LaBombo

And that's a VERY good point. I was just trying to give a frame of reference for his offense to be judged in a context where we consider him the #1 catcher, not a threshold to shoot for. My preference would be for Mauer to catch no more than 80 games as well, for exactly the reason you stated. Of course that would probably force us to endure more Doumit defense and/or Butera plate appearances, but whadaya gonna do? If there were even just a small chance it would help prolong his career, or just make him a little more likely to be healthy next year, I'd still be good with it. And it's not like they'd be benching David Ortiz circa 2007 to keep Mauer in the lineup at DH. Whether Joe or the Twins would be good with it, well, that's another story.

No, dude, it totally makes sense, as long as you believe that a bad manager can't keep a team from winning the World Series once, but a good manager can help a team win multiple championships... which is a totally reasonable expectation. Because hey, new ballpark.

Thanks for the detailed and helpful updates, Brent and Storm. Good stuff, although I was a little disappointed in the lack of stats to back up your scouting...

To me it was both a bad baseball decision and may end up being a bad business decision to have Hicks start the season with the Twins. That being said, I have no intention of making any judgements about Hicks in ten games, let alone one, whether it's Verlander or Porcello 2012 on the mound. If he's struggling to make contact at the end of April or so, the Twins should probably rethink their approach with him. And if you feel that speculating what to do without him implies an unwarranted expectation of failure instead a hypothetical exercise that has nothing to do with yesterday, how about this: what do the Twins do about CF if Hicks is injured tomorrow and is out for a big chunk of the season? Sure, Mastro starts, and could even be a pleasant surprise by managing above-replacement performance. But do the Twins really expect Benson to be the 4th OF for a whole season after his run of injuries and struggles at the plate?

No, he's ok, there was a smiley! Hey, even the guys at fangraphs scratch their heads over Mauer's approach at the plate in some situations. Here's a link to a fun article about Mauer's refusal to swing at 3-0 pitches, including a breakdown of a situational RBI opportunity. ###Spoiler Alert if you're going to read it. If not: ### Mauer went over t**h**r**e**e y**e**a**r**s without swinging on 3-0. Holy crap. I knew he didn't swing much on three oh, but... man. The consolation prize is that over the last three seasons, when Mauer doesn't walk on a 3-0 he's batting .469/.863/.656 after that count.

That was funny. If they can't get Pitt I'm betting on direct to video. And I thought about going with something less over-the-top, but couldn't pass it up.

I get what you're saying, but over the past five seasons, only the top five to seven catchers in games started have managed 120 or more starts. Maybe a more realistic threshold of whether he's really a full-time catcher this season is 100 games. That would put him behind the dish as much or more than at least half the #1 catchers in baseball, and at least some of the guys ahead of him can't play first and have the kind of bat that would never play at DH

Absolutely. But like sb said, you can believe in both but still wonder if there is some sort of unofficial ratio of stock to be put in each. And especially which one wins out if they're in conflict. It's pretty clear from both words and actions that the Twins tend to put more stock in scouting. They've had some wins with that approach, like sticking with Span when he appeared to be washing out with his lack of production in the minors. What makes the sabre crowd so irritated by the Twins is the number of failures, often spectacular ones like Blackburn, Marquis, Capps, and Nishi vs Hardy that have resulted when they seem to have paid minimal attention to, or just outright ignored, statistical portents of doom.

It's called spring training instead of spring tryouts for a reason. Trusting 50 plate appearances over 2000 as an indicator of ability because they're the 50 most recent is a very bad decision. Good lord, ST barely even resembles major league ball the first couple of weeks. And after the train wrecks that resulted from the promotions of Benson, Dozier, and Parmelee, it's pretty clear that promoting another position player without establishing that he can hit in AAA should absolutely be debated, regardless of the team control issue.

My point was that the AAA or majors decision should be based on what Hicks has accomplished (and what he has not) in his 5 years and over 2000 plate appearances in the minors, not what Twins scouts thought of him in high school. Scout evaluations in 2012 and in 2013 ST have relevance, but even those are made less and less revealing as we increasingly see what Hicks is becoming by what he's actually done, as opposed to what the scouts think he'll be, much less what they thought 5 years ago.

In fact the Twins have stated as much at times throughout the previous decade. Can't find the quote, but I believe Ryan described a given season's available payroll budget as something along the lines of 'use it or lose it'. No carryover to next season's roster. But that was before the nonsensical 'money isn't an issue' meme took the place of frank discussions about payroll and roster construction.

Or how about... Lineup A: 1.00 slugging = everyone goes 1-4 with a homer, no walks = 9 runs. Lineup B: 1.00 OBP = everyone gets a hit or walk in every at bat = infinite number of runs.

What on earth does the round he was picked in have to do with skipping a level for a player who's needed at least a full season at every level?

The fact that he's in the majors at all instead of AAA pretty much ensured that patience would be out the window. Those look like very good comps for Hicks, minus some power. If he can maintain a low to mid-teens walk rate and average .250, his glove should make him a plus player, and with several years to improve his offensive skill set.

You've raised an excellent point and made all the due diligence disclaimers. But the minute you speculate what to do if Hicks isn't ready, you're in for some flak on a board where the 2013 expectations for him frequently range from net average to RoY or even All Star. While I think the Twins shouldn't have rushed Hicks, I'm hoping he'll stick and we won't have to count on Mastro as an everyday guy. But if the Twins see Mastro as a quad A guy who will be so exposed as a starter that he can't sustain an OBP high enough to lead off for a non-contender, why didn't they someone who can? And if they DO think Mastro can start in CF if Hicks is sent down, who is the backup? I'm a little more optimistic than you about what Mastro might manage if Hicks isn't ready. Even so, I think it was wrong to enter ST without a realistic CF alternative to Hicks and Mastro. And no, I don't consider Benson a realistic alternative, although I'm still hoping he manages to turn things around. Oh, and don't worry about Floribar leading off. They'll be too busy battling Dozier for AB's in the two spot if/when the Mauer experiment is pronounced a failure, and probably whether it is or not.

And if Hicks IS over-matched after a few weeks in the majors, let's hope there will be more applause in order for a board that is not overflowing with proof of the existence of a center fielder corollary to Nichols' Law of Catcher Defense.

I think a strong lineup and potentially killer rotation get them to 93-95 wins, but a good closer maybe gets them close to 100. On the other hand, if KC and Cleveland are both as improved on the field as they are on paper, they may need to add a reliever just to get to the 94-ish win area. If it sounds like I'm going overboard with the idea of adding 4 or 5 wins with a good closer, here's an even more drastic appraisal: "All three [benoit/Coke/Al-Al] are quality relievers and can get the job done short term but are better as setup men. A potential 100-win club becomes a 90- to 92-win team without a closer. And as a team with aspirations of returning to the World Series, the Tigers need a designated closer, such as Street or Cishek. The Tigers have enough in the farm system to make a deal at the trade deadline." However you feel about Jim Bowden, he's been around baseball quite a bit, and he seems pretty fired up about how much butt the Tigers could kick if they add a good closer. My impression of the value of a good closer is lower, more in the BP/Bill James (made, not born, leverage vs. 'saves', etc.) camp than in Bowden's, but that being said, it looks like they could use one. Coke is a LOOGY. Dotel is a solid, often underrated reliever but nearly 40. Albuquerque has mad stuff and durability issues. Rondon will have to work on his command in AAA for a while. That leaves Benoit, who is a fine reliever, but he's been inconsistent throughout his career. And today highlighted their need for another quality reliever. Leyland stuck with Smyly (way too long, imho, especially with a day off tomorrow), a converted starter, when most teams with playoff aspirations would have a better option when everyone is rested. As a Twins fan,, I'm hoping the Tigers give up Rondon for a 'proven closer' who will be gone in a couple of years when the Twins have rebuilt and rebounded.

To that I would add that he was facing what is widely considered in the non-TD baseball world to be one of the better offensive lineups in MLB. Pretty encouraging outing...

Nope. A revoltin' development instead. But sweet bugs bunny ref.

Long leash for smyly here...

Soon enough...

Could be wilkin's entire war contribution for the season on the line right here...

In addition to jokin's comments, I would add that even if you set aside what 'type' of hitter a player is, the fact of the matter is that Gardenhire has a loooong history of wasting outs by usually placing one of the lineup's worst hitters in the two spot. So the argument isn't as much 'Mauer 2nd vs. Mauer 3rd', it's 'Mauer 2nd vs. crap hitter 2nd'. And the answer is 'Mauer 2nd'.

Run expectancy matrix: With the exception of Revere last season, Gardenhire has almost always put a mediocre to poor OBP hitter (who, entirely by coincidence, has been a middle infielder over 90% of the time) in the two spot. By having one of the worst hitters on the team hitting in front of Mauer, they're making outs they don't need to in front of him. And each extra out generally reduces by 20% per out the chance the Twins will score a run in most situations when Mauer comes to the plate. Batting Mauer third gives him a small (barely above 30% with the crap hitters Gardy uses in the deuce) chance of an extra baserunner to bat in, in about a quarter of his at bats. But that comes at the unacceptable cost of a substantially reduced chance of the Twins scoring a run in ALL of Mauer's at bats, including the first time through the order. Mauer with 0 out > Mauer with 1 out. Mauer with 1 out > Mauer with 2 outs.

To me, it seemed that the point of the WAR comparison was to refute the claim that Marcum/McCarthy in place of Correia/Pelfrey would make the rotation only "slightly more serviceable". And it does. Both M/M guys are risks, but the assertion that if healthy they are virtually indistinguishable from mediocrities like KC and MP is clearly unsound. And as for the process used to decide on Correia, it hasn't really been open to debate since Ryan said this: So Ryan is believing favorable scouting reports instead of 10 years of statistical evidence of mediocrity when evaluating a 32 year old pitcher. And it seems likely that at least a few other decisions are being made the same way, since Ryan said nothing to explain why Correia represented a unique case where stats don't apply.