randy_moist

Disagreeing with you doesn't make someone a sycophant.

(small) straight crush, with 4 in a row being a large. When KC does it, it's a royal crush.

I'm sorry if this has already been addressed, but comparing Gunnar Henderson to Matt Wallner, to try and suggest the Twins would protect the SS from lefties, if he were with them, is ridiculous. Henderson mashes lefties, his OPS against them last year would have been respectable as a RH split for him. He was worth 9 WAR last year. The Orioles use platoons too. Larnach proved he couldn't hit lefites in the minors. Most left-handed hitters learn it then. Some, like Wallner, learn it in the majors. It's not a refusal to let players do it, it's a failure of players to prove they can do it. You think they're not getting opportunities, but in reality, they're doing what's best for them and the team. How much better than his current .510 OPS do you think Wallner will get against lefties? You think he's going to break .700? Consider if Walker Jenkins is serviceable against LHPs. Then he'll play against them. Yet we aren't even sure he'll hit RHP in the majors yet (just very confident), so you shouldn't be that surprised if Jenkins is one day a platoon bat, because that exists in his range of possible outcomes. We hope that's not the case, but what makes you think that's what the Twins would prefer? They want him to be good from both sides.

Chicago seems poised for a big rebuild, not trying to add short term ML contracts, Burns will take more than just that, but I wonder if Milwaukee is more amenable to this sort of structure. They are a competitive team with a dire need to address the offense (93 team OPS+). Include Larnach, who could still entice the Brewers imo, as he's a high minors bat-first prospect, with some upside remaining. Finally, a prospect such as as Schobel or Keaschall (or Yasser Mercedes since BTV loves him for some reason..) rounds it out. Milwaukee gets 2 immediate starters added to their line-up, Larnach can compete in spring training for another spot or be the first call up, and the 4th prospect isn't that far away from the Majors either. It requires Milwaukee to be interested in present value over future value, otherwise the Twins aren't likely going to be shopping for a 1 year rental that costs a top prospect. Twins get an ace looking to hit FA in top form, and very likely a comp pick when he does that. They give up a lot of ML calibre talent, but their depth is a strength. The OF will be thinned, but that's mostly a 2024 issue that Castro papers over.

It's a moot point, now. But I see it the other way. Luplow hasn't hit lefties that well outside a couple seasons. Laureano has done it more consistently and more recently. I also think he offers more defensive value than Luplow (doesn't do any CF). We'll get to see though!

So can't find the quote or what?

It's not math, it's history. Indeed, the '91 team led the league in BA, and were among the top of the league in OBP and SLG. Because BA is part of both of those, which is something everyone recognizes. They didn't just hit an empty .280. The '87 team had a below average BA, this wasn't a particular strength of theirs, it only looks nice when you take out that important piece of historical context. So yea, to act as if BA was the secret sauce of two world series is ahistorical. Moreover, many teams have won the World Series before and after without being among the best in BA. And why would you focus on how the Twins ran things 30 years ago and think that's indicative of how they should run things now? The Twins tried to emulate that for ages and look where it got them. The rosters, the environment, the availability of certain kinds of players are all radically different. Trying to shape your operations based on some ideal point in history is a recipe for disaster, and that became evident with the Ryan regime, who were chasing their middling success from the aughts with antiquated methods and saw them bottom out the organization.

If this is what you're referring to: I cannot contextualize this Gleeman quote, because I don't know what was said before or after it. What show? If it was on KFAN, I can look it up if you give me the time and day. If it was on a podcast, I can find it, but narrow my search. I frankly think it's probably a lie or a misattribution. I can only guess at what was trying to be conveyed without knowing what was being discussed. Nobody is being fooled by this, and this is why you get called a troll.

You misunderstand me, my bad. I was perhaps not specific enough. I get you don't like my post. I'm saying produce a quote from the FO, or a beat reporter, or whoever y'all think doesn't get that BA is a component of SLG and OBP. Because that was the frustration that is generating the conversation here. That's the part that is tiresome. That's the part we can actually directly respond to.

Produce a single quote.

This is an earnest comment, I do appreciate that. Let me point out a slight flaw in this thinking. First, what level of contact do you think is actually achievable? A team hitting even .270 would be great these days, but let's give them an empty .333. First batter singles, the next 2 make outs. Now you're going to get a hit a third of the time on this final PA. If that's a single too, the player moves to second and then you're going to get outs again. Inning over. Maybe, sometimes, the previous outs moved a runner over and occasionally you do get the run, But a lot of the time, you're not getting anything. A lot of times, that contact leads to DPs and wipes away your opportunities. That's an example taken to the extreme, obviously. That's not really what anyone is thinking will happen. What you're hoping for, in reality, is that everyone bunches hits together. Or hits for some power alongside those singles. But this is actually what the modern TTO approach attempts. Do as much damage at once, accept most of the time you are going to come up empty handed (that's just baseball, afterall). Power and contact have some level of inverse relationship. That should be obvious. If everyone could hit for high BA and power, they would. Luis Arraez is having a great offensive season (and has been an asset on offense his whole career), but it is contingent on him keeping up extremely high BAs. If he comes down to a more realistic, but still impressive BA, he's still a good hitter. But his overall production is capped and he'll fall far behind the best overall hitters in the game. There's also a push and pull between being passive, looking for a good pitch to hit, and swinging with full force. Much of this is playing out right in front of our eyes with the Twins. We are seeing the TTO approach break the wrong way. It is very ugly, nobody is pretending otherwise. Lots of strikeouts without top-end power results. But Twins fans also neglect that Cleveland takes a near opposite approach, and their offense is way more frustrating. Why? Because when it breaks bad, there's no upside remaining. Being somewhere in the middle may be ideal, but is it feasible? How do you achieve that balance? Maybe it's adopting a two strike approach, that seems like the most evident change since the players meeting. But it's also exploitable in its own way. And finally, for most of this FO's tenure, the offense hasn't been an issue. It's been solid, occasionally great and disappointing a couple years. But they've never been as Cleveland's worst and have been outperformed only a couple times by Cleveland. Wanting more is ok, but I don't think the modern game really gives much space for a pure small ball team to succeed. That doesn't mean they can't! It just means, it's a narrower path. IMO

Did you even bother to read their original post? You are simply restating their point to them. The problem isn't that people who think BA is overvalued (...and it was, relative to OBP and SLG for a long time. Now it isn't...) have completely disregarded it, it's that y'all refuse to engage with the conversation honestly. Look at this thread, you restate the same point that was already made to the person who made it, while other people make up lies about the FO and twins beat reporters/analysts to serve some 10 year old agenda. That's not discourse, it's borderline trolling. Also national pundits are some of the worst analysts, grats on finally figuring that out. It's a function of their job and how they come to get those jobs (hi, lots of former players and unsuccessful FO personnel). It's also a context that really struggles with nuance, is often recorded live so mistakes are cemented and easily misrepresented, and there's a push to say controversial and outlandish things. So yea, I don't doubt somebody on MLB Network said something stupid. I just can't figure out why you would waste your time with them. And to suggest they are wholly representative of the state of (or for the matter, important to) modern baseball discourse is as unfair as trying to represent all of sabermetrics with Jack Zduriencik (who was clearly incompetent, most modern orgs respect scouting immensely). I too would like to see some direct quotes from the Twins FO or the people who cover the team, so I can then contextualize them, and show they don't say what the clowns in this thread claim. But when asked, these paragons of debate just double down with EVERYONE SAYS IT!!!! Look inward, who really is being dismissive in this discussion? Who really argues from a single-minded perspective? There is a very interesting conversation to have about differing offensive approaches, such as contact vs TTO, and which is better suited for success in the play-offs. Or if that is even determinable! But when your starting argument is "People said BA doesn't matter" and everyone you're citing understands the very basic premise (that these posters clearly don't) that BA is a component of both SLG and OBP, it's clear what you're really attempting to accomplish is pedantry or anti-intellectualism. I hope next time you bother to read what the poster you're responding to actually wrote, in a thread of like 5 posts. Edit: This has been quoted too many times to change, but I do realize now it's quite a bit rude. Especially considering you weren't really being an a-hole like some of the others. I conflated too much of their posts with your post, I'm sorry for that. I do think some of the points stand, but my ire should not have been directed at you JD-TWINS.

I don't want to get hung up the GGs too much, but comparing awards voting from Hrbeks day to present isn't fair. In general, numbers and actual observations/analysis play a much bigger role now than reputation did back then. You're right, though, other factors still play into it. I think in the case of Gallo, he earns GGs because he's an elite and complete defender. He does way more with his arm than Kepler and the other aspects are neutral at best. If he's an upgrade defensively and offensively, which I think is entirely possible, then spending $11 million on him is worth it if Max can truly be moved. It's only a couple million to upgrade afterall As for cynicism over this season, please by all means! I have felt much of that with this org, I'm not trying to say you shouldn't feel a certain way. Just don't take it out on other posters is what I'm suggesting. We're more or less seeing these things from the same vantage point as fans. Which means when we disagree, it's because we simply see the same thing differently. Suggesting other people have some agenda because they don't see things your way (the essence of your op) is dismissive and pretty egotistical tbh

I never said batting average doesn't matter. It's an essential part of OBP. Gallo is at the extremes, no doubts about that. But anway you could look at his career numbers too

Also, there is nothing preventing the Twins from signing a right handed bat. This is routinely a criticism I see here, but people do remember that Kepler and Garlick were both on the roster the last two years? The roster isn't set yet, and they can still add a RH OF and clear any logjam that they create.

Batting average doesn't indicate the frequency of outs made, on base percentage does. Calling him an automatic out misunderstands how his plate appearances are actually being spent. If you don't like him stylistically, that's valid. But your critique here overstates a flaw that isn't really one.

This is asinine. The thread is overwhelming opposed to the signing, but a small group of us like it and that makes us sycophants? How about trying to engage earnestly with other posters you disagree with, instead of just being a butt about things? For example, I think Gallo is a clear upgrade over Kepler. Ever wonder why Kepler, despite his reputation, doesn't win GGs? That's because they've been going to Gallo, instead. Kepler is very good in the OF, Gallo is probably better. I also think a cursory look at bbref will show anyone that Gallo is just the better offensive player. There's room to quibble on style and future projections. But I believe, to date, there's not much debate. That's why they're 'hell bent on trading him,' they've already shown that for a slight bit more money, they can improve. Post-Hot Stove, this is the sort of move they can and should make to spend the money they have, regardless of what could have been done previously and our sentiments about that.

Required watch They paid a couple million for an upgrade over Kepler (presuming a trade). It's not exciting, but it's a good move. The problem is we don't yet know where this ranks amongst all off-season moves.

I'm not a Miguel Sano fan because of the off field stuff. I would have preferred if they never extended him. In the current circumstances, he should play everyday until the trade deadline. If he can get hot enough to convince another team he's capable of hitting at his career rates, there's the potential for the Twins to make a good trade. Several contenders (from my memory from looking at rosters: Atlanta, Mets, Mariners, Houston, and a couple others I can't recall) have 1B/DH holes that Sano would be a clear upgrade at. The tight window means he needs to play daily and well. Nothing is guaranteed, but the few lost PAs for other players won't matter much in the long term. Many of those teams are pitching rich, and given the Twins can eat the remaining money, there's no reason they can't get a FA to be middle relief pitcher back. All that player has to do is clear the Pagan bar tbh. It's a small investment of playing time for a marginal return, but it could save prospect capital. It could be one of the cheapest, least painful ways for these contenders to fill the hole too.