bean5302

I think career ERA, Wins and Cy Youngs were the stats/awards which most influenced Hall of Fame elections in the 1990s. Strikeouts were neat, but kind of an a boost rather than a main point, I think. You could look at Nolan Ryan as an example. He reigns supreme with 5,714 career strikeouts, but it was the 324 wins that got him to Cooperstown. The 8x he received Cy Young votes helped as well. At least in my opinion.

Well, how messed up it was (maybe is again). There was a revolution in metrics and value during Blyleven's time on the ballot. When he got his first year of eligibility, ERA, wins and Cy Young totals were what was important. Blyleven's 3.31 career ERA wasn't under 3.00, his 287 wins weren't 300 and he'd never won a Cy Young. By year 14, I think a lot of writers were utterly stunned Blyleven hadn't been elected when they started looking at things like WAR. The more metrics advanced, the more they cut through the garbage of politics and made it more clear just how dominant Blyleven was and how robbed he got from playing on bad teams.

Win loss ratio, relative to the team's record, I think, does mean a lot. The reason why wins are typically not considered a valuable statistic is the context is missing. It's not possible to fairly compare pitchers from different teams, eras or even leagues based on wins.

Here's what I would say about a GM's job responsibility order: Personal Conduct Team On Field Performance Draft (Scouting) Develop (MiLB Coaches/Managers) Free Agency MLB Level Manager/Coaches Trades Team Medical Staff Front Office Baseball Operations Analytics has a role in most of these roles. The reason I place such a lower value on trades is trades only need to happen when 3, 4 and 5 all fail. I don't feel like the on field performance is a direct function of any of the items below it. A team can win 100 games and the World Series despite a whole bunch of things being bad below it if a new GM takes over, for instance. Even if the new GM looks like an idiot based on their draft, etc, winning will ultimately overrule all other issues, except personal conduct. i.e. if a GM gets accused of a crime or some public relations nightmare.

I actually think the 3 outcome approach is likely leading to vulnerabilities. It's clear the Twins' defense is being held together by the shift. Hitters like Arraez who put a lot of balls into play and hitters able to spread the ball around should be able to take advantage of the modern front office inclination to put fielders wearing lead boots and granite gloves into the infield simply because those modern front offices want homer production at shortstop. Right now, there are some articles pointing to hitters getting around the shift by golfing balls up out of the infield entirely despite fly balls having a very low batting average if they don't leave the field. With pitch clocks coming, and discussions of shift-banning along with electronic strike zones, we may well be on the way to seeing the return of Tony Gwynns and Joe Mauers. It'd be interesting to see baseball with action again rather than knowing you'll only miss one interesting play if you get up and walk around for an hour or 3 innings, whichever comes first. Falvey's system is weak in that regard. Relying upon analytics means you need enough data to be relevant. The data shows you opportunity that used to exist, not opportunity which exists now or is necessarily coming in the future. It'll be interesting to see if major rules changes render a lot of this front office's data and analytics obsolete and worthless. I'm not trashing the methodology, I'm just not willing to declare it as infallible.

If Blyleven had played on good teams, he'd have won 350 games and 4 or 5 Cy Youngs. Blyleven accumulated the 13th highest total WAR among pitchers in MLB history. 164.8 = Walter Johnson (1907-1927) 163.6 = Cy Young (1890-1911) 139.2 = Roger Clemens (1984-2007) 119.0 = Pete Alexander (1911-1930) 116.3 = Kid Nichols (1890-1906) *109.9 = Tom Seaver (1967-1986) 106.8 = Lefty Grove (1925-1941) 106.6 = Greg Maddux (1986-2008) 106.5 = Christy Mathewson (1900-1916) 101.1 = Randy Johnson (1988-2009) 100.1 = Warren Spahn (1942-1965) *95.9 = Phil Niekro (1964-1987) 94.5 = Bert Blyleven (1970-1992) *Bert Blyleven's contemporaries. Honestly, Bert Blyleven was the second best pitcher in his era (70s and 80s) behind only the legendary Tom Seaver. and pretty even with Phil Niekro. Blyleven was better at his best, but Niekro was less up and down. Blyleven accumulated 49.1 bWAR in a Twins uniform including half-seasons where he was traded from and to the Twins in 1976 and 1985. This is behind only Killebrew, Carew, Mauer and Puckett. No pitcher in history has added more career bWAR in a Twins uniform. Not Kaat, Santana, Viola or Radke (who was much better than you remember and spent his entire career in Minnesota). Blyleven is 5th all time in strikeouts and 9th all time in complete game shutouts.

There's no way to know how Terry Ryan's front office would have pushed to develop the players we currently have. Analytics often tells you the same thing as qualified scout eye tests. Telling Mitch Garver to stop moving so much when he catches pitches wasn't some sort of revelation only "analytics" could have figured out. In any case, Falvey's front office hasn't quite enough time yet, but a verdict could be in this year. His pitching has been slow to emerge and his drafts have been bad. His free agent signings have been inadequate and his trades thus far have been lackluster. Martin and Woods-Richardson could turn out to be awesome or Martin could turn into Joe Benson and Woods-Richardson into Tyler Jay, but neither has shown anything impressive in their stint with the Twins so far. 2020 is used as the ultimate apologist go-to. Players may not have been in formal competition, but they weren't at home laying on the sofa eating Cheetos. There were off-sites and there were workout routines. You think Winder picks up all that velocity without the time to build it? Also, we're not talking about 20 year olds who missed a year. Many of the prospects drafted by Falvey's team are 24 or 25 and many of them have had injury issues. Yes. The front office gets held accountable for all their pitchers being constantly hurt. The front office drafted them (with their prior injury history in many cases) and the front office hires the team which maps out the development plans. When everybody is hurt, there's a problem with the development plan including mechanics, etc. Results are what matters and excuses start wearing thin. 2022 figures to be a huge year for Falvey's front office because there are so many prospects with big question marks around them right now. Those questions should largely be answered this year. Lewis, Rooker, Larnach, Cavaco to name a few first rounders. Terry Ryan's front office had many years to correct what was a terrible 2011, but Ryan was unable to do it and eventually, the excuses ran out. That said, we know the Pohlad's are conservative and are not willing to open the purse strings to sign long free agent contracts. That ownership group has hamstrung the front offices quite a bit, but some of it is self inflicted as I believe the ownership chooses GM's who are also conservative. I believe that boils down to the biggest reason Smith was let go. He wasn't a cheapskate and as soon as it looked like the money the Pohlad's were talked into spending didn't produce, they canned him. I see very little different with Falvey's front office than Ryan's front office except Ryan used the eye test and Falvey uses a computer. Neither one is going to be capable of digging out of a hole quickly with an owner who won't spend and a personal inclination to be cheap.

I don't have any issues with the Twins running with the pitchers they have and rebuilding. I don't have any issues with the Twins trading for front end rotation arms and competing. I do have a problem with the Twins log jamming their older prospects behind mediocre at best arms who the Twins will refuse to release in a timely manner. It's time for the Twins to prove they have the arms or prove they're willing to bring in the arms. It's that simple to me.

Ahhhh, yes. Bill Smith. Everybody's favorite scapegoat. He traded Wilson Ramos for Matt Capps!!!! Smith inherited an angry Torii Hunter after Terry Ryan's front office made a 3 year, $45MM extension offer and when it was apparent the Pohlads were not going to offer Santana close to market rate, Smith traded Santana to the Mets for what turned out to be essentially Carlos Gomez and 3 prospects who didn't turn out. Instead of having the Pohlads pocket the savings like Falvey appears to be en route to this year, Smith instead pushed for and extended Nathan, Morneau and Cuddyer. In 2010, Smith successfully got the Pohlads to open their wallets to keep Joe Mauer to the tune of 7 years and $184MM. Notable Trades: Tyler Ladendorf for Orlando Cabrera and Cash Wilson Ramos & Joe Testa for Matt Capps Johan Santana for Carlos Gomez, Philip Humber, Kevin Mulvey, Delois Guerra Kevin Mulvey for Jon Rauch Carlos Gomez for J.J. Hardy Jason Bartlett, Matt Garza and Eduardo Morlan for Delmon Young, Jason Pridie and Brendan Harris. J.J. Hardy and Brendan Harris for Jim Hoey and Brett Jacobson Notable Free Agent Signings: Carl Pavano Jim Thome Orlando Hudson Brian Fuentes Signed/drafted: Aaron Hicks (2008) Kyle Gibson (2009) Brian Dozier (2009) Miguel Sano (2009) Max Kepler (2009) Jorge Polanco (2009) Eddie Rosario (2010) Smith had control of the Twins for 4 years. His trades were pretty bad, but his drafts and free agent signings were solid.

If these pitchers are ready and the reason the front office isn't going after high quality, proven, front end starters is to avoid roadblocking the pitchers we have, then no additional starters should be signed. This article reads like having your cake and eating it, too. We've got 3 rotation spots locked up already. Signing more would just be log-jamming our prospects behind mediocre pitchers instead of log-jamming them behind elite pitchers. Even more pointless. No idea why the Twins signed Bundy if they have all these arms ready for 2022, but lets look into them. Balazovic was challenged to make adjustments to use his breaking pitch and changeup more instead of relying so heavily on his fastball. He wound up inconsistent and ineffective down the stretch. He's never spent time at AAA. Duran has arm issues, pitched only 16 innings last year and couldn't get outs or throw strikes at AAA. He shouldn't be considered a starter candidate before 2023, if he doesn't need surgery. If he does, we won't see him as a starter until 2024. Winder seems like he's ready for an MLB rotation spot. He had "dead arm" or a shoulder issue down the stretch and a rough go of things at AAA, but he's honestly probably the most ready of the prospects. Sands, like Balazovic may be ready to make the jump from AA to the big show, but I'm sure the Twins would like him to see action in AAA. He only pitched 80 innings last year due to an undisclosed injury. Vallimont can't throw strikes and can't get outs. Woods Richardson barely pitched for us. I'm really not buying the story on him just needing to work out to pitch again. He had a month off pitching. It doesn't take 2 months to get ready to pitch again. I like him as a prospect, but there's no chance he's ready before the end of 2022 at the earliest. Something's amiss here. Stroatman can't throw strikes and if he tries extra hard to throw them, he gets crushed. Canterino's elbow is awfully sketchy. He pitched only 23 innings in 2021 and didn't make it above A+. 2023 at the absolute earliest in the rotation. Varland is a great story, but there are a lot of tempered expectations because of what he was when drafted. Does Varland have the stuff or does he just have adequate polish to succeed in the low minors? He hasn't pitched above A+ ball. Listing him as a potential MLB pitcher in 2022 isn't realistic, but I suppose it's theoretically possible. Of the list, I would say Winder and mayyyyyybe Sands could take a rotation spot day 1. Balazovic could join the rotation in maybe June after a couple months at AAA? Woods-Richardson could get a cup of coffee. I don't see Canterino or Varland joining the rotation before 2023 and Duran, Vallimont, Stroatman are probably bullpen guys.

Right, the pitcher who contributes to the most to winning the game. Maybe no players should be in the Hall of Fame at all? The managers are the ones who decided to play them, after all. Actually, that proves Dave Stieb is actually just a scrub. His managers are the ones who deserve the credit for playing the bum. This all works out because Bobby Cox is in the Hall of Fame like he deserves for those cy young quality years of Dave Stieb. No need to feel bad. The guy who was behind all the performances got the credit... and yes, I'm obviously enjoying the ridiculous argument I'm making right now, haha.

It's a near absolute acceptance that teams employ different strategies in close games, especially late in the game where a single run can lead to a guaranteed win. WPA seeks to quantify a particular player's direct contribution to wins. Leverage matters which is why you would lose your mind if in the 9th inning the Twins' manager was bringing in a middle reliever in a close game. After all, WPA doesn't really matter and the difference so Gardy maybe should have been calling Bobby Keppel's name to close out the playoff games in 2009 rather than Joe Nathan. The difference in performance between those two guys over a single inning is miniscule. Nathan had 1.9 fWAR in 70 games. Keppel had 0.0 fWAR in 37 games. So, like 0.03 fWAR per game. Joe Nathan's record in 2009 was 2-2 with 47 saves and 5 blown saves. By your logic, Bobby Keppel and his 0.0 fWAR would have saved 45 games and blown 7 saves. Still a great season.

Mattingly's fielding percentage was almost always higher than Hrbek's and popularity and fielding percentage were how people won Gold Gloves back then.

Are you seriously arguing a 0-0 game in the first inning is the same as a 3-2 game in the bottom of the 9th or a 3-2 game with 2 outs in the 8th and 2 runners on when you go to your closer early? Leverage is based on the idea of all runs are not equal, and they most certainly are not equal.

I agree that WPA is a good stat to look at. When you need production, and the game is on the line, who do you want playing? In football, they talk about low leverage garbage time making some teams, players or game performances look better than they are. WPA is about production when it matters. Miguel Sano is a good example. His fWAR was poor at 0.4, but his batting results looked okay for the year. His WPA, though... well, that's a different story with -1.73. Like most fans who follow the Twins know, Sano is an automatic out when the other team needs it. Slider, down and away, strike 3. In general, I do think most relievers are guys who couldn't make it as starters, but in many cases, I also believe teams held pitchers in the relief position when they could have potentially been starters. Johan Santana is a good example in 2002-2003 as noted above. Tom Smoltz being a reliever for 4 years as well. Joe Nathan averaged 3 bWAR per season as a reliever during his best 7 years. 3 WAR? That's like a middle rotation starter, but in only 1/3 the innings. In any case, players don't often choose the position the play. Teams choose it for them, but I do see some value in saying a really, really legendary LOOGY doesn't get in. There has to be some sort of value contribution. Joe Nathan's WPA is his proof of value, beyond simply being one of the best closers in baseball history. There is a stat which is essentially just for closers in modern baseball called "saves." The reason we have starters who are throwing 100mph and have 12K/9 today is because relief pitchers are waiting to take over when the starter has dead arm after 5 innings now.

The Hall of Fame values career production as well as burst production. I think you're probably right about Santana being an obvious HoF case if he was used exclusively as a starter in 2002-2003. Santana was the best starter in baseball at one point, and I believe he'd have made the HoF if the Mets hadn't shut him down early for minor arm issues he could have pitched through for 2 seasons as well. I actually think Santana would absolutely still be on the ballot if it wasn't for the logjam created by this PED crap.

I'm assuming you're talking about 1983-1985. Stieb was excellent (in results at least), but there were starters as good or better than Stieb in each one of those years. It just depends on what metrics you're going to use. Looking back on it with modern metrics, Stieb probably deserved the Cy Young in 1984, but he wasn't leaps and bounds ahead of Blyleven or Boddicker. I don't see a year where Stieb was obviously robbed. Just my opinion.

David Cone is definitely a HoF pitcher. 61.6 bWAR, career 121 ERA+, 43.4 bWAR 7 year peak, Cone's 7 year peak was as dominant as Santana, but he hung around a little too long for the career ERA numbers. It's hard to blame him for sticking around, though. He was with 3 World Series Championship teams in his final 4 years with the Yankees. Throwing out his first two partial seasons and his age 37-40 seasons (he sat out age 39), Cone's ERA+ jumps to 131. Bret Saberhagen was more up and down, but still put together a 58.9 bWAR career. Two Cy Youngs, a World Series Championship where he was the MVP and a career ERA+ of 126. That's a pretty impressive career. Dave Stieb is another step back from Saberhagen in my opinion. Though his 7 year peak of 44.5 bWAR was great, Stieb never won a Cy Young, never made a significant post season impact, but did manage 56.5 bWAR. He might have made it if his career hadn't essentially been ended at age 32.

Royce Lewis is the prospect I most want to follow in 2022 (please let there be a full 2022). Wallner is a fringy prospect unless he can manage the strikeouts a little better. His AFL appearance hung out at 30% as I recall, which is better than I expected and against competition which is historically better than A+ ball. I sometimes wonder why prospects like Wallner don't invest more time into conditioning. If he had some better wheels, he'd rise a lot in terms of potential value. Some comments in here about Rooker, but I'm not as concerned about him. The advanced metrics showed he had really lousy luck in 2021. His expected numbers were much higher than the actual results. Here's hoping he not only takes a step forward in 2022, but the luck evens out.

Looking back at Hrbek, you see just how good he was. It's just pretty shocking to see him as a 1x All Star and the fact he was #2 in MVP voting without even making the All Star Game in 1984.

Viola had a much better peak than Kaat, plus the Cy Young plus the World Series Championship with the Twins. You mention Kaat's 131 ERA+ in 1966, but Viola did that or better 3 times with the Twins in his 8 years. 1984 = 131, 1987 = 159, 1988 = 154. Viola's peak 5 years with the Twins produced 24.6 bWAR vs. Jim Kaat's best 5 years at 15.5 bWAR and his entire 15 year career with the Twins at 31.1 bWAR. Quite frankly, Frank Viola was just a much, much better pitcher than Jim Kaat. Kaat made it to the HoF, but I wouldn't have supported it. He belongs in the Hall of Good, one step above the Hall of Pretty Decent like Jack Morris.

If I had a ballot, I think it would look like this: 1 Curt Schilling x 2 Barry Bonds x 3 Roger Clemens x 4 Scott Rolen x 5 Billy Wagner x 6 Todd Helton x 7 Andruw Jones x 8 Manny Ramirez x 9 Joe Nathan x 10 David Ortiz x 11 Alex Rodriguez x 12 Tim Hudson x 13 Omar Vizquel 14 Jeff Kent 15 Sammy Sosa 16 Andy Pettitte 17 Mark Buehrle 18 Torii Hunter 19 Bobby Abreu 20 Gary Sheffield 21 Carl Crawford 22 Prince Fielder 23 Ryan Howard 24 Tim Lincecum 25 Justin Morneau 26 Jonathan Papelbon 27 Jake Peavy 28 A. J. Pierzynski 29 Jimmy Rollins 30 Mark Teixeira On the bubble, but no - Sammy Sosa, Jeff Kent, Bobby Abreu, Gary Sheffield. These guys were all steroid era players who rapidly declined when testing was implemented. If players show that kind of pattern, they're going to need more than the bare minimum to get in. On the bubble, and yes - Tim Hudson, Joe Nathan, Billy Wagner. Hudson's career 56.5 bWAR is in that 50/50 historical category, but he was dominant to start his career and managed to have a couple really nice years after his prime to pad out the stats. Nathan was arguably the best closer in baseball for 6 years from 2004-2009 and returned to back it up for a couple more years with the Rangers. Wagner wasn't as dominant as Nathan, but he pitched a more innings and managed to have a peak bWAR of 19.8 across 7 seasons. Show me a reliever averaging nearly 3 WAR per season for 7 years and I'll tell you they're a Hall of Famer. If a player was so far above the threshold as to be automatic, I don't care about the PED usage during the steroid era. Clemens and Bonds needed those PEDs to more than double their value in order to not be basically automatic. I've changed and softened my stance on the issue. The fact is we don't know who used and MLB allowed it to happen and then leaked confidential testing documents. The NFL, NHL and NBA have all handled their PED issues far better. Rodriguez initially gave me some pause. He cheated during the testing era, but you know what, he paid the price. A huge price for cheating. If a player wants to cheat now, that's fine. When they get caught and suspended and lose $40MM and a year of playing time, that's good enough for me.

Bonds tested positive for amphetamines in 2006. Amphetamines are considered "Stimulants" by baseball, but in 2006, it just triggered additional testing rather than a suspension. Under the current testing rules, Bonds would have been suspended. Bonds was also highly likely to have tested positive in 2000 for steroids and other PEDs, but that was before the MLB drug testing program was in place. The evidence was pretty compelling when it was presented at trial, but it wasn't absolutely a lock due to possible tampering. Look, Bonds absolutely 100% used. The argument he might not have is absolutely dead on arrival. When it comes to Roger Clemens, it's a little murkier, but there are still some fairly strong connections there. Arguing they didn't use doesn't help their case, it just hurts the case.

None. My favorite players were never on the Twins. I still followed the Twins the closest and rooted for the home team, though.

The issue with Bonds is not whether he was good enough to be in the Hall of Fame. The evidence for Bonds using became extremely convincing in 1998, but what's the likelihood he was using before that when we know the steroid era dates back to the late 80s? The issue is how players like Bonds, who absolutely used PEDs, hurt MLB's fanbase and the reputation of the entire sport. The PED scandals in baseball were shocking to the public and it undermined MLB's credibility. The PED cheaters like Bonds stand out like Shoeless Joe Jackson and Pete Rose. Their actions had the potential to undermine the entire sport's business viability. The strongest argument for PED cheaters to get into the Hall of Fame, in my opinion is we don't know who cheated. We have the names in the Mitchell Report and cowardly leaked confidential testing results from prior to MLB's testing policy. We don't have all the names of the players who were promised their information would remain private. Just some. Did Fred McGriff use PEDs? It doesn't seem likely based on his physique, but maybe he did? There are players in the HoF who cheated by using PEDs. We just don't know which ones. Also, how much of the blame for PED use goes to MLB, the commissioner, front offices and owners looking the other way as the home run races filled their pocketbooks? They knew. They knew it was pervasive and let it continue because it was big money, especially after the strike crushed the sport. The owners and commissioner were all too happy to profit from PED use and then scapegoat the players while they passed the buck along when the scandals hit. The Hall of Fame is viewed as maybe the public's only option to "punish" the cheaters since MLB didn't and America is a very vengeful society. Furthermore, baseball fan demographics really hit hard when it comes to that vengefulness.