Jim Hahn

I am not so sure the save stat ruined baseball. There is a reason managers found guys to finish games and not every reliever thrived in that role. There were relievers who typically finished games long before the save stat was invented. There is nothing more deflating than going into the ninth inning with a lead and then losing the game. Not every pitcher handles being the goat that well.

Perhaps. I suspect that it is mostly the richer teams that are in position to make significant trades to acquire true difference makers in August. I really don't have a problem with a harder deadline. The difference between a typical waiver pickup and whoever you have available in the minors usually isn't much, factoring in the variability of fringe major leaguers. The other thing is that if contenders are sort of forced to call up their best prospects, rather than play games with their service time, well that wouldn't be a bad thing either.

Ok. Fair. But people do use WAR as a semi-definitive way of comparing players. I see it on certain MLB Network shows where WAR is used as a cutoff for Hall of Fame consideration. I don't mind that if you dig deeper into the stats. That is the point. I believe if you only use WAR as your comparative stat, you are probably missing things.

Certainty this rule will force teams to pick a direction earlier. They won't be able to hedge their bets as easily by using the waiver/trade rules in August. As far as injury replacements go, teams just may need to be sure they have quality reinforcements in the minors. Waiver pickups will still be available as well. I think teams may be forced to be a little more active before the July 31 trade deadline. I doubt if that is a bad thing.

TOM, I am not sure I agree with you that power is typically very expensive. I think power needs to be paired with at least one other skill to be expensive. In their prime, guys with good power and defensive ability are expensive. Having good on base skills paired with power can be very expensive. It is possible that an additional roster spot will change that, and one dimensional sluggers will tend to occupy that spot. It might be that spot will go to guys like Arraez, guys with minimal positional flexibility but good contact skills. The other possibility is that they will just add another pitcher unless MLB limits the number of pitchers.

More than you might think. My niece has a Master's degree, and finds herself in a low paying job in her chosen field. She is kind of waiting for somebody to retire or move on in order to get a good paying job. She will probably have to change fields to achieve that.

I found it interesting that hitting off a tee is being de-emphasized. On the MLB Network, many former major leaguers emphasize the value of hitting off a tee when doing cage work. I wonder if some the new ideas are still in the experimental stage, and we will see things change, perhaps dramatically again, over the next year or so. This was an interesting article. I do agree, that buy in from the players is most important. It does seem that we are quite a ways removed from the see the ball, hit the ball philosophy of Tony Oliva. (I am not implying that there wasn't more to Tony's hitting philosophy than that.)

I seem to have derailed this thread, unintentionally, by my use of the word "subjective". As Mr. Walcott said rather well above, my intent was to point out that WAR and FIP are subjective in the CHOICE of which stats they are constructed from and also the WEIGHING of those stats. Hence the different versions of these stats. Agsin, I am not claiming these stats are WRONG. Merely that these type of stats are more like opinions about the value players bring to their teams. Back when I was young, there was debate about who was the best player on the Twins, Killebrew, Oliva, or Carew. They were hugely different players, bringing much different skill sets to the game. Two were Hall of Fame players, the 3rd probably would of been except for injuries. You could use WAR to "settle" this debate. Except that this would still be an opinion based on what someelse thinks are the most important stats, weighed in a manner to reflect his veiws of which is more important. That view is not WRONG. It is merely an opinion. You can agree or disagree with. I think some people use WAR as a conversation stopper. WAR says, so it must be right. To me, it is more of a place to start. It gives you one view of how players compare. You are free to come up with your own view. By the way, Oliva was the best player, if for too short of time. In my opinion.

The problem with WAR is that people like it. It allows them to do things that are otherwise difficult to do. Like comparing players that play different positions. Or even comparing the value a pitcher brings to a team with the that of a position player. The issue with this is that WAR is a subjective stat. It is taking stats that someone thinks are important, weighing them to emphasize the most important, and then combining them and putting them on a scale. Assuming the math is legimate, we are when using WAR, agreeing that the author used the correct stats, and weighed them the way we individuals would if we were comparing two or more players. That is nonsense of course. Not everybody on this site would agree on something as simple whether ob% or slugging % is more important for example , much less what stats we should use or which are most important. WAR is largely a lazy way to compare players. Since it is subjective, it is not WRONG, merely an opinion about how players compare. Many of the new stats like FIP and most defensive stats, are like that. They are subjective stats that give you an opinion about what value players bring to their teams.

I think they probably want to keep Stewart starting for awhile. He would likely be one of top three choices at Rochester, in case of injury. To me, he is similar to Gibson in stuff, and young enough to get better. He has been pretty durable too. To me, ground ball pitchers work better as starters, rather than end of the game relievers. He could be be a multi inning guy, but the Twins have other guys who can fill that spot.

I don't think there is anyone with great on base skills who is projected to be on the opening day roster. The best might be Cruz, who will likely bat further down in the order. Polanco might be the best fit, but as a good all round hitter, he fits well in the 2nd spot right now. Kepler might fit into the lead off or 2nd spot, but he needs to hit better. In truth, Buxton would be a great fit in the lead off spot, if he can hit anywhere near 300. He has shown patience in the past, and his speed is very disruptive for opposing team. Until somebody comes along who is a better fit(Lewis) or somebody on the team makes some strides in on base skills, I would like to see Buxton leading off. Of course he has to hit some for that to work.

Hicks for Murphy was a bad trade. Hindsight or foresight, it was a bad trade. Even if he needed to be traded you need to get more or hold on to him till you can. As far as how he compares to the current outfield. Hicks is pretty close to a 3 outcome hitter. Lots of strikeouts, lots walks, lots of power, not much contact most of the time. Good defense. Probably benefits from a hitters park and playing lots games in hitters parks in AL east. He is also in his prime. The Twins outfielders are entering their prime playing in a neutral park. I like Rosario's game a little better. Better average, if fewer walks, similar power. Kepler hasn't found his ceiling yet but if the average rises, he could be comparable to Hicks, probably less power, maybe eventually better contact. Buxton's ceiling is incredible. He just needs good health, in my opinion. So no, I wouldn't trade any of them for Hicks, mostly because of what could be, rather than what is.

I like the thought of having a catching coordinator. Having all the catchers and their coaches on the same page makes sense. Teaching the catchers to properly receive the ball so that the ump gets a good look at borderline pitches(mostly what pitch framing is) also makes sense. There are tradeoffs however. Most good framers often have difficulty in blocking pitches. Also the best framing in the world doesn't help if your pitcher doesn't have decent command. If the pitch isn't pretty darn close to where it's supposed to be, framing doesn't matter at all. My thoughts on electronic pitch calling really need a separate post. But, even if the technology is there, we really need a better agreement on exactly where the strike zone should be for each hitter, not some one size fits all, no matter how short or tall you are.

This isn't quite right. For the primary to complete 6 innings he would have to finish the 7th inning. 21 outs plus 6 runners left on base or runs means 3 times thru the lineup. That is a pretty tidy game. Even if the opener pitches a 1,2,3 inning-that is pretty tidy pitching by your primary. Personally, I expect that if the primary can typically get through 6 innings as a primary without facing the top of the order, he doesn't need to be a primary and should be starting.

I agree with this statement. You are largely just changing the order in which you use your pitchers. The part I don't agree with is that you can change a 5 inning pitcher into a 6 inning pitcher by having him start his outing in the 2nd inning instead of the first. Nothing in the stats suggest that really happened for Tampa Bay. The hundred pitch limit is still there for one thing. The other is for the primary to get through thru the 7th inning (His 6th inning of pitching) he is going to, more than not, end up facing the top of the order a 3rd time anyway. Unless the opener only faces 3 batters, the odds get pretty high that the primary will face the top of order a 3rd time in order to get through the 7th inning. I believe that the opener strategy pretty near guarantees you will use 5 pitchers unless one of your pitchers besides the primary, goes multiple innings. Still, that probably happens most times with your 4th and 5th starters anyway. I don't really know if the opener is a bad strategy. I suspect that having good enough starters that you didn't have to consider using the opener would be a better situation. Getting to that point should be a goal for the Twins.

I don't think we will much of the opener used this year, by the Twins. In interviews both Baldelli and Falvey have avoided committing to it for this year. With veteran starters and questions about the depth of the bullpen, this strategy makes less sense for the Twins than perhaps other teams. We will see, but unless injuries intervene or the depth of the bullpen changes, using the opener may not be the best strategy for the Twins.

Birdwatcher, your above posts are thoughtful and insightful. I don't know that I quite agree with all your conclusions, mostly because it is too early early to be very sure about much of anything about this FO and their abilities, yet. Falvey and Levine are clearly very smart. The thing about smart people is that they have to be aware of what they don't know and what they don't do well. Good bosses hire people good at their jobs. Then they let them do their work without micromanaging their work. Right now FO's all through baseball are accessing more and more information about all sorts of minutiae relating to all parts of baseball. Trying to manage this information and separate the useful from the useless is becoming increasingly important. I believe this FO will be given time by ownership to find their way. I do believe it is pretty obvious that they are still finding that way. Eventually, we as fans should be able to see clear direction in how they are doing thing, and results. We really aren't seeing that, yet.

I actually find Cron, Austin, and Duda rather unappealing options for 1b. All are one dimensional sluggers. All will strike out, a lot. None will hit for average or walk much. None will provide provide much defense at first. None provide any positional flexibility. Austin is likely to worse than Grossman, probably similar to Astudillo in the outfield. You need to be able to run to be any good in the of. I would prefer a more complete hitter than any of these guys at first. It wouldn't hurt if the guy could catch the ball too, given the rest of the infield. Since we are not going to get what I want, I expect what we get is Cron. The other 2 get dfa'd with maybe 1 of them ending up at AAA. The backups at first are Kepler and Sano.

I suspect we are closer to thinking similarly on these ideas, I am probably not expressing myself that well. To your second point, I doubt if the Twins win spend to league average. Even if they did, it could be very difficult to keep all of the young core guys with a Harper or Machado on the roster. If you did you could end up with a stars and scrubs situation, which can leave you entirely dependent on the health and productivity of your stars. To your first point. We all hope it becomes a choice. Assuming the current core gets close to their perceived ceilings, it would be very fine if our highly rated farm system allows the front office to make those choices. If those type of players are good enough, you can choose to trade or even dfa players who get expensive and replace them with players who have a good chance of being as good or possibly better. This would allow you the choice you are talking about. There are fewer good gambles to replace players as they get expensive, if your farm system can't produce those players.

I agree with your sentence about Arraez and Gordon. Gordon has a higher ceiling, out performed Arraez at AA last year, has more pop, is better defensively, and probably has more versatility. I like Arraez, but I think Gordon is being undervalued by many.

I would rank Battey 2nd. He was a 5 time all star, several t8mes a gold glove winner. He was the best all around catcher next to Mauer. I think Harper and Pierzynski were pretty close, good offensive catchers, some weaknesses defensively. I like Harper a little better. He seemed pretty clutch, though he didn't walk much. Don't pay much attention to war.

I think both Cron and Schoop would have received more through the arbitration process than they did from the Twins. The reason they were dfa'd was not that they aren't good or at least pretty good players, it was the arbitration process was making them relatively expensive in relation to their production. A team with greater resources might have kept those players, because either or both has a good chance to outproduce whoever replaces them. However, there is a pretty large pool of similar players available, maybe even from your minor league system, so a team can gamble on adequate production, and use the money saved elsewhere. In the case of Cleveland, their great players are getting enough thru the arbitration, that Cleveland had little choice(apparently) but to spend less on their secondary players. Now again, the Twins are nowhere near that situation. But while the Twins probably could spend $40 million more this year, and probably next year as well, they are seemingly avoiding committing to that kind of money long term. At least right now. That makes sense to me. Signing Harper or Machado would clearly make the Twins better now, and perhaps the next year too, but at some point players in their prime will have to be moved in order to keep either one. It may even happen that at some point that either Harper or Machado will not be any better than than an in house replacement but will be virtually impossible to trade. Now I would like to see the Twins try to sign Keuchel. But you cannot get him for less than 4 years, probably. Whether he can stay healthy and effective for 4 years is one question. What you have to give up to keep him that long would be the other.

The thing that nobody talks about is how arbitration is pushing up salaries. Cleveland for example, had to rearrange their secondary players because arbitration had pushed up the salaries of most of the core players. Cron and Schoop were largely available to the Twins because their previous teams didn't want to pay their likely arbitration awards. The main reason the Twins haven't gone after big ticket free agents is because most of what we regard as their current core, will have their salaries pushed up dramatically thru arbitration IF they start performing close to what most us consider to be their ceilings. So, if you want to keep these guys around, and this year will go a long ways to deetermining which guys you want to keep, it becomes increasing difficult to commit long term money to free agents. The Twins are a long ways from being in Cleveland's position, but many mid market teams are finding themselves there. They are trying to choose between overpaying for free agents, holding onto core pieces as long as they can, and trying to keep some flexibility for dealing with injuries and under performance. It is really only the first 3 years of a career where good to great players are cheap. Teams really don't want to pay replaceable players arbitration rates.

I have to say I really don't understand signing like this or the Duda signing either. I would think it would make more sense to give this time in camp to marginal youngish prospects who have some hope of contributing to a ML team, someday. Older fringy guys like this, I really don't get this, though it seems most teams do this.

The Twins sure didn't spend big in 1987. Berenguer was the biggest free agent signing. Joe Niekro won like 5 games. Everyone else was acquired thru trade or minor league signing. Morris was a FA signing in 91. Chili Davis was a FA too. He played 113 games for the Angels the year before with 265 ave and 12 hr. Morris got good money but was coming off a pretty poor year.