by jiminy

One puzzling thing about last off-season was that in a market flooded with good relievers the Twins stood pat. I interpreted this to mean that, one, they didn't expect to contend this year, and two, they had a lot of confidence in the relievers in the low minors. Both of which made sense. I mean, I think the budget and future roster could have accommodated one good reliever! But it wasn't crazy to wait on the young guys. Given the early success, that logic changes. If their current record isn't a mirage, the question for 2017 becomes, is there anyone in the minors who can contribute? And if not now, soon -- like in a few months? Because if they're in this, they need help. And they may have it. The list of genuine prospects in the minor leagues is impressive: Chargois, Burdi, Melotakis, Jay, Hildenberger, and more. Is it unrealistic to think that two of those might be ready to contribute to a winning team? And soon enough to save them a costly trade? That will be a fascinating story to watch unfold.

I agree, I'd much prefer the money go to the players than to the owners. Of course I'd prefer even more to have lower ticket prices, lower parking rates, cheaper beer, and NO STADIUM SUBSIDIES. Once you've been fleeced, who the money goes to is a minor concern.

"I know a lot of people hate the idea of having three catchers, but Castro is so vulnerable against lefties (career .192/.254/.289 hitter off southpaws) that having the ability to pinch hit for him late in games could be a big asset. You’re never going to see Paul Molitor do that when he’s only got two catchers on the roster because the very last thing he ever wants to do is put his emergency catcher, Escobar, behind the dish." Man, I really hope this is still not an issue! As an actual risk, the numbers are so far from adding up to a legitimate concern that I would assume Falvey and Levine are way past this kind of Gardenhire era paranoia. If you pinch hit for Castro in the 7th with Vargas and play Gimenez for two innings, what's the downside? The extremely low probability that Gimenze will get injured? And that Escobar -- or Mauer for that matter -- would catch a few innings? That seems so far from catastrophic as a worst case scenario, and so unlikely to occur anyway, that it pales in comparison to the very high odds of losing a game by letting Castro bat with men on base. Shouldn't you be more worried about losing a game by a needless but oh so predictable out? And it's not like letting Mauer or Escobar catch two innings automatically loses you the game, either. The odds of a catcher injury in any particular inning are pretty small. The odds of Castro or Gimenez stranding the potential winning run on base are close to 80%. It's like Gardenhire's phobia of losing the DH. So what? On a team that regularly started Jason Tyner at DH, you're worried about the tiny, tiny chance a pitcher might have to bat, due to a very unlikely freak injury? Even though it it's a big at-bat you can just pinch hit anyway and replace the pitcher? There's a statistical term called Loss Aversion that refers to exaggerated worries about a potential loss blinding you to the opportunity of a potential gain. If there are two men on base, you're down by a run, and you bat Gimenez instead of pinch-hitting, because you're afraid that if you put Castro in the following inning he might get hurt, that's a text book example. It's like refusing to go outside because you don't want to get hit by a meteorite. The loss aversion you should feel is to losing the game, by leaving the winning run on second base when you had Vargas or Grossman on the bench! And that's true even if you only had Escobar as a third catcher. But you also have Mauer. I'm all for moving Mauer out from behind the plate because of his concussion history. But to me that doesn't mean he's not available as an emergency fill in. The risk of catching for a year is too high to consider. But the rosk of taking a ball to the mask in any given inning are very small -- probably about the same as getting a concussion diving for a grounder, like Morneau did. A couple innings are no big deal. Especially if the only scenario in which you play Mauer is that both Gimenez AND Escobar got injured in the same few innings! Anyway if you're worried about concussions, the real ticking bomb is letting Buxton keep smashing into walls. That's a huge, huge fear of mine. It's not much of an exaggeration to say that any hopes of a future Twins' dynasty rest on Buxton and Sano. As it stands, I can't see Buxton surviving, the way he plays. I love his attitude but to me it seems like a matter of time before he goes the way of Koskie, Morneau, and Mauer. And for what? If you look at the cost-benefit ratio of running full speed into a wall, it's not pretty. On the one hand. you're adding a tiny increase to the chance of getting an out that has a tiny chance of affecting a game that has a tiny chance of affecting the season standings. On the other, you're running a major risk of torpedoing the team's chances of ever making the World Series in the next ten years. We take out pitchers based solely on pitch counts to reduce the chance of injury. And we should. Injuries are bad! Yet we don't tell players not to concuss themselves against walls, or tear up their hands sliding head first. In a truly analytically based franchise, these things would all be subject to rigorous cost-benefit analyses. Pointless, major risks would not be tolerated. And tiny risks with potentially large payoffs, like pinch-hitting for your catcher with men on base, would.

One interesting stat: Chapman's strikeouts well outnumbered his innings pitched at every stop in the minors. Every single one. Cumulatively he had 441 strikeouts in 352 innings, with 185 walks. That surprised me. His major league numbers are a mess, and make him look like a soft tosser with poor control. I know, anyone can strike people out in the low minors. But I had assumed he was utterly worthless. His team had to have totally given up on him, to swap him for someone whose team had totally given up on him, too. But the fact is people kept giving him shots in the majors. So they thought he had potential once. Do I expect anything? Of course not. The goal was to vacate a roster spot on the 40 man, and this guy doesn't need one, so that's his main value. And I'm fine with that. But I just had a tiny little glimmer of interest, reading those stats. And who knows. Sometimes a coach sees something other guys missed, and something clicks. Santana never had good plate discipline even when he was hitting, and those things rarely click later. I don't think he'll improve. But you never know with pitchers. As long as he doesn't block a real prospect, what have you got to lose? So, better than I expected!

I think Santana could be a valuable role player, if his role is pinch runner. And emergency injury replacement.

Why not Dozier? You say it would cause problems with lineup construction. I say, it would kill two birds with one stone. You'd stop wasting rbi opportunities by leading off with your top slugger (excuse me, second best slugger!) while protecting Sano at the same time. Preserving the opportunity to hit solo homers, and bat in the bottom of the order, are not things to construct your lineup around!

They used to call ace relievers firemen, not closers. That made sense. Everyone understood that the time you needed your best reliever was when there were men on base, a dangerous hitter was up, and the next at bats could decide the game. I.e., high leverage situations. Rolaids even sponsored a fireman of the year award. It made intuitive sense; they put out fires. Anyone can lead off an inning with the bases empty. Big deal. And as many have pointed out above, if the ninth is the bottom of the order, it's even more irrelevant. This fetishising of the ninth is so mindless. I know, I know, this has all been said before, sorry. But imagine you were a bartender or waiter who had to scramble like crazy during the busy time, and when it slowed down, someone came in during the quiet time just before closing, and got paid three times as much as you. Would it not drive you crazy?

The outfield defense is great but their hitting is terrible. Yes there is the potential for them to be a good-hitting group as well, and one advantage of not being in the playoff hunt is you can give them time to develop. But if you're going to say they have the potential to be the best-fielding outfield in baseball, you have to acknowledge they also have the potential to be the worst hitting outfield in baseball. At least this year. They could become a good hitting group; the tools are there. But the is a real question whether they can even remain a group. How long a leash do you give them? My hope is a long, long leash, as they are young and talented and still on the up swing, and they really help the pitchers. I'm bullish, too. With one caveat. How many people really develop plate discipline late in their career? If Rosario were ever going to stop swinging at bad balls, wouldn't it have happened by now? Can anyone name one player who had such a consistently terrible K/BB ratio, and then changed? I can't think of any. He's like the mythical QB with a cannon fot an arm, who if he only could learn to throw more accurately... Never happens. I think all three of these guys were promoted too​ soon. If they do figure it out, it will be just in time to get really expensive. And Rosario should have had to earn his way up by working on his plate discipline. He's not going to tinker up here, he's going to stick with what he does best. Sorry to be so negative, and I know the thread was specifically about defense. But it's kind of the elephant in the room.

I don't think these first six games have much predictive value, but what I like is, you can't take away those wins. They could lose four series on a row to games to one and still be .500. And if they only lose two out of three series they would still be .500, 36 games from now! Wins are nice things.

Sorry for typos and double post, I'd delete or edit of I could!

He doesn't expect 2014 production either. He just said, at least he's not just trying to do the same old things that didn't work. He is trying different pitches. No one knows if they will work. But in his case, unknown results are a step up. No one would be shocked if he flopped. But I think it's totally fair to say we can't judge his results from a spring in which he told everyone including the hurts that he was mostly going to throw his worst pitch, the changeup. Any pitcher who asked he was going to throw half changeups and did so is going to get hammered. The question is whether it will get hammered once it's a rare surprise. Unfortunately that won't matter if everyone is teeing off on his 87 mph fastball. So it is a long shot, yes. No one expects 2014 Hughes. But 2016 Sabathia would be great, at this point. On a good team he shoudn't start till he's actually doing that. I guess the thinking is, the 2017 Twins are a minor league team. They are all just auditioning for 2018, so whether they are here or Rochester doesn't matter. Park, hughes, berrios, chargois -- does it really matter where they play? Maybe it doesn't. I would go by who is more fun to watch, personally. But it doesn't really matter for next year. Unless guys like duffey, berrios and Mejia rot on the bench. That's the only real mistake.

I have to agree, there's a lot to love about playing all out. I really do like Buxton a lot, and love his effort. I just miss him when he's injured, that's all. And I think he'd be a better player now if he had been playing this whole time. Also, he only has so many years of his service time before he costs more than Joe Mauer. Every month on the bench is a month before he's gone or costing a quarter of the team payroll. If it were up to me, Buxton would not even have been in the big leagues yet, so we could afford him two more years in his prime. And Sano wouldn't be playing either, until he commits to not striking out at record levels. These guys should both be stars for a long time, and I'd prefer their service time were spent on their star years, not their awkward apprenticeships. That's precisely what the minor leagues are for. If you're in a pennant race, sure, call them up early, if you think they can push you over the top. But not ust to dangle your future stars in front of the fans to keep them from staying home, when you're not winning anyway. That just means they either leave for the Yankees two years earlier, just when you're getting good. Either that or you sign them to mega-contracts two years earlier and have no payroll left to build a team around them. It's going to be a pretty small window of contention if they peak just before it's time to pay them 9 figures. And it's not like watching Sano and Buxton play in 2016 made the Twins a pleasure to watch, or sold a lot of tickets. All it did was dampen enthusiasm for this year as well. Imagine if Buxton and Sano had stayed in the minors for all of 2016, how excited we would be for their debuts in 2017! And they'd probably be better for it. Do you see any indication Sano is trying to improve his strikeout rate? Imagine if that were a condition of reaching the majors--you don't think he'd be a lot farther along, because he knew he wouldn't play until he improved? What's the downside? We would have missed watching him play right field?

He broke a finger diving for a ball in 2014.

I disagree. Getting injured unnecessarily during practice is just stupid, and the coaches should absolutely forbid it. He is way, way too valuable to this team's future to throw it all away by flinging yourself into a hard surface. During a close game or playoff game, sure, go for it. During spring training? No, no, no. This isn't just hypothetical. He's lost over a year of playing time already. This recklessness has got to stop. If you were hiring a driver to transport $100 million dollars, would you tolerate him driving 80 mph through city streets, taking turns on two wheels? Of course not. Your primary goal would be to make sure the valuables get there without a crash. Well, Buxton is worth $100 million, and he treats his body like a disposable tissue. He has no right to do that with an asset the team and millions of fans have invested so much of their hopes in. He could and should be a year and a half farther along than he is. But instead he does things like run all out straight into another player. I admire his work ethic, his dedication, his intensity, his commitment, everything about him. He's doing exactly what he should do, give his all every second he's on the field. This is not on him. It's on the coaches. They need to rein him in, and mean it. I just don't buy the argument that if he doesn't dive for every ball his whole game will go poof and he won't be Byron Buxton. I think 99.9% of Byron Buxton is just fine. Especially compared to zero percent of Byron Buxton, which is what you get if you insist on trying for 100% even during practice.

I don't think we should just accept Buxton risking injury during practice. I think dives like that should be strictly forbidden unless the game counts. And personally I'd be fine with banning dives in the regular season too unless they're in a pennant race. No reckless injuries till 2018. Even during the regular season, and in a pennant race, you could argue the risk-reward doesn't add up. It's like running a red light to get to work faster. Your productivity may go up by one minute that day, maybe even every day. But you roll the dice wrong one day, just one day, and it was all not worth it, by a mile. Buxton risking injury to slightly increase the chances of catching a ball is like gambling $100 million to win one dollar. It just makes no sense. What are the odds that one out, if he makes the catch it, which is far from a sure thing, will win the game, let alone swing the pennant race? Probably lower than the odds that diving turns a single into a triple, as he misses the ball and it rolls to the wall. Remember when Cuddyer slid head first into third and tore up his hand, ruining his season? That kind of risk is a much bigger danger to your season than the tiny advantage, if any, over sliding in feet first. This macho, knucklehead culture of refusing to do anything to avoid injury should not be acceptable any more than saying it's cool to play Russian roulette. That's what it is. Buxton is not just playing Russian roulette with his own life, he's risking the entire future of the entire team and the hopes of the entire state. The coaches should put a stop to it--at least during practice games.

I like your main argument that there's no point in starting veterans who will be gone in two years anyway, when all they do is prevent us from seeing which youngsters will be building blocks when the good times come. I'd have no problem trading any veteran for prospects. It's better for the future when they mature, and better for development and evaluation of the young players now. However I am skeptical that any of the top free agent pitchers will ever come here. They wouldn't want to, but more to the point, Pohlad would never outbid the Yankees for an ace pitcher. Or rather, outbid every single team in both leagues? Not gonna happen. And probably just as well -- we couldn't afford to eat a contract like that if they failed, which they do almost half the time. So I don't share your sense of urgency in cleaning house to make room for a free agent ace, though I do share your opinion that veterans can clog the openings for youngsters. But it's not just Molitor that wants to mix in veterans. In that interview with Falvey Myah linked to, he says, "Our goal is to build around that young core," but then says, "So we want to make sure we surround the young players with the right veteran talent and guys that will fit to build the culture we’re looking for" and mentions Belisle and Castro as people who help make "a nice mix." I'm sure they would happily swap Santana for top pitching prospects though. Realistically, that's their only hope of getting an ace. They're not going to sign someone like Price or Zimmerman or Greinke. And that may be just as well. Their best bet might be to sign or promote people to the closer role, inflate their statistics with meaningless saves, and swap them for young starters. The mystique of the "proven closer" is one of the last true market inefficiencies, and they should be doing everything they can to exploit that. Maybe they could even swap a mediocre reliever all puffed up with save stats for a stud young catcher or a starting shortstop. I vaguely remember things like that happening before...

Funny, I feel completely differently about the Tigers than I do about the Yankees and Dodgers. Those guys I despise. The Yankees I perceive as arrogant and rolling in money, the Dodgers as having way too much TV money, and what tradition they have is stolen from Brooklyn. But the Tigers? How can you not like the Tigers? They're a middling midwestern city like us, but fallen on far harder times. And the owner puts his heart and soul and checkbook into the team. That's what you're supposed to do, right? Isn't that what we wished the Pohlads would do, care, and put their money where their mouth is, instead of a business plan based on increasing the value of the team through threats to leave and public subsidies, and shooting for respectable not victory? I think Illich is awesome. I wish he owned the Twins! I know there are two schools of thought--your local division mates are either your most hated rivals, or they are your pennant bearers against other divisions. As for me, if the Twins don't make the playoffs, I become a Central Division fan. I feel like they represent us, and defend our pride and honor against the coastal behemoths. I'd prefer to see any Midwestern city beat any richer team. The fact that the Tigers spend more than the Twins do doesn't make them rich, it makes them awesome. I begrudge them nothing. That city has been through a lot. And the fact that their owner wants to spend his own money to bring a championship to his hometown is fantastic. Good for him. Yes, they did have many down years, but that just makes them more sympathetic to me. And they did hold out for a new stadium, but Illich paid for 60% of it, and then launched the payroll into the stratosphere after it was built. Unlike the Pohlads, who now collect rental money for concerts and millions in naming rights for a stadium they didn't build. I have nothing against Detroit or Cleveland, and if the Twins don't win the division, I'll be happy for whoever does. My best case scenario is for the AL Central to be the best in baseball, and for the Twins to win every year in a close race.

I know Rule 5 picks are by definition not your top players, but having the top pick in the draft should still count for something. Because surely one team has 41 good players in their system. That's all it takes -- one team. Of course most teams' 41st player isn't going to do much. But in any given year at least one team should have such a loaded system that their top non-protected guy has real talent. I'm not saying Haley is that guy, but I wouldn't assume no one will ever strike gold again.

Sano could end up at DH soon as well, further increasing competition for playing time among the Mauer/Park/Vargas group.

My memory of the scouting reports after the draft is there was some concern about a long swing and not great bat speed. I think that's what people mean by having a low ceiling. They fear he's made the most of his talent, but it might not translate to higher levels. Nothing wrong with making the most of your skills of course! But there was some worry about his upside. Not taking all this too seriously myself though. Most of them don't make it, and if you knew which ones would and which ones wouldn't you wouldn't need minor leagues. Glad he's on our side.

The question is not, do these guys have potential, but, do they have more potential than the top four guys in other organizations? I don't see anything here suggesting these guys are exceptional. Every team has a farm system. If the goal is to win a World Series, unless you can show me our prospects are better than most other teams' prospects, they're not a reason to think we're passing anyone in the standings. Sure, they might work out. But so might anybody else's prospects. Doesn't mean I won't watch with interest and hope. I buy lottery tickets, too. I have a chance of winning. I just don't have a better chance than anyone else. That's how I feel about these guys leading a championship charge. Sorry.

I agree that it looks like he has been injured a long time. Which makes this look like yet another failed example of letting someone tough it out and play through injuries, hoping they'll get better, instead of dealing with an injury before it gets worses. When the surgeon finally went in, he found a completely detached labrum, instead of merely a torn one. This situation is now so serious it jeopardizes his chances of ever coming back with full effectiveness. Which makes you wonder, what if the surgery had been done earlier, before the tear got so bad? Most likely the healing would have been faster, and the chances of him returning to his full effectiveness much higher. Waiting did not make the problem go away. It added perhaps an extra year of high cost, low effectiveness before the surgery, and a longer recovery after the surgery, with a worse prognosis. If you have a leaky roof, patch it at the first sign of rain. Don't wait for the whole roof to collapse.

That was a fun gif! I watched it over and over. Thanks! I wish the "condensed games" on mlb.com were edited that way. Seeing only the last pitch of an at bat just doesn't work for me. But seeing the whole pitch sequence back to back would be awesome. I haven't tried their condensed games in the past few years but the last time I checked there was only the final pitch of the at bat and no sound. You got no sense of the game at all. The condensed NFL games include sound, edited so you get a complete sentence of play by play; even with that it cuts it to 30 minutes from 3 hours. With baseball, you could show every pitch from windup to catchers mitt in about a second each, and then in the decisive pitch, you could add sound, and it still would probably only take a half hour.

Good points all -- but also a good counterpoint by Jorgenswest: isn't it possible that he is doing well now because he was NOT brought up too soon and thrust into a major league lineup he wasn't prepared for, like Buxton and so many others? This doesn't dismiss all the other concerns raised, but it's a fair point. Maybe Gomez, Hicks, Rosario, Arcia, et al should have worked on their plate discipline in the minors a little longer, too.

Okay I looked, and I see a big cluster of ground outs to the right side of the infield. Is your interpretation that his babip is not low because of bad luck but because he grounds out too much?