jkcarew

Sometimes it gets lost that Carew's seven batting titles would have been eight if he hadn't lost an ACL in a (now illegal) collision at second base in 1970...was .366/.407/.524 after 200 PA when it happened. The move was made to removed that possibility as he continued to increase his offensive value in the subsequent years.

Killebrew 1, Carew 2. And if you throw out Killebrew’s last couple of decline years (Carew’s were spent in California)...it’s not that close.

April 15?? SBD published that article on March 13...and there was zero chance of April 15 even at that time. Also, if there’s a season, it’s becoming more and more likely that it would come with a re-worked schedule. I’m unclear on how a trade deadline during football season hurts MLB revenue.

The social aspects of ballpark evolution is interesting. But, for my two cents, I like it mixed with the competition ramifications of the evolution, as well. From 'original' ballparks (which had huge dimensions...sometimes not even having outfield fences)...to 'modern' parks that sprung up in the teens and twenties (which tended to be small)...to the era of 'mulit-purpose' parks (which tended to be bigger again, and often had artificial turf)...to the latest trend which hearkens back to the 'modern' parks built close to a century ago. This aspect of park evolution has dictated how 'great' has been defined through baseball's history...and is one of the primary reasons it's pretty impossible to compare players across generations.

"That could allow the third baseman to play drastically shallow, cutting off many grounders that would otherwise become hits." Huh? With drastically less time to react, the effective range isn't increased, it's decreased. In general, these are unrealistic scenarios, IMO. If the short-stop plays as deep as depicted, he takes away some smashes into the hole, and gives up a bunch of infield singles on routine grounders. (Arraez is not 'slow' to first-base coming out of the right side of the box...big difference between slow and 'not really fast'.) Meanwhile, the outfielder's objective is to prevent runs and win games, not stop Arraez from winning a batting title. They're not playing significantly shallower and inviting extra-base hits when he leads off an inning or when he's batting with a runner on first, etc...or as long as he continues to demonstrate the ability to hit the ball over their head. Also, I reject the premise or narrative that guys like Gwynn 'didn't face the shift'. Shifting wasn't invented in the last 10 years. It's simply become pervasive recently because a generation of batters arrived that takes the same swing at every pitch, in any location, against any pitcher, in any count, and in any situation. Gwynn wasn't shifted because it wouldn't have done any good (as was the case with most hitters in his generation). Gwynn hit line drives all over the field. Arraez is a throw-back in that regard. If he sticks with his current approach, defenses aren't going to have a long-term impact on his success. It'll be much more a matter of if he can make the adjustments he will be faced with (from pitchers) to continue to put the ball in play all over the field, and with a high degree of regularity.

Maybe. Although, what you describe is happening everywhere around us already related to other aspects of society...spring vacations, other sports, business trips. But, if not, maybe an immediate tweak to the post season to allow more teams. Something to satisfy the teams that missed 15 games against Seattle and Baltimore while their rival missed 15 games against the Angels and the Yankees. I guess you could even split the remaining games into halves to mitigate for imbalance in the remaining schedules (again, along with probably more teams qualifying for the post season tournament). It will depend on how long this takes. It will be both interesting and very frustrating to see how it plays out.

You raise a good question regarding schedules. I would think that if the suspension lasts very long, there would be incentive to re-do schedules to maintain fairness within divisions and leagues. The precedent for many of these questions is 1981. The season was 're-started' late. I can't remember how 'practice' games were handled...nor can I remember if the schedules were re-calculated...and under what criteria, if they were. Presumably it would be much easier, with less impact to fans...less impact to everyone...to re-calculate a schedule in 2020 than it would have been in 1981. (In 1981, about two months of games were cancelled...about 50-55 games;...of course, that included the time for 'warm up' activities prior to resumption of play.) Another precedent would be 1995 after the strike/lockout that eliminated the 1994 post-season. But, games commenced before the end of April...and players, more-or-less, reported for a 'normal' spring training once the new CBA had been done. I'm pretty sure that that was a 'custom' schedule build for a 144-game season....but, of course, without the complication of a 162-game schedule having been previously published.

Could work to the Twins benefit...Hill, Buxton, fewer innings for Berrios, etc., etc.. But, yes...still very weird and disappointing to have the entertainment value of the ride be impacted like this. I'm still a buyer that this thing will settle down enough to have a meaningful season. (But then, I've been a buyer of S&P ETF's the last several days, and look what that's done for me )

Of course. Tents folding everywhere. Good luck to everyone trying to stay solvent...especially you small business owners out there, and wage-earners...again, especially of small businesses. In the meantime, take care of each other as best as you can.

Hate the leg kick. Why make things more complicated? Doesn't seem like he'll need it to generate power. Nevertheless, encouraged by recent results. And very encouraged by the defense.

New rules make people think. And sometimes they think too much. There will be more IBB, because it's now mandated that pitchers will be forced to stay and face match-ups that they wouldn't have in the past. Meanwhile, it makes little sense for offenses to 'stack' in response. Do you want to see extra base-runners, or do you want to see more instances of where the left-handed reliever is 'forced' to pitch to your left-handed stud? If you actually 'want' the lefty-lefty matchup, you're literally throwing away the advantage the offense gains with the new rule...just so that you can say the IBB isn't mitigating that advantage. A small advantage is better than none. Stacking is going to remain as risky as it's always been. Just like before, there are going to be scenarios where it could work to your advantage. But, getting to that scenario will be hard to predict and a bad bet. IMO, much more likely that the new rule...combined with the extra roster spot...results in us seeing a slight uptick in mid-to-late inning pinch-hitting as a strategy to exploit the rule.

Certainly put a dent into the K-rate last year. I think a lot of that was being more aggressive earlier in the count (lowest Pit/PA of his career). But, it's encouraging that the data also suggests materially less swing-and-miss. I see the BABiP likely coming around a bit as well which is also encouraging. The power really hasn't popped yet, either...which could happen. On the other side, the 2019 XBH% and X/H% (ridiculous doubles rate) are unsustainable over a larger sample...and we all hope we start seeing larger samples.

Good catch on the BaBIP. And yes, he's going to need to continue to grow as a hitter. But, at age 24, that's not exactly unlikely, as the language in the article insinuates.

"Moncada...was signed at the absolute peak of his value, coming off of a season in which he posted career highs in BA, HR, RBI and OPS" Really? It was his AGE 24 season! Do you think the price will get lower? 5 years from now, am I happier I bought Amazon when it was up...or Proctor and Gamble when it was down? Not that Polanco and Kepler are P&G, necessarily...the Twins got good deals. But, we have apples and oranges here. There's every indication Moncada is going to be significantly better offensively than Polanco/Kepler.

That's not what I'm saying. At all. What I'm saying is that the predominant modern approach is to pull (and launch)...and to hit the ball hard...at all costs. Even at the cost of very low batting averages and high strike out totals. That has nothing to do with StatCast..it's sybermetrics...I was just using the 'Statcast era' as a historical marker of time/era. Anyway, the result is that there are very few players getting to the major leagues (based on the way players are developed) who have the skill set to consistently put all types of pitches in all areas of the strike zone in play...and in play to all fields. It's a skill that doesn't rely as much on exit velocity and 'hard hit' pct to still provide value. Arraez is a throw back in that regard.

Interesting question, and I don't know either. But, I think the rankings make it look worse than it really is when I think of this in historical terms. In other words, if I close my eyes and plunk the 1970's versions of Rod Carew or Pete Rose into 2019...where do I think they'd rank in these types of batted-ball stats...with the way guys swing now...taking (or whiffing) on any pitch that can't be pulled/launched? I'm almost positive they'd rank shockingly low. But, do I think they'd put up OPS's north of .800 (AL league average last year was 762). Yes, they would. Even in their 'lesser' seasons...seasons where their HR totals didn't get to double-digits...they would be able to do that. Just by consistently hitting the ball all over the inside of the ball park, and being willing to take walks when they are there to be taken. It's just that in the stat-cast era, guys like Arraez simply aren't arriving in the major leagues. I don't think he needs to be as good as Carew was at this (and he won't be) to still sustain something that is above average. But we'll see. Honestly...he's like a science experiment. In any regard, I agree the sample is still small and that tough adjustments are headed his way now that he's on the radar.

Most of them haven't done anything yet to force the hands of the FO. Look at their 2019 results...most of the position players had issues with performance, injuries, or both. A guy like Rooker had 270 PA last year...and though the results were very good...they weren't as good as you'd think given the warped numbers that came out of Rochester last year. Larnach? Ask me in July. The vast majority of time, the guys with needle-moving talent don't get 'blocked' for long. They eventually hit a level that can't be ignored, and/or someone at the major-league level falters or has health issues...or the prospect is moved. It's unlikely to be any different with this group.

I agree that the minor leagues are light in the top half regarding guys that seem likely to be major-league assets at third base. One way to think of potential major-league third-basemen is "who among the non-first-base infielders looks like they will hit, and hit really well?". If they can throw at all, they're candidates to be a major-league third baseman. IMO, Lewis doesn't fit into that category, yet....as it's not at all clear to me that he'll carry a 3rd-baseman's bat in the major leagues. We'll see.

Thanks for sharing. Not sure I'm buying Kirilloff "moving down the defensive spectrum to first base"...at least any time soon. He played a lot of first base least year, I think, simply based on a combination of factors not necessarily related to his competence as an outfielder. It had a lot to do with the roster makeup at Pensacola. He didn't play much first-base at all when Diaz was there...but then had to play there much given the roster make-up before/after Diaz and also as Kirilloff was nursing...or coming back from nagging injuries frequently. FWIW...if you look at Kirilloff's and Larnach's at-bats in Spring Training so far...fundamental stuff like BB's and K's...they seem ahead of Lewis (and others like Jeffers) with the bat, at least at this point in time.

I think the article does a pretty good job of presenting the 'why' for why Arraez will NOT be Revere. I'm not one that thinks Arraez will develop much power (especially if the ball goes back to recent, pre-2019, standards). But, he's simply a much better hitter than Revere ever was. Whatever slapping and sprinting that Revere was able to succeed with in the minors, it failed pretty much immediately at the major league level. When you watched him, you didn't need analytics to think, "boy, there's an awful swing".

That'd be balllsy. $12M for Cruz...$44M for Polanco...$20M for Pineda....and about $10M for Gonzalez. Four contributors and about $86M. Would send a message though.

Sorry. I couldn't get past "...and generated MVP votes for the first time in his career". Had to look it up. And you're 100% right, of course. But, omg. Finished ahead of Kepler.

When you're really good for a long time, someone comes along and gives your system a name...like the 'Twins Way'. By the time they name the system, it's become obsolete. That's an accomplishment, not a bad thing. Meanwhile, the new regime can hope to have an obsolete moniker in 10 years. It's easy to have a system that's perceived as 'modern' or 'forward thinking' in the present. But, does it really provide a competitive advantage against contemporaries? Will it result in sustained success? And to that end, this regime will achieve meaningful success the exact same way the Twins Way succeeded from 2002 to 2010. By having superior players.

So, he didn’t last as long as the average starter...and this isn’t an issue for an ‘impact’ guy? Secondly, I said SLIGHTLY less pretty numbers. The extra innings are hugely valuable...especially when you are a number one or two. It gives the manager much greater flexibility to work match-ups when the bullpen is more rested...again, especially when the team is expected to start 2-3 ‘lesser’ starters every time through the rotation. If you can never get through a lineup more times than the 3, 4, and 5 guy...you limit the effectiveness of the entire staff in the long run. The Twins are a better team in 2020 if Odorizzi duplicates Berrios’s 2019 than if he duplicates his own 2019. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll take Odorizzi’s 2019 performance. It was good...better than expected. And if he could maintain effectiveness by throwing more strikes early in games...and pitch a bit longer into games, he’d be more impactful.

I’ll take slightly less pretty numbers...in exchange for about 40 more innings pitched. Occasionally get past the 5th inning (more than once a blue moon) and match Berrios with 190-200 innings pitched this season. Makes the bullpen that much more effective. Now THAT would be impact.