arby58

Right, like everything, it depends. So, for example, if a player only puts up average numbers against older pitchers but suddenly puts up great numbers against players his own age, it may be that it took him time to 'catch up' which may be a good thing. Then you could have a player who puts up below average numbers against players his own age and then puts up strong numbers against players younger than him. That might tell you something. Yes, players get slotted at levels that isn't necessarily age dependent, but the slots can have significant variation in ability and where the player is in development. Thus, a younger player who ends up in, say, AA can be quite different in terms of readiness for one who took longer to advance through A+ and is now in his second year of AA. In those instances, it may well make a difference. Not always, but some of the time.

He hit 21 HRs his last year in college, so he must have some pop. The Twins didn't try to change Arraez into a power hitter, my guess is adding loft to his swing is not outside his comfort zone. Keaschall is a good example - he hit 15 HRs combined in the minors in 2024 after just 3 in 2023.

Lopez 'wasn't good' and 'had a rough season' based on what? He was 15-10, 4.08 ERA, 3.65 FIP, 1.192 WHIP, and a 2.5 WAR. If this is 'not good' give me 5 of them.

Paddock is 0-3, Twins are 0-5 in his 5 starts. 6.45 ERA, 5.93 FIP. 13 BB in 22.1 innings pitched. If this is fine, I shudder to think what 'not fine' looks like. 5 starts does not make a season, but with these results, he's never going to make it up on volume. I'd guess he gets another 5 to at least begin to turn it around. I'll take the under.

When I see these comparisons of Festa and SWR, small sample size is the phrase that comes to mind. Festa is still figuring it out. Three starts, regardless of the stats, should not give the Twins the comfort in him that they should have after SWR's 2024 and 2025 performance to date.

Which 'strong performing and widely acclaimed prospects' has he 'ruined' (which was your word)?

I highly doubt they are bringing up a top prospect who has only sniffed AAA to be a late inning pinch hitter/runner.

"Top prospects" are a dime a dozen. Nearly every team has several each year that make at least one of the top 100 prospects lists - they can't all possibly become MLB regulars, let alone stars. My guess is more of them 'ruin themselves' because they just don't have the innate ability or willingness to adjust to make it at the MLB level than have ruination foisted upon them. Honestly, the abuse heaped upon Rocco and his coaching staff baffles me sometimes. He has a lifetime winning record, he did something the Twins hadn't done since 2002 (win a play-off series), and he's done it with a below average payroll. He's not the best manager in MLB (although he did win AL manager of the year back in 2019), but he's gotten about as much in results out of the talent that surrounds him as could be expected.

I think it a little harsh/myopic to declare the season over at this point. Last year, on April 18, 2024, the Texas Rangers were leading the AL West and the Astros were in last place with a 6-14 record. That completely flipped by the end of the year. In fact two of the six teams to make the play-offs in both leagues would not have been in the play-offs at this point in time last year. Baseball is unlike any of the other major sports, just based on the number of games played in the regular season. My suspicion is the Twins would have gladly cut the last 19 games off of last year's schedule. A lot can change when you play 162 games.

Just a minor note: it was 2024, not 2023 where Morris pitched 33 2/3 innings at St. Paul. Likewise, he opened 2025 (not 2024) at St. Paul. Minor stuff, but it confused me when I first read it. Otherwise, thanks!

All the Rocco hate seems a little unfair to me. It's not as if he has had a roster full of high-salaried players, yet his win loss record is far from the bottom in Twins baseball history: Manager Wins Losses Percentage Billy Martin 97 65 .599 Sam Mele 522 431 .548 Bill Rigney 208 184 .531 Cal Ermer 145 129 .529 Rocco Baldelli 288 258 .527 Ron Gardenhire 1,068 1,039 .507 Frank Quilici 280 287 .494 Gene Mauch 378 394 .490 Tom Kelly 1,140 1,244 .478 Johnny Goryl 34 38 .472 Paul Molitor 305 343 .471 Ray Miller 109 130 .456 Billy Gardner 268 353 .432 Gene Mauch was considered an 'old school' good manager - and had a losing record with the Twins. TK is beloved (and won two World Series) but also had some really rough years. Billy Martin had the best win percentage (in one year), but punching out one of your players in the alley behind a Detroit bar wasn't exactly endearing.

Fair enough - Ober was sick and nobody is suggesting he doesn't have a role (right?).

Bader seems to be hitting.

I get the general strategy, but 'Dobnak looked ok this spring' is glossing over his 'bleah' record in the MLB games that actually count. 135 IP, 9-12 W-L record, 4.99 ERA, -0.2 WAR, 84 Ks, 1.397 WHIP. I doubt you will find many MLB pitchers on 26 man rosters with that kind of a career stat line.

Where's the statistical 'evidence' for this? What are the 'better, slightly higher-volatility players' that Rocco has passed over?

If he has an April like Gallo's in 2023, the Twins will be very pleased.

That would make sense, as batting him fourth has three consecutive RH hitters.

Just a reminder of Dobnak's MLB career stat line: -0.2 WAR. 9-12 record. 4.99 ERA. 135 innings pitched. 84 strikeouts. 1.397 WHIP. Yuck.

That said, the thought of him being the 26th best player on the 40 man roster fills me with dread.

While I have provided a study to dispute this, I would also note that I also provided an analytical rebuttal (gymnasts, who are very muscular and very flexible). For that matter, the same could be said about college wrestlers, who are all very muscular for their weight and have incredible flexibility. The classic Greek method for supporting an argument is ethos (appeal to authority), logos (appeal to logic), or pathos (appeal to belief). I've provided both an authoritative and a logical argument - so it isn't exactly what I have done.

I'm pretty sure I know the research you are relying upon, and it is correlation, not causation-related. It also deals with injuries from poor technique in weight training, not weight training causing injuries in professional athletes. Meanwhile, I have just actually provided a study that resistance training can reduce injuries in athletes. Go figure.

In other words, you assert but don't prove. Got it. Lazy? Mirror mirror on the wall...

This 'clearly stupid trend' is both not backed with evidence and makes no sense. Even when I was playing college sports, we had weight trainers with degrees in Kinesiology. You really think professional baseball teams don't know what you purport to know?

So explain it, don't just claim it. And link to it. You are making the claim, back it up. I played sports through college, and there were plenty of Kinesiology professionals on the sidelines and in the training rooms - and certainly more in pro sports. They all said the claim of 'muscle bound' injury susceptible weight training, when done right (and you really think they aren't doing it right with athletes of this level) is a myth. So bring on your research.