Brock Beauchamp

Agreed on most every count. Rosario has a high ceiling bit I'm skeptical he'll ever get there. Players who swing at everything have an uphill battle to success in the majors.

It's entirely possible. Rosario has the talent to do it but his approach needs to change. If he accomplishes that goal, his ceiling is probably an .800 OPS player with plus defense. In other words, a borderline elite player.

Yep, no worries. We can drop it. Ancient history anyway.

Well, he never had a truly bad season unless you're counting the 16 innings during his injury-plagued 2007 season.

I think Nunez is an insurance policy. Like you, I hope the leash is relatively short and if the Twins are presented better options, they shouldn't think too hard about releasing him and eating the money.

Well, you're kinda proving my point for me. The human memory is selective and often irrational. In the case of Jesse Crain and his "straight fastball" that led to losses, he was 33-21 with Minnesota (I loathe using wins but you brought it up) and had an ERA+ of 128 during his time here. He wasn't a flashy pitcher (until his last couple of seasons with the Twins, anyway) but he got the job done year in and year out. His peripherals were pretty good. He didn't give up an inordinate number of hits, his HR/9 ratio was very good, he struck out a middling number of batters, and he didn't walk an inordinate number of batters. Stats like inherited runners contribute to more bias confirmation... It doesn't really tell you what happened. If a guy is routinely thrown out into a bad situation in the middle of an inning, his inherited runners percentage is going to reflect that... and it's not an indictment of the pitcher because almost any pitcher will give up runs in certain situations unless he's dealt a very lucky hand (eg. runner on third base, no outs with the heart of the lineup heading to the plate). Feel free to continue using the stat but you should also realize it doesn't really tell you anything unless the numbers are at either edge of the bell curve.

AFAIK, that factory is *only* for battery production. I don't believe they actually build cars at that location, though I could be wrong. Also, I don't know if that $7.5b is based on expected average sale price or a flat $35k. Obviously, many of those Model 3 preorders will be considerably more expensive than $35k once various luxury packages are added to the purchases.

The factory is insane. It's going to have one of the largest footprints of any building in the world. http://i1.wp.com/evobsession.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/How-Big-is-the-Tesla-Gigafactory.png?w=1512

Tesla preorders are up to $7.5b in less than 24 hours. At this point, I'm beginning to question how on earth they will deliver in these numbers.

Yeah, I was short on cash when they tanked a few months ago... Pretty irritated that market crash happened at the wrong time for me. I wanted to invest heavily in several stocks. Tesla's Model 3 preorders from yesterday alone were worth ~$5b in future sales. Yowza.

Actually, no. Tesla's big leg up right now is the Gigafactory. They're planning to cut battery costs by 30% once that factory is up and running (probably later this year, early 2017 at the latest). It will be the largest battery producer in the world and no one else is close. It will take years for another manufacturer to catch up to Tesla in what is the most expensive and cumbersome aspect of electric vehicles. A company like VW can surely undercut Tesla here and there in aspects of general vehicle production but it won't erase the gap from 30% cheaper batteries.

Another good number. I'm a bit more confident in the over than I was with Cleveland, but not by much.

Sure, if a reliever consistently has a low run scored percentage, he's probably a good reliever... But there are a half dozen stats that better tell us he's a good reliever long before inherited runners gets enough data points to become relevant. Again, the problem with inherited runners are many fold: 1. Reliever use: it's not in the pitcher's control. Some relievers just don't come in very often with runners on base (eg. your average closer). 2. Game situation: is the game 4-3 or 9-2? Does it matter whether the reliever allows one run to score in a bases loaded situation or is it kind of irrelevant? 3. Runner situation: if a manager leans on a reliever abnormally often in "really bad" situations (ie. bases loaded, no outs) versus another manager leaning on a reliever infrequently (ie. runner on first, two outs), that's going to wildly skew the results, especially in the relatively small sample size a reliever sees over the course of one season (anywhere between 50-70 innings). Inherited runners are a lot like pitcher wins. If a pitcher is really bad or really good at preventing/allowing runs, that's an indication of pitcher quality... But everything in between is noise. Any stat that treats the following two situations the same: 1. No outs, Escobar on third, Buxton on second, Dozier at the plate and the Twins are up by seven runs and 2. Two outs, Sano on second, Plouffe on first, Arcia at the plate against a left-handed pitcher and the Twins are down by one run Is so broken as to be almost entirely useless.

I'm bearish on this post.

I'm abstaining from this one. I wouldn't bet on the Indians at 84.5, as that's right where I'd put them this season. If I had a gun to my head... argh... Over? Probably over.

That O-Swing% is sexy.

Beat me to it. Bonds can't be compared to another baseball player because he was the closest thing to an inhuman freak I've ever seen play the game.

Eh, inherited runners isn't a great stat, either... A runner on third base with no outs is treated the same as a runner on first with two outs. The guy on third with no outs is almost a given to score... The runner on first with two outs should rarely, if ever, score. For relievers, FIP/xFIP and other advanced metrics are a much better indicator of skill because, while they're still flawed, they try to remove things the pitcher cannot control.

Hehehe, I edited my post to include Rosario. Must have got it in right before you hit Reply.

I agree the lineup is too right-handed but as I mentioned in the previous post, all it takes is one injury and/or struggles from: Mauer Park Sano Plouffe And Kepler is in the lineup every day. I think that's the correct course of action and it gives the team depth through a 162 game schedule. If you start with Kepler and a guy gets injured or struggles, you fall back to... Junk, probably. A Mastroianni-type player. One of those guys will get injured or struggle at some point in the season. Max will get his shot. And this isn't even mentioning what happens if Rosario falls on his face, which I think has a high probability of happening.

I understand both sides as well, I just think people are getting a little too prospect-happy at the expense of an experienced vet who produces at an acceptable level. I hope the Twins can trade Plouffe and everyone shifts around the diamond to their natural positions... But I'm not going to give away Plouffe just to make that happen. Trevor is worth MLB wins and I'm not giving away MLB wins just because the defensive alignment isn't optimal in the short-term. On top of all of this Plouffe/Sano/Kepler argument, all it takes is one injury to Mauer, Park, Plouffe, or Sano and this goes away. Depth is good. One of those guys will get injured and/or struggle this season. Instead of scrambling and having the privilege of watching a Beresford-type player spot-start, we'll get to see Kepler.

I think Kepler might be able to do that as well... But that's not a risk I'm going to take until I see him take some hacks at AAA pitching to see if his dominant 2015 carries over to a new league with craftier, experienced pitchers. If Kepler had more than one season where he showed the kind of contact, patience, and power he put on display in 2015, it'd be a different situation... But as of right now, he's a one-year breakout player. He needs to show more before he gets a starting position in Minnesota.

Relying on a guy who had one breakout season in AA as your Opening Day starter is a good way to cripple a team for the first half of the season. I'm a huge Kepler fan but he shouldn't be Plan A at any position on Opening Day of 2016. Yes, he dominated the Southern League and I'm extremely bullish on him but the fact of the matter is that he dominated exactly zero levels of minor league baseball before that point.

I get the thinking but I just can't see how Sano at third and Player X in right is going to be appreciably different, much less better, than Plouffe at third and Sano in right. Plouffe is a pretty valuable player. He had a 3.9 WAR in 2014 and a 2.5 WAR in 2015. While that's not spectacular, it's not easy to replace, either. Those aren't plug and play numbers where you just plop a guy in and achieve net zero gains/losses. I don't like Sano in right and I was hoping Plouffe would be traded but once the market bombed out on third basemen, this move seemed the most logical. Giving away a player who averaged 3-something WAR over the past two seasons just for the hell of it seems like terrible asset management to me. I would have been really irritated had the Twins given away Plouffe for a C level relief prospect in A ball. In a perfect world, the Twins get value from Plouffe and Sano takes the hot corner. It didn't happen. I think it's time to move on and accept they made the best out of an awkward situation (one they helped put themselves into but an awkward situation none-the-less).

In theory, prospect trades are a great idea to shuffle around players based on team need. In reality, they're hard to pull off for some reason. GMs simply don't do prospect swaps. Dunno why, exactly.