jkcarew

This is satire, right?
We can always hope for a torn ligament or two in the wrists as well, giving the Twins an even better chance.
Best possible outcome: he can’t pitch or swing a bat, and Twins snipe him at $300M over 10 years to greet people at the turnstiles.

This is satire, right?
We can always hope for a torn ligament or two in the wrists as well, giving the Twins an even better chance.
Best possible outcome: he can’t pitch or swing a bat, and Twins snipe him at $300M over 10 years to greet people at the turnstiles.

Might lean Carew…But Killebrew would have more spots in the top 10 all-time Twins seasons than would Carew. Killebrew was hands-down the best offensive player in Twins history…even though he had at least one elite season before he even came to Minnesota. Killebrew’s 1961 season get overlooked, as well.

Great thread! 
 
It’s not as interesting for those like me that grew up in Minnesota.
I will say, though, that for those of us that are old enough that we became mlb ‘aware’ in the 1960’s in Minnesota there WAS a wrinkle:
Our parents, aunts/uncles…the generations ahead of us…were NOT necessarily Twins fans, at least in the early years. They had lived adult lives without the Twins existing and had developed loyalties for other clubs in the mid-west…some of whom could be followed by the powerful radio broadcast of the day, even in northern Minnesota.
My mom was a Milwaukee Braves fan, my dad, a Tiger’s fan, and my uncle and grandfather, Cardinal fans.
They all adopted the Twins eventually…some more ardently than others, but I can absolutely remember watching games on TV where my dad was rooting against me and my team.
For us kids, we knew we were Minnesotans…and being able to see them (and only them) play on television at that time, made most of us instant Twins fans.
As an aside, the impact of Harmon Killebrew, and how he put Minnesota on the mlb baseball map can not be overstated in terms of how it accelerated the adoption of the franchise as ‘ours’ among the adult population of Minnesota in the 1960’s.

Gotta think bigger picture…
Rick Dempsey for Danny Walton.
Graig Nettles (and Dean Chance…who only had one good year left, plus two others), for one year of Luis Tiant, and Stan Williams.
And they outright released Jim Kaat and effectively released Luis Tiant. So, they essentially traded them for nothing at a point when they had a collective nearly 250 major-league wins left in them.

Gotta think bigger picture…
Rick Dempsey for Danny Walton.
Graig Nettles (and Dean Chance…who only had one good year left, plus two others), for one year of Luis Tiant, and Stan Williams.
And they outright released Jim Kaat and effectively released Luis Tiant. So, they essentially traded them for nothing at a point when they had a collective nearly 250 major-league wins left in them.

Strikeouts are a concern for me too but I see you put Wallner 4th and he had a higher K rate at an older age at High A and until this year at AAA has had K rates into the 30% range.  Rosario is currently around a 26% K rate and with his 14% walk rate that seems pretty workable to me.  It very similar to Wallner's numbers at AAA this year.  I think Rosario is on that path and might end up slightly better hard to say as he just turned 21 in July.
I think he has been more focused on working counts this year and not always worried about hitting HR's.  Personally I think his profile looks better than Wallners did at that level and Wallner is at number 4.  That is why I think he is bit low on the list.

A batting average between 200 and 300 means nothing without more data, IMO.
I’d say significantly below 200, it’s more and more likely that it says “bad”.
Likewise, once you get past, say 325…it’s very likely you’re at least “good” even with very little power or walks.
(Currently a 363 hitter that hits all singles and never walks is an average hitter in terms of run production.)

The organization 100% needed to trade for pitching. The traded a player from a deep organizational pool of bat-first poor-fielding infielders. They no doubt traded the one that had the most current trade value. All this is perfectly defensible.
Now…if the guy you traded goes out and immediately has a career year, way beyond anything he’s ever done before, and the guy you got goes sideways…
Let’s let things play out for a couple of years.
We can dwell on it. But if the FO did, they’d never make another trade.

The organization 100% needed to trade for pitching. The traded a player from a deep organizational pool of bat-first poor-fielding infielders. They no doubt traded the one that had the most current trade value. All this is perfectly defensible.
Now…if the guy you traded goes out and immediately has a career year, way beyond anything he’s ever done before, and the guy you got goes sideways…
Let’s let things play out for a couple of years.
We can dwell on it. But if the FO did, they’d never make another trade.

The organization 100% needed to trade for pitching. The traded a player from a deep organizational pool of bat-first poor-fielding infielders. They no doubt traded the one that had the most current trade value. All this is perfectly defensible.
Now…if the guy you traded goes out and immediately has a career year, way beyond anything he’s ever done before, and the guy you got goes sideways…
Let’s let things play out for a couple of years.
We can dwell on it. But if the FO did, they’d never make another trade.

I know…I’m not playing the game. But…
LHSP - Santana
RHSP - Blyleven
RP - Nathan
C - Mauer
1B - Morneau (I’d put Killebrew here if I had to, but I don’t have to)
2B - Carew
3B - Killebrew (played almost 800 games here…when in prime)
SS - Versailles (I expect this to be Correa in the future)
LF - Allison (apology to Larry Hisle)
CF - Puckett
RF - Oliva
DH - Cruz or Molitor (I could go either way)
Honestly, that’ll stack up quite well against most franchises.

Honestly, I jumped the gun…just read the title 🙄.  But a cool concept…I’m just too lazy to go back and introduce the math.

I know…I’m not playing the game. But…
LHSP - Santana
RHSP - Blyleven
RP - Nathan
C - Mauer
1B - Morneau (I’d put Killebrew here if I had to, but I don’t have to)
2B - Carew
3B - Killebrew (played almost 800 games here…when in prime)
SS - Versailles (I expect this to be Correa in the future)
LF - Allison (apology to Larry Hisle)
CF - Puckett
RF - Oliva
DH - Cruz or Molitor (I could go either way)
Honestly, that’ll stack up quite well against most franchises.

Unintended Consequences dominate my life.

If that’s an Elephant taking a dump, then I resemble that remark.

Honestly, I jumped the gun…just read the title 🙄.  But a cool concept…I’m just too lazy to go back and introduce the math.

I know…I’m not playing the game. But…
LHSP - Santana
RHSP - Blyleven
RP - Nathan
C - Mauer
1B - Morneau (I’d put Killebrew here if I had to, but I don’t have to)
2B - Carew
3B - Killebrew (played almost 800 games here…when in prime)
SS - Versailles (I expect this to be Correa in the future)
LF - Allison (apology to Larry Hisle)
CF - Puckett
RF - Oliva
DH - Cruz or Molitor (I could go either way)
Honestly, that’ll stack up quite well against most franchises.

I don't think the roster is close to being great, they have several deficiencies in the lineup and the bullpen. The lineup was questionable from the start and has too many injury-prone players. Too many backup-caliber players are playing full-time roles and many situations are out of control of the coaching staff (Buxton not in CF, Wallner at AAA, Kepler still on the team are front office / collaboration decisions). IMO The biggest issue with the coaching staff is the fact that they hired an unqualified batting coach who is likely in over his head.

A batting average between 200 and 300 means nothing without more data, IMO.
I’d say significantly below 200, it’s more and more likely that it says “bad”.
Likewise, once you get past, say 325…it’s very likely you’re at least “good” even with very little power or walks.
(Currently a 363 hitter that hits all singles and never walks is an average hitter in terms of run production.)

Kingman’s best 3 years we’re in Wrigley…he barely had anything close to a good year outside of wrigley…maybe one.
He wouldn’t be in the hall of fame in ANY era.

The problem for baseball is that the high average guys are more entertaining, but they don't score as many runs. Power is the best way to score, and win games. There are 9 teams with 200+ runs scored so far this season. Including the top 8 teams in slugging. "Only" 6 of them are in the top 10 in BA. 80% vs 60% is rather significant.
The Dodgers are 25th in BA, 2nd in HR, 3rd in slug, and 3rd in runs. The Twins are 26th in BA, 6th in HR, 15th in slug, and 10th in runs. The Nationals are 9th in BA, 29th in HR, 28th in slug, and 25th in runs. Philly is 8th in BA, 20th in HR, 11th in slug, 20th in runs. Hitting homeruns and slugging make up for a significant amount of batting average when it comes to scoring runs, because it's really hard to string multiple singles together to score chunks of runs.
Last year there were 14 teams to score 700+ runs. 7 of them were in the top 10 in BA. 9 in the top 10 of HR. 10 in the top 10 in slug. The title is a little aggressive calling BA the worst offensive stat, but it's correct in that BA is a severely lacking stat, and power is how teams win. Luis Arraez is far more entertaining to watch than a low BA power bat, but his lack of power makes him need to be all-time great to be an impact back. He's got 101 more points of BA than Taylor Walls, but his being 112 points worse in slugging means he's 15 points of wRC+ worse. He's a 15% worse hitter despite being 100 points better with BA because singles simply aren't as valuable as extra base hits.

A batting average between 200 and 300 means nothing without more data, IMO.
I’d say significantly below 200, it’s more and more likely that it says “bad”.
Likewise, once you get past, say 325…it’s very likely you’re at least “good” even with very little power or walks.
(Currently a 363 hitter that hits all singles and never walks is an average hitter in terms of run production.)

Again, not really. Not for many big power guys. Aaron Judge batted 311 last year…he struck out 175 times. A lot of power hitters through the years have sustained BA above average with high K%. Why? Because when they do make contact, they hit the ball much harder than average…result, not just HRs, but also sustainably high BABiP.

No. But in 1979, the Angels would have been better off with Kingman, rather than Carew. Carew batted 318, that year. Kingman 288.