jkcarew

To be fair, the poster was not suggesting Rosario was on a par with Oliva...only that the numbers suggested that Oliva was "a little better" than Rosario. I only called it out because of the relatively unique way Tony arrived at his career numbers. Oliva also had MVP voting results of (in no particular order) 2nd, 2nd, 6th, 4th, 10th, etc. I'd love to be able to say that that's only a little better than Rosario. And maybe we will be able to say that in 6 years. I'll not high-jack this thread further.

Lots of thing to like and admire about Molitor, IMO. To me, a manager's value is primarily in two places: the demeanor/attitude of the team; and in-game decision-making (which includes lineups). The former is hard to assess and very dependent upon what information makes it's way to the assessor. My guess is he might be pretty decent in this arena...but not inclined to defend that...I'll not go there for now. The later is easier to assess/observe. I don't think Molitor is a good (say even top half of the league) in-game manager. I think he's gotten better. Do I think there are better over-all options out there? Yes.

No. There was never a Tony Oliva that was "a little better" than Eddie Rosario. There was a Tony with knees that was WAY better than anything Rosario has done so far (multiple seasons with OPS+ in the 140's and 150's. And then there was the Tony without knees...after the second catastrophic injury...that was not nearly as productive as Rosario. Tony Oliva's career averages are meaningless.

I hope the FO does't fall in love with any of these guys. Austin is intriguing, but with his K-rate, he's right on the edge of Chris Carter'ing himself out of baseball. Cave strikes out a ton for a guy that figures to have middling power...and he's left-handed. I don't even pretend to know what Drake is at this point. These guys were better solutions that we were deploying...but are they going to move the needle for a contending team? Maybe. Likewise, the losses of guys like D. Rodriguez, R Rosario, and Chargois are not particularly offensive, IMO. There were legitimate reasons for choosing not to carry these guys. I'd put all of the above in the category of normal season-to-season roster shuffling noise IMO. You always win a few and lose a few.

Cave's K% is 31%. Grossman's is 22%. Just saying.

Kenny's has been pretty bad all year. He was OPS'ing .657 on August 7. Despite an insanely hot streak, he's at .729 currently. Rooker definitely slumping for the last couple of weeks. That was only his second HR since July 28. On the positive side, his walk rate has maintained and his K% has not ballooned. Two things noteworthy with Rooker lately. One, he has developed absurd home/away spits this year (in favor of home). Weird. Probably just SSS anomaly? Second, whereas in the first half of the season he seemed to have been 'converted' to a first-baseman...lately, he's been playing outfield significantly more than 1B. We'll see if Wiel's promotion changes things.

But almost 2000 games caught by AJ...tremendous value in that.

Yep. And Gaetti, Hrbek, Brunansky, and Viola were around for the 45 - 67 that came before that. As noted baseball mind, Steven Tyler, once said...”You got to lose to know how to win.”

Count me among those that don't count losses or wins at this point. I couldn't care less where the win total ends up, it's all about seeing how guys develop. The 1983 Twins ended the year with Hrbek, Gaetti, Gagne, Laudner, Viola, Brunansky....and the 92 losses they fumbled their way to didn't scar them going forward.

Interesting. Although, IMO this short-changes Bauman slightly. He hit a ton of home runs every year in that league. And in the 1954 year, the next leading home-run hitter in that league had less than 40 HR. The next leading guy on his team had less than 20. The leading HR-hitting team that year had 157 HR in 139 games (138 game season). Basically, the rate of HR in that league in that year was lower than it is in the major leagues today. Again...the modern brain wants to ask...."yeah, but if it had been legit, the major-league teams would have been all over him." But the question to ask is..."all over him with what?" It was class C and he was into his 30's already...the major league team would have had to buy out his contract...and would have ended up offering him next to nothing by today's standards. Because that's what almost everyone got offered back then, even the young up-and-coming guys that were succeeding at the higher levels. Meanwhile, Bauman was getting paid more than (probably) anyone else in the league, and had the all-important off-season job as part of the deal. In all likelihood, this guy could really hit.

Also, Acuna had more than 500 PA at AA/AAA when the Braves pulled the trigger. And yes, Soto was a fairly significant risk, warranted given the desperate straights Washington was in regarding their playoff race. (Although, FWIW...what Soto was doing in small samples at A+ and AA were a whole 'nuther level as compared to even what Kiriloff is doing.)

Yes to this. The fundamental reason stuff like this could happen is that the minor leagues of that era functioned differently that the minor leagues of the last 50 years. Specifically, modern minor leagues function (in terms of players/rosters) 100% as a service to the affiliated major league club. Today the major league club owns all those decisions. So today, you would never have a 32-year-old slugger dominating single A. They player would have long since been forced up the system, or...in the case of failure...up and out of the system. Although the minor leagues were affiliated back in 1954, the minor league team owned the contracts of the players and 'owned' the roster (the major league team had to buy out the contract for a pre-set fee). So, a class C team (roughly A ball)...if they wanted to...could add a draw to the roster like a huge 32-year-old guy that could hit the ball a mile and half. Meanwhile, the player himselft didn't have that much incentive to get to the majors because the money in the major leagues was not THAT much different than the money in the minors, especially if you were a 'star' for that minor league team. The money in the majors was not life-changing for 95% of the players. That wouldn't start changing until the mid 1970's. FWIW...Bauman had a chance at the higher levels when he was younger, and was only OK...which led to a pay cut. So again, it's really not something you can even try to wrap your head around in the context of today. There are many examples of minor league players from the first half of the 20th century that figured to be average (or better) major league players if they had simply wanted to be...(or if the minor league contract had been easier to buy out).

Agree with the concept. Those trades were examples of good Terry Ryan. Not only because he was 'proactive' in looking for the opportunities, and got good (really great) value for Kielty and Buchanan....but because they made the correct choices in which pieces of the depth to trade vs keep. Bad Terry, proactively traded Hicks because he was sure about Buxton. Might want to be 'more sure' (at least AA sure?) about Kiriloff before we part ways with any of the major league pieces.

If ever he needed the secret healing juice...he needs it now. Hopefully, it will be even better...and considerably more secret...than it was in 2015.

I've posted that I think Lewis stays at SS in the minors...and that the feeling with athlete's in Lewis's rare class is that they could walk right on to a major league field and play outfield, where there is little dependence on technical aspects. I wonder...turning this question around...what if Buxton finds his way and is healthy...and you end up not trusting Lewis at SS? Do you put him at a corner? I think in that hypothetical scenario, I'd try to make him a second-baseman. I'd rather have that athleticism in the middle of the field. But, the bottom line is that I don't think Lewis's defense has to dictate when he arrives. When they think his bat is legitimately ready, I think they'll have some choices regarding where to fit him defensively...just based on his elite athleticism and unique skill set. Which is nice.

The other challenge is that he's a corner outfielder who's slugging .370 in 57 games at Rochester. For context, with the Twins this year: Grossman .365, Morrison .368, Adrianza .380, Mauer .358. Also, both Kepler and Cave are OPS'ing with the Twins better than Wade is with Rochester. I definitely don't want Wade not playing every day right now...so fine with him finishing the Rochester season. Would like to see him in September...but don't know if the roster math will make that practical.

I agree with Santana getting starts to see if things snap back. And if it’s marginal, I buy him out in a New York second. The last thing we need is a below-average 36-year old in the role of 4th or 5th starter sucking up starts, a roster spot, and money that can be spent elsewhere, no matter the amount. I do agree that looking for a #1 or #2 type, via FA or trade, should still be on list of things to try this off-season.

I fear over-reactions in instances like this. This one seems clearly intentional and worthy of punishment... ...but don't want to conclude that all hbp of 'hot hitters' are worthy of punishment. They're not. Some are and some aren't and that's what makes it tricky...need to rely on a subjective judgement. How far in is a normal miss when trying to establish the inside corner?...and how far in is trying to hit the guy? Do you only get to try to establish your fastball on the inside for guys that are zero for their last 15 at-bats? Does it matter if the batter is standing on top of the plate or if the batter is guessing and diving over the plate? Meanwhile, this particular pitch was nowhere near the head...so whatever your punishment sliding scale is for 'throwing at the batter', you need to allow room to the right of this instance to account for the elevated pitches.

I wouldn't say 'worried' either. I think he is what he is at this point. Which is to say that he's put together a solid year so far at age 24. His 2018 has been a solid improvement on his 2017 campaign, and there's no reason to think he can't do that again 2018 to 2019. It helps to simply acknowledge that he is not really an 'ace' or a 'stopper' quite yet. His numbers against teams that are 500 or better...those that tend to have better/more experienced lineups...are not very impressive (even when you include his notable 'good' performances against Boston). He's going to have these games. He's 24, and has a few things to figure out still.

But the IF in that last paragraph is a pretty significant if where we sit today...and that’s what the ‘life of luxury’ money is dependent on. And if he’s not, he’s out of baseball or a AAAA player. I’m not sure his camp wouldn’t be willing to look at relatively friendly extensions...maybe sooner rather than later. Turning it around...what IF his 2019 resembles in any way his 2018 either in health or performance?

This was Berrios's 14th start of the year against teams that are 500 or better (currently). His numbers in those 14 starts: ERA - 5.56; WHIP - 1.49; W/L/(ND)- 2-7 (5); Team record in those games: 4-9 (with this game in the balance).

How do you know if Austin is going to hold his own against legitimate right-handed pitching if you don't let him try in these games? I can see sitting him in this situation in theoretical 2019 scenarios, but now now. (And we better have better alternative than Adrianza by then.)

I guess the question is, how many major-league at-bats do you sacrifice to get the extra year of control? For my money, I wouldn't be willing to sacrifice many at all. Buxton doesn't know how to hit major league pitching, and until that is figured out, the extra year of control doesn't have much value. First things first. He needs reps at hitting. After that, he needs more reps at hitting. And I'll hope that we even care about his service time down the road.

Agree that you can win championships with solidly/consistently average players...even at several positions. Also, I do think Max can be better than solidly average...but how much better is what is at the heart of this article. One of the central themes of the article (and an article that proceeded it) is that Max has been 'unlucky' with regard to batted-ball results. And that we could expect better results in the future based both on real (for lack of a better term) improvements he is making...but also based on his batted ball luck normalizing. I'm disagreeing with the later, is all. At 1500 career plate appearances, his BABiP has already 'normalized'...and it's a low number.

This article was written in the middle of the last/most recent road trip. On that road trip, Kepler posted a BABiP of .056 (1 for 18). If Max were to get 6 hits on his next 6 balls-in-play, he'd still be below (for the recent stretch) the 'normal' that is being suggested here as Kepler's inevitable destiny. OK...1 for 18 is bad luck. But, the idea that all batters will tend toward a .300 BABiP is a false narrative. Max's batter ball profile will need to change to get to the optimistic end of our hopes.