

If the data isn’t accurate or useful, it’s as valuable as no data. 

Oh, isn't that the truth. I work in R&D at Seagate, and the number of staff meetings where the arguments essentially come down to the designers: : "the data doesn't match the models, we don't trust the data, you're doing something wrong"; the hardware test engineers: "the data is fine, your model doesn't take into account X, Y, and Z". "you're wrong". "no, you are".