Nine of twelve

I'll respectfully disagree with most of this post. The geography is a very minor issue. St. Paul would not be a major problem geographically for MiLB. Not at all. Look at a map of AAA franchises. St. Paul would be no more inconvenient, and probably less so, than Tacoma or Salt Lake City, not to mention the fact that Memphis and Nashville are in the PCL. And, as others have pointed out, MiLB can realign the leagues if they wish. And to call the American Association quality independent ball is inaccurate, IMHO. Keep in mind that there is a good reason that the players in that league do not have contracts with MLB franchises. The vast, vast majority of players are simply not good enough. And that in turn is why the marketing of these teams emphasizes gimmickry rather than the quality of play. There's nothing wrong with being entertained by that, but don't try to pretend that the baseball is good. As for me, I'd much rather watch talented players learning the game and improving their skills at low-A than the has-beens, never-wases, and never-will-be's in the American Association.

This is a good point. I don't know the details of the parameters used to calculate SDI but I would think it could be configured to account for changes in win probability, unearned runs, or even pitches thrown. There are probably other relevant parameters as well. And for all I know it may already do that.

I only regret that I have but one like to give for this post.

There's no fight against analytics. It's a fight against the other team. And what you call anti-analytics is just analytics.

Who is "we" that hears this? From whom does "we" hear this? Does that source know this first hand? And if so, how?

It's become a pejorative term but... The only thing that has changed is that over the years we have greatly improved the depth and quality of the data. That and the term "analytics" has supplanted the term "statistics". All managers have used analytics for decades. I think modern-day managers use analytics more than in the past simply because there is more information that is useful but no manager makes decisions based only on the numbers.

Yep. With the exception of a bases-empty single a hit is almost always more costly than a walk. So increasing the likelihood of a ball being put into play will increase the incentive to settle for a walk.

I'll expand a bit on what you say in your first sentence. I think the game would be improved with more batted balls put in play, fewer walks, fewer home runs, and fewer strikeouts. The two changes mentioned here would most likely accomplish three of those four objectives, but IMHO the walk rate may actually rise. A pitch delivered from a lower mound will be easier to hit so I think pitchers will be more likely to nibble, especially with runners on base, and give up more walks as a result. I think the solution would be to increase the size of the strike zone along with the two changes you mention. Implementing this would be a tricky process that may require a few years to fine tune. At the risk of appearing to channel Bert Blyleven, we would have to find the balance point of the three variables. The strike zone has to be enlarged enough to keep the number of walks in check, but not by so much that the number of strikeouts gets too high. The mound has to be lowered enough to control the number of strikeouts, but not by so much that the number of batted balls gets too high. The ball has to be deadened enough to control the number of home runs, but not by so much that it causes a new dead ball era. And by the way, fewer walks and fewer strikeouts means fewer pitches and a faster pace of play. I also want to say that I apologize for contributing to the divergence of this tangent from the narrow topic of the thread, but in baseball it all ties together. The changes discussed here would affect how batters approach pitchers and defenses, which in turn affects how pitchers and defenses approach batters. Edit: I see ash replied to my post as originally posted. This version was being edited while he replied.

Yep. I don't think anyone believes that Romo will pitch better next year than this year. I think that whoever takes his roster spot in the bullpen will do better than he would have.

I think it's very, very likely that this is the right move because I think it's very, very likely that his effectiveness will continue to fade, and probably quite rapidly.

Same as the in the regular season, although pitching is even more important in the postseason than in the regular season.

This is it. And as many have said before, scouting and player development are the keys to doing so. And it's necessary to have a manager who knows how to make good guesses regarding who plays where and when.

Yep. We would need to know the OPS against the second time through for ONLY those pitchers who pitched the third time through.

The majority of the time. And similarly if a baseball strategy works the majority of the time then it makes sense to employ it.

And this probably should be the new normal. I have grown tired of hearing Bert and Jack complain about "kids these days". We have phased into the era of a pitching staff functioning as a team rather than relying on today's starter. A 26-player roster with 13 or even 14 pitchers allows the manager to bring in fresh arms more frequently. Certainly there will be exceptions based on how a starter is performing on a given day but in general it makes sense to me to use several relievers who can let it fly for an inning instead of using a pitcher who has already thrown 70+ pitches when the game gets into the sixth inning or so. It's analogous to track. The times in a 1600-meter run will always be much slower than those in a 4x400-meter relay. Starters are distance runners and relievers are sprinters. Better overall to use your sprinters when you can.

The better hitters would hit better, the worse hitters would hit worse, the better pitchers would pitch better, and the worse pitchers would pitch worse. Exactly as god intended.

OK, well then let's go back to the rules as they were in 1869, which is when professional baseball began. The point I'm making is that the game evolves, the rules evolve and technology evolves. How fair is it to the future of the game to use an inferior method of calling pitches just because "that's how we've always done it"? It is my understanding that electronic pitch calling is more accurate than human pitch calling, and for that reason alone it should be implemented. And by the way, I think it's wrong to refer to these systems as "robot umpires". It's inaccurate.

Yes, but only if the other team overpays.

It really doesn't matter whether a pitcher or any other player was drafted, traded for, or signed as a free agent. What matters is what that player cost the organization. It all comes down to scouting, player development, and field management. An organization must know how to acquire players by whatever means at a favorable cost and get the most out of the players in the organization. If those things are done well success is assured.

May, Clippard, Odorizzi: Try to keep. Clippard probably just for one year but May and Odorizzi for two or more. Hill, Cruz: 1 year only, and only if a very team-friendly contract. They are too close to falling off the cliff. Romo, Avila, Adrianza, Gonzalez: Thank them for their contributions and wish them well on their future endeavors elsewhere.

Which team does Tyler Duffey pitch for? I thought he was on the Twins' roster.

Given the Twins' current needs I'd take neither over a similar right-handed batter.

Two reasons: Reason 1: Reason 2: $$$

Regarding Varela, here are the relevant OPS data: 2019 AL: .761 2019 Twins: .832 2020 AL: .732 2020 Twins: .743 While we were better than average in 2020 the drop in our OPS was much larger than the league-wide drop. I don't have enough inside knowledge to say how much of this should be laid at the feet of Varela. The Twins should try to employ the best coaches available and if there is someone they deem better than Varela then that's who should be hired.

I don't think this strategy is inexplicable or even bad. The explanation is that starting pitchers have a high likelihood of doing much less well the third time through the lineup. It seems pretty obvious to me that this should be expected. Opposing batters have had two plate appearances to see what the pitcher has got and the pitcher is starting to fatigue and thereby become less capable of further adjustments needed to get batters out. There are certainly exceptions, but those pitchers are not common. (I think Maeda is one because he is able to add to and subtract from almost every pitch in his repertoire.) In terms of roster construction this makes the bullpen more important, especially middle relief, but to me the most important thing is to have a reliable, consistent closer. Having such a closer makes the rest of the bullpen much easier to construct and manage.