Nine of twelve

For the sake of my own amusement I wanted to see what that bastion of journalistic integrity , The New York Post, had on its web site on the day Morneau was announced as MVP. The large headline was "JETER LOSES MVP", with a large photo of him and a small photo of Morneau inserted on the side. This was funny and awful at the same time, though not surprising.

Whether Sano could do it depends a heavily on the rest of the lineup. (Captain Obvious writing here.) Frequent plate appearances with a man on first base and a capable hitter on deck would reduce pitchers' tendency to walk him. He has the ability to hit 45-50 dingers in a full season, and if that happens with an average of one man on base that's 90-100 RBI right there. It would be no small feat to generate another 40-50 RBI but he would be much more likely to reach 140 compared to someone hitting "only" 30 HR. The other thing to mention about his increasing tendency to draw walks is his apparent improvement in recognizing breaking balls outside the zone. The reason pitchers have thrown so many of those pitches in the past is to get swinging strikes as opposed to throwing waste pitches. If his pitch recognition improves he will still draw more walks but there won't be as many of those pitches thrown to him, especially earlier in the count. That means more hittable pitches and more balls hit very far.

I agree. But that doesn't change my opinion that it's too easy. I think the bar for enshrinement should be higher. There are many players in the Hall whose careers do not merit enshrinement. (IMHO, naturally.) Of course, those players can never be dis-enshrined, but their memberships then provide a standard for later borderline players. To me it cheapens the status of the truly great players.

It's too easy to be elected to the HOF. I think peak value should be a very minimal factor to consider, and probably shouldn't matter at all. Here's an example I like to cite: Mark Fidrych had an ERA of 2.47 during his first three seasons. It would not be difficult to make the argument that he was the best starting pitcher in the majors during that time. In spite of this, I don't think there's a reasonable case for him to be inducted. Cumulative performance is what sets the greatest players apart from the rest. Some of the players who have been inducted fall a bit short of the standard I would apply, including my favorite baseball player ever. We'll never know, but if not for one game in October of 1991 and the sympathy factor of a popular player suffering a retinal hemorrhage I think Kirby would have been a borderline inductee. And there are many others who don't truly stand far above the rest. There's also the other side of the coin, where deserving players are not voted in or have to endure a long wait. There's no better example than Blyleven. When he retired he was third all time in strikeouts. Repeating for emphasis: ****ing THIRD! In the history of the game! If a player retired third all time in home runs he would deservingly be close to unanimous on the first ballot, and Blyleven should have been. This type of thing has made me conclude that being elected to the HOF is unimportant. Let the records of the players, managers, and others stand on their own without a highly arbitrary thumbs-up/thumbs-down vote.

I'll expand on this. First, pitching to contact is what is says. It is NOT "spending tons of pitches nibbling", it's inducing batters to make less-than-ideal contact, especially early in the count. Neither pitching to contact nor pitching for a strikeout will be successful for everyone and neither should be the approach a pitching coach and manager should promote. Instead, the approach should be tailored to what works best for an individual pitcher. A strikeout is second only to a double play in the best possible outcome of a plate appearance for a pitcher but pitch to contact, if successful, will allow a starter to go further into a game (and into a career) because not as many pitches will need to be thrown to get outs.

That was when he was juicing. If you look at subsequent years you'll see that after he got caught and quit the juice his performance dropped off markedly.

My comment on Mauer: I don't know if he would have made my list or not but I think it's appropriate to consider him underrated because there are so many people who, for lack of a better way to say it, hated on him for many years. He was a very good catcher, maybe not the best at preventing WP's or PB's but an he had an outstanding arm. He also seemed to have a reputation within the baseball community of being very good at working with pitchers. That skill, getting the most out of your pitcher, is almost impossible to measure statistically but is probably the most important part of a catcher's job. And in 2009 he was the best baseball player in the world.

Bob Allison was my mom's favorite Twin in the '60's, but I think it was for reasons other than his baseball talent.

Another noteworthy thing to mention about that game is that all the in-stadium video displays were purple-themed.

I'm surprised nobody ever thought of this before, or at least did the analysis. No single stat is the most important or complete way to judge a player's performance, but this is one more way to look at making the most of opportunities. As an aside, I made an analogy many years ago. A run in baseball is akin to an assist in hockey because it reflects something someone does to set up a score. An RBI is akin to a goal because it reflects finishing the task of scoring.

I was a 9-year-old sitting in the sun down the right field line. And in October I was a 9-year-old sitting down the left field line on a wet day for Game 2. I would have seen Allison's catch straight ahead of my seat but everyone around me stood up.

I was at that game. I had such high hopes for Arcia. He could make the baseball go very far.

Veering a bit off topic, the 1965 ASG is mentioned. When the ASG was at Target Field in 2014 Reusse wrote a column about the 1965 game, opining that the NL team may have been the best baseball team ever assembled. To back that up, he pointed out that the NL outfield reserves were Roberto Clemente, Frank Robinson, Billy Williams, and Johnny Callison. Not to take anything away from Callison, but picture telling Clemente, Robinson, and Williams that they have to watch the start of the game from the bench because they're not good enough. (Mays, Aaron and Stargell batted 1-2-3.)

I agree with the OP (and apparently most posters) that the top 5 are the correct top five. I will note that the title of the thread does not require the top 5 to be ranked. And I don't think I could do that.

I looked it up. Not only was it against the Twins but it was at Met Stadium. 9/18/1975 off Eddie Bane in the top of the second. I'm sure Bane gave him a good pitch to hit, at least he damn well better have.

I'm trying to figure out how I feel about the social segregation issue brought up by PDX. I truly don't think that those who pay extra for premium seating and/or premium amenities are doing so in order to avoid communing with the unwashed masses. I think they are doing so strictly for the premium seating and/or premium amenities. I myself don't begrudge anyone the choice to spend their money how they see fit, and if it allows ownership to increase payroll so much the better. That said, on a day with sparse attendance I wish that fans would be allowed to move into any unoccupied seat closer to the field. Is there really any harm in that?

Any and every Slap Shot reference gets a like from me.

This was worded properly. It's not just gender, it's also gender of preference. Based on my gender and gender of preference I freely admit that I am a poor judge of handsomeness and I would never attempt a ranking such as this. That said, this is a worthwhile subject of discussion.

Here's something I just thought of, but something that I'm sure most managers have considered. There's nothing in the new rule about inserting pinch hitters. This to me is an unfair advantage for the batting team. To negate this I think that if the offensive team pinch hits during the first three batters the pitcher should no longer be required to face a minimum of three batters.

Ben Revere hit .306 over the course of three seasons, 2013-2015. Not bad, but I've heard it said that he was possibly the worst .306 hitter in the history of baseball. He had a very low percentage of extra base hits and a very low total of bases on balls. True, his speed could turn a number of singles and walks into effective doubles with a stolen base, but strictly in terms of batting skill his stats reveal that he was a slap hitter at best. There's no doubt in my mind that Arraez will be a much, much better hitter than Revere. Defensively, there's never been anyone much better than Revere at catching fly balls but his pop gun arm was a huge drawback. Regarding a comparison to Arraez, it's apples and oranges. Will Arraez be a better infielder than Revere was an outfielder? Probably.

That third fella was Darrell Evans. The same fella Tim Laudner picked off third base in game four of the ALCS in 1987.

This is interesting, and I realize that Sano and Donaldson are the two chosen from the 2020 Twins because their offensive production is expected to be very good, but narrowing it down to only 1B and 3B twosomes is a bit arbitrary. What would be more interesting and significant would be to find the best twosomes at any positions from any team ever and use that as the standard. Mantle/Maris and Ruth/Gehrig immediately come to mind. I'm not going to do the research, but anyone reading this can feel free to do that and post the findings here.

I do not like the current configuration of the ASG and the events surrounding it and I do not make a point of watching any of it. Here's the redesign this curmudgeon would institute. 1. Eliminate player selection by fans, players, managers, coaches, and media. The players would be selected based on statistical formulae which would take into account as many phases of the game as possible. These formulae would be different for each position. 2. Eliminate the requirement for each team to be represented. 3. There would be two players at each position for each team. The DH is used. Starters play 5 innings, reserves play 4 or 5 innings. 4. There would be ten pitchers for each team. Each pitcher pitches one inning. 5. The game ends after 10 innings if still tied. After all, it's just an exhibition. I would watch the game if it were an actual all-star game, which what I think the above would accomplish. I realize this will never come to pass because the purpose of the game and the events surrounding it is to generate as much income as possible and my plan would probably decrease overall public interest. But a guy can dream.

I'll respectfully disagree with this. While the score of the game means nothing, the performance of individual players has some meaning. And speaking as a baseball fan, at this time of year it's really good to read a write-up of a Twins game, no matter what occurs. I've said this before, but I will say it again - to me there are two seasons to every year, baseball season and waiting for baseball season. It's a lift to my spirits that baseball season has returned.

Caution: cold water bath coming. There's nothing wrong with fantasizing, but that's all this is. There is not going to be any expansion any time soon. We have several franchises that are scraping to get by as it is. No proposal that depends on expansion should seriously considered. The current format is probably the best we can hope for. The best option is to keep the status quo.