Riverbrian

Since Managers tend to put their best hitters at the top of the order. Many Managers will put a guy with some talent in the 9 spot to feed the ultra talented guys at the top of the order. There are many managers who put their worst hitter in the 8 spot instead. Larussa and Maddon would/will frequently bar their pitcher in the 8th spot as a dramatic example.

With Cruz due to come back Friday (last I heard). Arraez has probably earned a longer look. This makes Austin Adams the most likely choice to be sent down. However... I’d like to see Adams pitch again before they send him down. His only appearance this year went pretty good.

This pretty much sums it up. This explains why I put Logan Morrison on a poster with the caption, this can never happen again and why I've been asking for the depth and flexibility that this team has. I have no complaints.

Inch wide mile deep or whatever. The Angels are near the top of my list of teams that just do it wrong. They have themselves in a hard to escape death spiral. They spent their budget to the max on a handfull of high priced free agents and drained the farm system acquiring additional talent. With no cheap talent on the roster and no cheap talent on the horizon. They are forced to continue being an inch wide mile deep. They have to keep spending and keep trading farm talent year in and year out. And then they are totally dependent on luck/health to compete and like most teams... they just don't get the luck/health necessary. If I was the GM... I'd blow it up and start over.

Agree with you 100% on having too many good players. Disagree about optioning Astudillo. Willans is a guy you fix at the major league level because if he can hit from the catcher position... this rarity will skyrocket his value. Not only value to the team in the pursuit of wins but future trade value that could bring back legitimate talent in return. Those coaches get paid to coach. Coach him up, add some walks to his repertoire and everyone will be happy.

I think Arraez is showing he can help and I’m 100% behind him getting lots of playing time but he will probably need to go back to Rochester eventually. It isn’t Arraez who should force Adrianza off the roster. It’ll be the return of Cruz and Garver. Arraez has options and I’ve been asking depth. I don’t want to shorten that depth on purpose.

Absolutely agree... I can't argue against a strategy that's resulting in one of the best offensive outputs in the league. Actually I can and I kinda am but I really don't spend a lot of time worrying about the batting order so I don't want anyone to think that I'm losing sleep over it. I just don't understand the asset of a template and I don't understand what consistency provides the hitter in the batter box. I mainly think it's ok to try and get Buxton (specifically) some more AB's.

Perhaps But... I'm not suggesting that it should be that reactionary. I'm asking the question... what damage is done if players hit in different spots in the lineup day to day? What damage is done if Buxton hits 9th and then moves to 1st and back to 9th? It's May 20th. Buxton has 142 AB's with an OBP of 335 and Kepler has 159 AB's with an OBP of .315. Kepler is getting the extra AB's by consistent hitting 1st while Buxton hits 9th. Why would it all fall apart if they swapped positions. Why does Astudillo simply plug into whatever spot in the order belongs to the player he's replacing. They bounce the turtle all around the lineup... Why can't they bounce Buxton around without injuring the consistency. Why is the Consistency important? Legit questions that will be very difficult for anyone (including Baldelli) to explain to me.

I still fail to understand the "set it and forget it" mentality when it comes to the batting order. I've said many times that I don't care much about the batting order but I really don't understand the reasoning behind a "somewhat static" "small fluctuating" "almost permanent" slotting. Why must Buxton remain in the 9th spot every single game? Any spot in the order 1-9 should be an option on any given day. If Buxton batted 9th on Sunday... Batted 1st on Monday and then Batted 6th on Tuesday and then batted 3rd on Wednesday. Will that ruin him? Will it ruin the team? I'm guessing that the next question could be: "Why Riverbrian do you want to move a batter around like that?". I'm not saying that I want to move a hitter around to that extreme but moving a hitter around based upon matchups or hot/cold streaks should always be a consideration in lineup construction despite the small sample sizes. If Nelson Cruz is 0-30 against Pitcher X... Does he have to stay in the 3 hole when we face Pitcher X? If Byron Buxton has barreled up Pitcher Y every single time he has faced him... Does he have to stay in the 9 hole against pitcher Y. If Max Kepler has struck out 15 times in his past 20 PA's... does he have to remain in the 1 hole or can the manager bump him down in the order until he starts making more consistent contact and then move him back to the 1 hole. Too many people discuss moving Buxton out of the 9 hole like it has to be permanent move. Like there is no going back again if he bats 6th in the order for tonight's game. I am trying desperately to understand the rationale behind the "Set It and Forget It" mindset. We have an analytics department analyzing every little detail just to find slight advantages, for the purpose of making our team just a little bit better and using a "somewhat static" "small fluctuating" "almost permanent" slotting totally ignores any slight advantage uncovered by metrics. I don't care about batting order in total other than: 1. Separate the Rights/Lefts as much as possible to make it hard on the other manager to manage his bullpen. 2. Whoever bats at the top of the order will most likely get one more AB then those hitting at the bottom of the order and if the top of the order gets 1 more AB... it will occur at the end of the game when the game could be on the line. Bottom Line: I just don't understand why it takes an act of congress to move a hitter to a different spot in the batting order.

His mechanics certainly look cleaner. With a cleaner swing, it's possible he is getting a better look, with a better look, he is swinging at better pitches. Swinging at better pitches leads to harder hit balls and less strikeouts. Tell Lavelle that he shouldn't argue with you.

If he stays healthy and performs like he has this year. You go to arbitration with him and pay it. Too many other holes to fill. It would be an incredibly risky move to let Cron go and just hand it all to Kiriloff or Rooker. The roster will be deeper and better with Cron and (Kiriloff or Rooker) on it, if they earn the way North. The Twins will have to (potentially) fill: Three Rotation Spots (Odorizzi, Pineda, Gibson). Not to mention we don't know the health or performance out of Berrios or Perez come winter. Schoop at 2B Castro at C That's why it's critical that Arraez plays when he is up. That's why it's critical that Garver and Astudillo get plenty of looks behind the plate. That's why it is going to be critical to see what Kohl can do... Maybe get a look at Graterol, Thorpe and Gonsalves. If the rotation is full... get them multiple inning work out of the pen. The Twins need to know where they need to allocate dollars because we all know the dollars will never be endless. Lots of talk about Kimbrel... I'd love to see him on the roster but if you had to prioritize between Kimbrel and Kuechel. When you look at next year and the fragile health of most starting pitchers... Kuechel might be the priority. Yes we need to prioritize this year... but I think you can prioritize this year and next year at the same time. Welcome everyone at Twinsdaily to what we call the "open window". The Window may be open for awhile.

Love this one!!!

Managers will often put a decent bat in the 9 spot to feed the top of the order. This makes perfect sense but it only makes sense if you have a crappy 8 hitter that isn't capable of feeding the top of the order. We don't seem to have a crappy 8 hitter at the moment. And it only makes sense if the #1 #2 and #3 hitters are good enough to be fed. This point becomes really debatable when the #9 hitter is out hitting the #1 hitter. I honestly think we are looking at a manager who likes consistency in the batting order and I don't care much for that. I Just don't see the damage caused by moving players around in the batting order.

Apparently, this was quite the controversial article. I didn't see the harm in it but after reading the responses... I decided to go back and read the article again. At no point did he compare the CAREER of Polanco to the CAREER of Carew. He listed the top OPS+ performances from Twins middle infielders. My personal all-time favorite Twin Mr. Rod Carew is sitting at the top and Cody was pointing out that Polanco is above that mark. If all Cody or anyone is allowed to write is: Polanco is having a great start to the season but let's see him do it for another 10 years... well, there won't be much point in writing that.

I did Run expectancy: how many runs we can expect to score, on average, given a specific base/out state. That explains everything right there. "how many"? The chart illustrates that you will score less runs on average when you bunt and this is because when you sacrifice an out... you also sacrifice one-third of your ability to score multiple runs and therefore make it harder to hang a 6 on the scoreboard. As a result you score less runs and reduce expectancy in the process. The chart the article needs: What happens to the percentages of scoring one run and one run only. That's the chart that will tell you if Kepler or Adrianza should have bunted last night in the 8th. We didn't need 6 runs... we needed 1.

I meant that. I'm sick and tired of ball guys.

Considering that the runner needed to be moved over first and foremost... I think it's possible that Adrianza was the better choice in that situation. Either bunting or hitting the ball behind the runner. But, like Chief said and Jkcarew said... Sometimes players fail. Right now... Psychologically... I'm just hoping that the Twins are not trying to out homer each other. I've seen baseball teams get on home run rolls like the Twins have been on and get drunk with the power. The home runs come so easy that they start losing sight of the little things (like mere singles, driving in runs/keeping the chain moving) while in pursuit of the almighty dinger. I wouldn't proclaim it but I am suggesting the possibility that our struggles with runners in scoring position the past few games could be drunk with the power related. Just keep hitting the ball guys... they will still leave the park on occasion.

Yep, You are not going to use your driver to chip on to the green from 30 feet out. Teams and players need to have multiple clubs in the bag.

This would be an overly simplistic view of things... however, this is how I look at it. When you bunt... you are playing for one run and one run only. Sure you'll take 5 runs in the inning if it happens but whenever, you lay down a bunt, you have lessened your chance to put 5 runs on the board that inning by creating the out and those outs are precious. So, whenever you bunt, you are saying forget 5 runs this inning... I need 1 run right now. You are laying down the bunt to get a single run across the plate. When you don't bunt, you are playing for as many runs as you can possibly get in a given inning and teams should always be trying to score as many runs as possible in any given inning. Unless, time is running out. That is the only time that playing for a single run and a single run only makes sense. If you are down a run or tied and that Single run keeps you alive or wins it. That's why I'm not bunting until the 8th or 9th inning and the game is tied or 1 run apart. If Astudillo would have hit a single instead of a double last night, leading off the 8th... I'm not sure that I would have bunted in that situation... but since it was a double... getting the pinch runner to third where a sacrifice fly or a seeing eye single through the drawn in infield ties the game. This isn't a moment to think about getting 5 runs in the 8th... this is a moment to think about tying the game up. This is one of the few situations were the bunt is almost required. It was an execution failure.

I know you are not a bunt guy. I’m not a bunt guy either Because I’m a big believer in the crooked number and not making outs is how you produce the crooked number and producing the crooked number produces wins. However... if you are ever going to bunt... That would have been the time because the clock was running out. Once it is determined that you are not going to bunt. You better be able to pull that ball and get the runner over. Oh well... tomorrow is another day.

Bottom of the 8th Inning: The Twins are down a run. Astudillo leads offs with a double. Schoop pinch ran for Astudillo and Kepler pinch hit for Adrianza. Kepler failed to advance Schoop and he really needs to advance the runner in that situation. The game is 9 innings long with plenty of time and opportunity to produce something therefore I'm not going to say that was the ball game. However... at that moment and context... that was the ballgame.

Agree with your post entirety. Thinking Nelson Cruz would be healthy for 162 games is a little optimistic.

Here's the template that Baldelli is following. Vs. RH 1. Kepler 2. Polanco 3. Cruz 4. Rosario 5. Cron 6. Gonzalez 7. Schoop or Garver 8. Castro or Schoop 9. Buxton Vs. LH 1. Garver 2. Polanco 3. Cruz 4. Rosario 5. Cron 6. Gonzalez 7. Kepler 8. Schoop 9. Buxton When Astudillo plays... he typically goes into the slot of the player who isn't in the lineup leaving the rest of the template undisturbed. When Adrianza or Cave plays... they will bat 7th or 8th and this will push the 6th, 7th and 8th hitters in the template up one place. It's pretty predictable... I'm not complaining... we are winning. I just don't understand why a template is necessary.

Kepler has been leading off against RH's. Garver has been leading off against LH's. We faced an LH yesterday. Garver wasn't in the lineup. Astudillo was in the lineup instead and like Garver... he was batting lead-off. Very template-esque.