Dantes929

Sometimes I think it would be smart to just flip the rotation. I think the perception out there right now is that we will at a large disadvantage at every spot in the rotation. I think the reality is that we will be at a slight to moderate disadvantage at every spot in the rotation, at least until Santana gets back. If you flip the rotation you are at a disadvantage in the 1st two spots, slight disadvantage in the 3rd spot and a slight to moderate advantage in the 4th and 5th spots. Just seems like the numbers would come out a little better that way. If we get a guy like Cobb then we would have the advantage in maybe 3 spots. Of course this all depends on the opponent. Maybe not so smart this year but I still think the idea of having Berrios start in the 3rd or 4 games instead of the 1st is reasonable.

I've seen people say he is not worth our starting right fielder plus 3 of our top prospects but have not seen anyone say below average. I might have missed it.

Says he threw 24 straight curve balls. They didn't look straight. Ok bad joke. They actually didn't look like they were great curve balls either. His best and his average for those curve balls did not look as nasty as the best and average of the clip of Enlow. Just more evidence that a guy with a curve ball and fast ball can do just fine without a third pitch if the two pitches are good enough and used in different ways. I think I could have watched a game pitched by Duffey in 2015 and one in 2016 and concluded that it wasn't the batters adjusting to the fact Duffey had only two pitches but simply that Duffey did not throw those two pitches as well.

So you are saying you can be a one trick pony like Bert if you do it well? Might not be what you meant but I agree with it anyway. Duffey did quite well as a starter when he had good command of both his fastball and curveball in 2015. He mixed big breaking sweepers with sharp biting 12-6 pitches. He had command of neither in 2016 quite possibly because of trying to develop a third pitch which I don't think he needed. There are a lot of variations in arm angle, speed and break with curve balls that essentially give you enough different looks from that same pitch. Heck, a slow curve ball IS a change up. Then even a mediocre fast ball placed well can be very effective. Duffey lost the well placed part, a little downward plane and a little bite from what he had in 2015. . It looks to me that Enlow has enough stuff right now to do well. If he can get the pin point control down I think his future is very bright.

While its true not all high prospects become above average players it is also true that ALL above average players were once prospects. If 3 or 4 in your top 20 and one outside of your top 20 end up good and the list cycles every 4 -6 years and each of those players has a 7-10 year career I guess it comes out ok since I am guessing most teams go through quite a few replacement level players to fill out rosters. I'm just pulling numbers from a cloud here but you get the idea. As far as Enlow goes, I knew very little about him before now but his delivery looks pretty good and I love stuff that doesn't just involve velocity. I also hope he gets on the fast track through the system. I know HOFers don't come through every day but I often ponder how long it would take Blyleven to get to the majors nowadays. especially considering pitch counts and innings limits.

"But here's the thing: Minnesota absolutely should NOT have been counting on the same impact in 2018. For a variety of reasons, Santana was all but certain to see regression this year. I've been banging that drum all offseason, and the recently released PECOTA projections from Baseball Prospectus express similar reservations, forecasting Erv for a 4.76 ERA and 1.41 WHIP. Even before this injury news came out, expecting the same Ervin Santana from 2017 to return in 2018 was folly. If the Twins held any such expectations (and their lack of urgency to add rotation help would seemingly suggest it), those are now out the door." So he was really lucky last year? His ERA, WHIP and SO/BB were almost identical in 2016. Was that lucky? He keeps himself in really good shape, has great control and apparently is using his slider, which is one of the best in baseball more effectively. You and PECOTA might be right. I put it at about the same odds as you and PECOTA being wrong.

Some of his pitches did look really smooth and I would like him to get away from max effort if possible even it costs him a couple MPH which it seems he can spare but maybe it won't. I liken it to a golf swing. Max effort might get you the farthest distances but on average it produce much worse shots. Effortless 250 yards is way better than occasional 280. 100mph is fun but really shouldn't be his focus. Feels like it is just wasted in the lower levels anyway. He seems to have a bit of a Trevor May build, but more so.

There is some talent on this team and appears to be some near ready talent in the minors and lets not forget that we have the same team we did last year except hopefully a year better and with better bullpen talent. That is why I am not giving up on this year but I am ok with "there is always next year". Its what I love about baseball. I felt it even after 87 and 91. Its the baseball fan anthem. Being one of our top three starters probably would place him in the difference maker category. I said as soon as the year was over that if we could just get Cobb and a reliever and be done I would consider it a success so I still feel that way. The true odds were that we wouldn't get that much. Same team as last year with a better starter added, a better reliever added, and May and some young guys waiting in the wings. The big downer for me wasn't losing out on Darvish but losing Santana for 12 weeks. I will say for Darvish though that my first sights of what it would take to sign him was 175/5 so I maybe could have swallowed 150/6. Is it wrong for me to hope he is a bust in Chicago?

I agree. Some of his pitches were smooth and made me think this guy is 3 weeks from the majors but then I kind a saw what you saw which is mainly inconsistency. I don't know when the video was taken so hopefully he has progressed since then.

Old topic but if I am not mistaken there is little to no evidence that innings limits have any effect at all. Twins are considered to be one of the most cautious teams in terms of protecting prospect arms while also being historically and collectively considered softer throwers than average but does anyone think the Twins pitchers have had fewer injuries than average? Blyleven threw 141 innings at age 18, 210 at age 19 and 278 at age 20. It just seems bizarre to me that some one can throw 80 innings and the protocol is to shut them down, have them take 6 months off and now they can throw 100 innings. I think it makes sense to not let a guy throw 100 pitches right away in ST or not letting a guy throw too many pitches in one inning but a lot of the precautions seem to have no scientific or even anecdotal evidence supporting them. I do remember one article supporting what we saw Gibson doing last year which is exercise and stretch in between innings. That makes sense. Having someone with arm fatigue or soreness sit out a start or two makes sense. Shutting guys down for reaching innings limits just seems arbitrary to me and deprives them of developmental experience..

Yeah, I saw him a little on youtube and he seems to have a lot of recoil on the follow through. I think I have heard that it is not so much the forward motion but the stopping that puts the arm at risk. There did seem to be some sink on his pitches which explains the ground ball rate. Two seamer, 4 seamer, slider, curveball and changeup. Unhittable on paper.

Does anyone know the recidivism rate on Tommy John? Isn't it stronger after the surgery? Sometimes I have thought we should just have our prospects get the surgery the day after they are drafted and be done with it. I do wonder if he should take a page out of Koufax and Verlander playbook and tone down the fastball a little bit in favor of command, at least in the minors. Starters that throw 100 don't seem to last that long.

Someone else put Jones in the conversation. I don't consider 5 seasons to be a really small sample size and mostly was just responding to this quote in the original article. " Behind even shortstop, this is probably the weakest position in franchise history. Bob Allison would have been the shoo-in here but he spent a majority of his career in right field. Mack was the de facto left fielder. Hey, at least he brings some championship pedigree to the team." Maybe Matthew meant it a little different than I took it. Maybe he was more dismissive of the left field position in general but to me Mack is a very strong choice rather than just the best of a weak crop.

Well, 4.5 seasons, 633 games and I don't hold the player's strike against him. Jones played 300 more games but had 8 fewer WAR so basically Mack for 5 years and a replacement with a negative 4 WAR for each of the next two seasons equals Jones. Ok, that might be going too far and I liked Jones but he is closer to Span that to Mack. I liked Span too but Mack was just better than either. Longevity should count but that is a really big gap in production. If you put more weight on longevity that I do then Allison is probably the better choice anyway.

Mack's OPS while a Twin was .854.That is better than Mauer, better than Hrbek, better than Morneau, better than Carew, better than Koskie, better than Gaetti, better than Hunter, better than Smalley, better than Oliva and better than Puckett. Better than Jones also. His WAR per game was way better than either Hunter or Jones. Sadly his best season was a monster that was cut short by the players strike. http://www.startribune.com/twinscentric-most-underrated-player-in-twins-history-was-rule-5-pick/182341191/ Looks like he continues to be underrated.

My opinions that differ strongly. Hrbek was a fantastic fielder that should have won Gold Gloves. No Twin comes close for more than a season (Mauer last year) However, Morneau with an MVP, an MVP runner up, and a 20 place finish trumps Hrbek's 2nd place and 16th place finishes. OK, the strong opinion was on the fielding not so much the choice cuz Herby was really good. It certainly is close at shortstop. I am ok with Smalley but shortstop is a pretty important defensive position and Gagne was so much better. Never saw Versalles but a league MVP and a couple GGs is worth a lot. Again the strong feeling is against saying it wasn't close. Shane Mack is not a weak sister. His OPS while a Twin was .854. That is better than Mauer, better than Hrbek, better than Morneau, better than Carew, better than Koskie, better than Gaetti, better than Hunter, better than Smalley, better than Oliva and better than Puckett. Viola probably deserved a little more respect. Cy Young and two other top 6 finishes plus if a pitcher ever carried a team to a WS it was him and that wasn't even his Cy Young year. Gaetti as a utility infielder is pretty weak. Smalley wasn't great defensively and Carew really wasn't that good defensively and I don't think you really want a pinch hitter for any of those guys so late inning defense I would go with Punto. You've already got Knoblach that can come in and give guys a break for a game without losing the bat. Punto also better for late inning pinch running. Gaetti was good but just wouldn't give much added value on a team like this. Essentially, I guess I have less issue with your picks than I do with your comments on some of the players.

The triple negative in the last sentence throws me a bit. 91 team was very good. They won the division by 8 games and Puckett had a WAR of 4 that year so to say the Twins would have no championships without him seemed like a factual statement that had no facts to back it or was an opinion stated in the form of a fact. They would most likely have made the playoffs with Puckett and may or may not have won without him. Even if they don't win without him, which I admit is a possibility, it is a team game and there were a lot of players on each of the WS teams whose absence might have meant no championship. Heck, they might not have won either without Gladden and he probably doesn't make my top 50. Its certainly not blasphemy or outrageous to suggest Puckett wasn't the top Twin.

Pretty good chance that the same could be said of Hrbek an Gagne. Definitely would not have won in 87 without Viola and we got Tapani and Agulerra in a trade for him so definitely would not have won either without him. Does that mean they should be ranked 1-4? Actually, there is no real evidence that the Twins would not have won without Puckett. That is opinion. Seems wrong not to have Morneau on the list.

I would have no problem with Nunez as long as it is understood he will bunt at least twice every time he faces Sabbathia.

When I see a major piece of legislation being voted down because of a few swing votes that cited integrity, transparency, etc, as the reason only to see that same legislation passed a couple days later that somehow coincidentally had contracts(pork) for the swing voter's states added to the bill am I too skeptical to think the same of the player's union? I would welcome more than a generic "we voted it down to protect the integrity of the game". What is it exactly that compromises the integrity of the game? How about some details that a reasonable person would agree with. Why did I immediately think "Reasonable request turned down, not because of the substance of the request but because it could be used for negotiating or political purposes." Took me very little time to find an article supporting that thought. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/pace-play-impasse-signal-larger-issue-baseball-article-1.3768152 This also supports Spycake's position that slow pace has been a recent issue rather than an issue throughout the history of the game. it also supports my memory that I didn't used to yell at the TV " throw the ball already!" or "get in the batter's box already!". Golf is also a game that has no natural clock and yet they have pace of play rules. As a result there was a penalty stroke assessed in 2017, one in 2013 (to an amateur at Augusta) and one in 1995. I can easily imagine that once the players get past their pettiness this rule would have no effect at all on the game except for quicker pace. Of course there are other possibilities for speeding up play but this is a no brainer.

Yankees should have won 100 and the Twins should have won 83 and it was in New York so they were definitely underdogs but still only a good performance from Santana away from stealing one. Didn't happen. Such is life. I think any one of the three is a good bet to close the gap because I do have faith that Mejia and or others will fill more of the gap at the very back of the rotation. Someone we don't expect is going to surprise us in a good way but I agree with Chief's position that a solid or better starter from the outside would be a big plus. I don't believe these guys are rehashes of Correia and Nolasco. I think they are true upgrades. Any one of them.

I think I confused the game results with the series results. So I also missed the games started stats but he was 5-4 in terms of record but 3-4 in games started. Doesn't really disprove that they are capable of winning playoff games. I think they have all come back from injuries and Cobb coming back as well as he did without a feel for his best pitch is encouraging to me. If he gets the feel back, he could be a real sleeper. If he doesn't, he still has a nice curve ball and could still give us mid rotation performance.

My original post was in response to a post saying Cobb and Lynn don't win you playoff games and I was just pointing out that they were 8-4 in games they started. Empirical is based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. Small sample size but it still refutes that original post. I conceded that Darvish would probably be successful more often but on 2nd thought, where is the proof that he is flat out the better pitcher? Career ERA and 2017 ERA say there is not that much difference. You can point to other stuff but now we are out of SSS and if your goal is run prevention there just isn't that much difference. Ok, that middle paragraph is the epitome of SSS. Santana pitched horribly. Anyone that pitches horribly with respect to their abilities is not going to be successful. Darvish and Kershaw both showed us that. Santana pitched like an ace most of the year and then has a clunker. That is evidence that he didn't get us out of the WC game but certainly not that he was not capable of doing so. That is evidence that it is still baseball played on a field rather than on paper. I am guessing none of us are that far apart. We would all be happier with a better pitcher but my starting point the day after the season ended was that the odds say we end up with none of those three so from that starting point I am happier if they are able to sign any of them.

I agree though I think the premise of Darvish vs both Lynn and Cobb is pie in the sky. If we sign just one of those guys it falls under your blanket of reasoning. I would be happy with any of the three because I think any one of the three would deepen and improve our rotation and give us a better shot at the playoffs. I would rank them Darvish, Cobb and Lynn. I don't trust NL starters even though Correia really wasn't that bad for us. Nolasco was. Anyway that is why I rank Cobb slightly ahead of Lynn. Cobb has done it in the division with the best offenses.

What you both say is all true but there is empirical evidence that Lynn and Cobb win playoff games. You say Ugh but small sample size is the argument for making the playoffs because anything can happen. Taking Darvish 10 out of 10 times is kind of meaningless. If you would take him one out of one times you would take him 100 out of 100 times. Doesn't mean he would be more successful 100 out of 100 times. Probably more successful 60 out of 100. Its why you would rather have him but not having him is not the same as having no chance.