StormJH1

This prediction, predictably, is proving to be very active. Haha. I don't interact in person with a lot of Twins fans, but I just feel this weird indifference about the team. Which is discordant with an team that has good rotation/bullpen, reasonable star power for a mid-market team, and a decent chance of sniffing the postseason if a few things break right. I think the ownership/sale situation, annual injuries, uncertainty about how to watch the team, and (especially) the lack of investment in the on-field product have really worn on the fanbase.

It's Monday on the week of Opening Day now. I assumed that I was being ignorant and had simply missed news about what channel this would be on Xfinity AND whether or not it will be included in one of the add-on tiers many of us likely set up years ago, specifically so that we would have access to FSN, Bally, etc. This is a friggin' mess. I'm in my 40's and not completely technologically inept. The demographic of people who would be (a) still really into baseball; and (b) reliant on a cable provider to show Twins games skews quite a bit older than me. How the heck are they supposed to figure out when and where to watch the games if it changes every year, changes within the year as it did with the surprise May 1st blackout last season, and then isn't resolved days before the start of the new season. There are like 1500 channel slots on Xfinity X1 service. Are they expecting that your 75-year-old grandfather will just thumb around by accident and locate the Twins TV channel they may or may not be paying for in the mid-600's while channel surfing? My Xfinity bill creeps up so embarrassingly high, I'm tempted to dump the whole thing over stuff like this. My wife and daughter rely on it less and less compared to streaming options as time goes on. Does anyone know if there is an upgrade option if you have the MLB.TV All Teams Yearly Subscription ($149) to include the local team for the bundle ($199), if you are already signed up? My plan was obviously to watch the Twins on TV, since I believed I was already "paying for" it. If that turns out not to be the case, or if I cancel cable, it looks like my next option is to pay the $99 just to add the Twins (or $19.99/month), which seems like an unattractive option.

I definitely was among the many voices earlier this season saying Kepler shouldn't have been re-signed and (later) should have been traded for whatever C-level prospect we could get for him. Obviously, that looks wrong now. But as others have said, I don't much regret the opinion for two reasons: (1) The entire trajectory of his career still makes it more likely that the last few months are a Chris Parmelee-like outlier, versus an actual indicator of his long-term production; and (2) The team has tons of young, talented position players that were being blocked by Kepler (and others), and arguably would have performed nearly as well with that additional playing time. The crow I need to eat would probably be on the Mahle trade. Not because I was so sure it would work out - I wasn't at all. But because I applauded the Twins for finally taking a risk and flipping prospects for a potential upper-half of the rotation arm. Unfortunately, Steer and Encarnacion-Strand are making it look like that trade look VERY bad, and there wasn't a way for me to know Mahle was already hurt and about to become even more hurt the following season.

This situation only becomes more and more baffling to me. It's pain to read articles like the one from Gleeman in The Athletic yesterday because the entire thing is a story about his medical condition, and yet the only description of what the problem is are vague references to his "knee". He's played 56 games this year exclusively as a DH, and the results are obviously very mediocre - .209 BA and .741 OPS. The explanation given by Rocco and the front office thus far - or at least as I interpreted it - was that he could play in CF and obviously would be more valuable there, but since that would increase the risk of injury and his removal from the lineup altogether, the organization was electing not to play him in the field. I disagreed with that approach because while CF could add additional ways he could get injured (running into a wall, slipping on the warning track and tearing up his knee, etc.), much of Buxton's acute injury history happened on the basepaths or in the batter's box. But it was at least a sound explanation as to why they felt they could keep him healthy. Rocco's comment now is that he literally cannot play in the field. I interpret that as "this is a chronic condition, it is not getting better", and he will be on the IL within days if we start asking him to also patrol the outfield. That's a different explanation, and one that's a lot more concerning for his long-term outlook. It also doesn't line up with the other stories we've heard, including the one where Correa talked to him before the season and said "wouldn't it be great if you could just DH and hit 40 or 50 HR's". That version of the story had Buxton eager to play in the field, but being talked out of it by players and FO people who had different ideas about how he could be most productive for the team. So, was Buxton "physically unable" to play CF in March, also? Buxton's 6 for 6 on steals this year, and knowing this, that was probably 6 attempts too many. He homered yesterday, but was on an 0 for 24 stretch before the game started. I'm increasingly wondering if he should be playing at all. It's telling that they don't seem to believe an IL stint and rest period of 10 days, a month, or whatever would make any difference. If they did, they would've done it by now. That would be the normal approach when you had a non-acute knee injury impacting a former Gold Glove centerfielder in the prime years of his career...as opposed to retiring him from his position in the field and trotting him out there several times a week to scuffle through his injury with middling results.

I wish that this was wrong, but it just isn't. I really like Byron Buxton as a professional and at least what he appears to be as a person. As a number of people have said, there isn't much more of him you could ask for in those regards. But I think there's an overemphasis on "per-game" efficiency, as if that's a thing that actually matters. The theory was that 100 games of Byron Buxton was so valuable that even if you had to rest him, or even if he ended up on the IL for 1/3 of the year, he was still so valuable as a CF and as an impact bat that it almost didn't matter. It's the Joe Mauer scenario all over again, only much worse. The projected value of both Mauer and Buxton was based on cherry-picked data from the best-case version of their value, and the assumptions that they would continue as plus/elite defenders at critical defensive positions while remaining relatively healthy and continuing to produce in ways comparable to their peak seasons. That isn't happening for Buxton, and it didn't really happen for Mauer either. However, to Mauer's credit, he did reinvent himself by learning 1B, and while he was never really a "plus" bat again after he turned 30, he actually enjoyed a relatively consistent and healthy 2nd half of his career. Buxton's merit's as an impact hitter are based on extremely small sample sizes, spread out over many years. He's thought to have middle-of-the-order power, but has one 20-HR season once in his career. He was thought to be the "fastest guy in the game" when he emerged, but only stole 15 bases once. (Admittedly, he's also been caught only twice on the basepaths since the end of the 2019 season, which is amazing. But the point remains, that he's either been hurt or not allowed to run.)

Yeah, that's just the problem. I think the take on Julien learning 1B is a solid one, but I think that's probably going to take some time. Remember the original plan was to have him learn one of the corner outfield spots, as that seemed to be the more immediate route to playing time. Except we have a logjam there, too, which is the whole point of this topic. I wonder if the front office truly anticipated that Byron Buxton was going to be the everyday DH heading into May, or if it was more of a situation where the knee was barking around Opening Day, but they'd hoped it would clear up after a week or two and he could go back in the field. Because losing the option to DH guys like Larnach, Julien, and Kiriloff makes it significantly harder to get the young guys regular playing time. Julien is not going to "replace" Jorge Polanco. And, shockingly, Kepler just started 7 games in a row after coming back from injury, until he finally sat against a lefty (P. Corbin). (FWIW, Kepler's splits in 2022 were somewhat even, but he was trash against lefties in 2020 and 2021). It's not just that guys like Kepler are bad. It's that when you bring a veteran back like that, they're so much harder to get out of the lineup when they inevitably slump. 400+ AB's this year from Larnach, Julien, or Kiriloff would be SO much more valuable than getting the same exact production from Kepler in their place.

Fair, but I guess you could argue that you earn "luck" by putting yourself in the position in the first place for something to work out. Like the Mahle thing last year - what if he ripped off 4 or 5 starts like Lopez has had to start this season after he was acquired, and then gotten shut down? I think that is an entirely plausible thing that could have happened, and fans would have viewed it differently. He's also back pitching reasonable well now, so time will tell on that move. But you have try a bunch of stuff, like trading for Mahle AND Pablo Lopez, AND committing $200 million+ to a guy whose ankle may fall off, in order for some of it to work. (I agree that lost Correa like 10 different ways this offseason before getting him back in the most absurd way imaginable, but he is a Boras client, and our initial offer to him him before the Giants signed him was very competitive and kept us in the discussion).

Oh man, I hadn't even really thought about that connection. I like Rocco, and am not qualified to play armchair psychologist, but that actually makes a lot of sense. Conversely, you could argue that Rocco's condition that ruined his career was quite unique, and "health-related". So I'm not sure Rocco's head makes all the neural connections between "aggressive" baseball and missing time, as that was not really a factor when he was forced to miss time in his career. It's pretty clear we're not run this year. For as much of a small ball team as the Twins have been (at some times since 2000), base stealing is not really part of their DNA the way it was for that Royals WS team, or teams like the Nationals and I'm sure countless others. We also know that analytics in the past couple decades has been very anti-stealing, and even if the rule changes may cause that to change, there's probably a lag effect with guys like Falvey/Levine/Baldelli. I know that some of the top basestealers (T. Turner, for example) are star-level players, but it's tough to imagine that being the case here. It sucks that Buxton's best attributes (speed and defense) are the two things that the team has decided to almost completely throttle back to avoid injury.

We're only looking at like 3 weeks of regular season data, and the perspective is even more anecdotal looking at just the Twins. But it does "feel" to me like strikeouts are up, and you just see crazy 9.0+ K/9 stat lines from pitchers who have not traditionally been huge strikeout guys. It's also very true that many hitters struggle in April due to a number of factors - timing, conditioning, and cold weather to name a few. So perhaps it's just a case that pitchers are slightly ahead of hitters on the curve of adjusting to the rule changes. But it would pretty unfortunate if one of the unintended consequences of the pitching clock and abolishing the infield shift is that we see even MORE strikeouts. My understanding is that K's were down - not up - in the minor league experiments. But it's plausible that hitters benefited from the constant stop/start, or being able to take more than 10-15 seconds to recover after being buzzed by a 98mph fastball inside. And while more strikeouts are helpful to quicker game times, they aren't helpful to the product. Never seeing the ball go into play harms the TV product, but IMO, it's even worse for the in-person product. There's very views in the ballpark that actually allow you to critique a pitching performance. An 89mph fastball versus a 101mph fastball doesn't really look any different to the dude sitting in section 230 in left field, nor can you really tell balls versus strikes. To be clear, I do mostly like the new rule changes, but this will be a trend to watch. As a Twins fan, I'm obviously enjoying watching starting pitching that can miss bats, and hope that continues.

Love the deal, and while he probably is out-pacing his long-term performance currently, it seems like it has a reasonable chance of looking like a bargain. As much as I loved Arraez, I was in favor of this trade from day one, and I think the early performance has shown that he is a legit talent. Injuries happen to almost every pitcher, so if you could find a position player and SP of like talent, the team getting the position player is going to "win" in a lot of cases just because of injury. To me, that doesn't matter. This was the right thing to do, as was the Mahle trade, and the general decision to stockpile competent SP arms. I probably feel better about our SP depth now than I have since...when? 2010? 2006?

I have to agree with you. It's really not my place to judge Trevor Bauer as a human being. I know that sexual assault cases are very complicated, and that the District Attorney's office in this case did not find sufficient evidence to sustain charges against him. But the physical harm he caused isn't even disputed, and it's disgusting. "Lack of criminal liability" is also not the only standard I apply as a fan asking if I want my team to go acquire a specific pitcher for a lucrative sum of money. The alleged behavior was quite different, but I pretty much ceased being a fan of Miguel Sano after the attempted sexual assault he was accused of, and my mind was not changed by the fact that MLB determined it lacked evidence to suspend him over it. The Twins front office does not want this. There are knock-on consequences to a move like this, but you don't know what they are in advance. Fans who would consider signing Bauer are only evaluating his past rap sheet - and there's quite a bit there to worry about. What about the next time an encounter with a female goes wrong? What about the effect on an already half-empty stadium, and a portion of the fanbase who feel so strongly on this one issue that they have a fresh new reason to be done with this team? What about a front office placed under constant pressure to defend this move in perpetuity. The Brandon Taubman/Astros/Roberto Osuna episode is a notable example of how ugly this can get. No thanks. There has be some other route to getting to 81+ wins in a weak division than asking for all of these problems over this one guy.

I don't know if Arraez has the star power to command an "ace" in a trade, but I think dealing him now makes a lot more sense. They might have done it anyway out of desperation, but now you actually have the long-term middle infield depth to support that move, such that it could actually make the team better, as opposed to shuffling pieces around to give off the appearance of doing something. I agree with, like, 98% of your post - particularly the part about waiting for the final product. (Case in point, 2021-22 offseason). However, it's not like this outcome was orchestrated by the front office - Correa opted out of a contract (with the Twins), and then was signed by two other teams that significantly outbid us. Those teams then had to essentially back out of those plans, at significant PR costs with their fanbases. So, either they're right to bail on a long-term deal and we'll find out shortly, or they're wrong and the Twins are insanely lucky. Maybe both? As I said before, I still favor the move given the reduced amount and the shorter terms. The vesting years are nice, but I'm pretty doubtful those are going to ever be desirable with a mid-30's (former?) shortstop who appears likely to have chronic injury issues sometime in the future.

This whole saga also makes me wonder if Correa (and Boras) underestimated the risk of playing out last season. He's "backing into" $200 million with a deal covering only half the duration of his Giants deal. You're telling me there wasn't a $200 million out there for him anywhere in 2021-22!? Was COVID that big of an impact on MLB economics to risk this? Corey Seager got $325 million. Marcus Semien and Javier Baez got well over $100 million and neither is anywhere near as good as Correa.

Something isn't adding up here. One thing missing from the reporting is that Correa should have just went through this process in the 2021-22 offseason. Presumably, he passed a physical with the Twins on the 3-year deal late that offseason, correct? And his 2014 broken ankle was well-known throughout his career, but never caused problems until this 2022-23 offseason. So...why the change? It could be that the sensitivity to long-term injury issues on a 12-year deal for HUGE money is significantly greater than on a 3-year deal, or even this 6-year proposed deal. But another possibility is that there are new findings in the ankle - something that even the Twins were not aware of after that scare in September when he slid into 2nd. Or that a fresh scan has showed issues with the hardware in his ankle (loose screws, etc.), either from that incident, or just due to the progression of time. I just don't feel like his ankle hardware was a big, unknown secret. This feels to me like there is something observably going on with the ankle, even if it has yet to cause a DL stint in his entire career. To have two teams back out of deals like this only after the physical is really quite extreme. I do want to add that I'm generally thrilled about the contract and about retaining the player, and you could argue that the Twins just go with it for 6 years almost no matter what the issue is.

This is a tough one for me. The idea of hating on anyone because of a sexual preference, or telling them basically "God doesn't love you" because of some attribute a person arguably can't control is very offensive to me, and to a LOT of other people. But for whatever reason, I don't have the personal dislike for Torii that I had for, say, Matt Birk, who expressed basically the same views but also did so in the climate of a Minnesota marriage amendment debate. Birk's response felt more cold and premeditated, and he made more of an effort to evangelize people with op-ed pieces, etc. Maybe that's why I have differing opinions of what is largely the same "offense". Torii, by contrast, just likes to talk and he has a big mouth. I can relate that at times. He is also human and he holds some views from his upbringing that are distasteful to others. Okay. I wish he didn't feel that way, but so long as the worst thing he does with it is respond to direct questions about his views when prompted by the media, then so be it. Birk was a Harvard grad and a guy that wanted to be viewed as important on subjects. Torii's views, even if they are the same views, I just never felt like he was trying to get everyone to agree with him. It's also worth noting that Torii is popular particularly BECAUSE he is open and jovial with the media. Joe Mauer could have horrible personal views on something, and we would never know about it. But is THAT the personality you want all athletes to have? As for Bernadino, I just don't know the point of the question he was asking. I think Mark Rosen or something said that a question like that could have been done in private, if the reporter was really worried about being able to ask him about that in the future. Once it's done in front of cameras at a signing press conference, where the mood is usually receptive and upbeat, it becomes about the reporter trying to set a discussion topic. I could see circumstances this year where a refresh on Torii's views on homosexuality may be a relevant topic, but this December press conference wasn't it.

This annoys me for reasons on a more "macro" level than just whether or not I want Kurt Suzuki back. I don't really care who our catcher is next year. Kurt Suzuki was useful this year, but his surprise all-star appearance still isn't likely to get us above 70 wins. He's not actually a good defensive catcher (though certainly a passable one), and his "veteran impact on the pitching staff" isn't translating to actual results. Trade him now for whatever halfway-decent prospect you can get, and then audition Pinto or play Eric freakin' Fryer for the rest of the season. Find the best defensive catcher you can off the waiver heap (that hits around .200) for 2015 and platoon him with Pinto. The options for catching expand quite a bit when you don't have to commit to one guy for 120 games behind the plate. This isn't fantasy baseball. Suzuki's hitting is "good for a catcher", but .304 and 2HR's with a .750-ish OPS wouldn't be that special of an outfielder, and would be a poor corner infielder. Positional scarcity only really matters if you have most or all of the impact offensive positions filled with average or above-average guys, and the Twins do not. Get value for him while he has value.

I love, love, love this trade. I don't even fully understand it. I've heard hours of Suzuki, Willingham, etc. trade speculation, and to think that a guy we got back for SAM FULD is represents more established value than anybody reasonably discussed for those guys?! Milone fits the Twins' mold, for sure. He doesn't really miss bats, but has exception control. His numbers were probably helped by playing in a great pitcher's park. But at that age and contract situation, he's a great left-handed pitching asset - basically for free. He may have an ERA in the low 4's on this team, but if the K rate returns more to the mid-6's, that would still be significantly better than several other starters on this staff.

I about to hop over on the Tommy Milone thread and blow some serious sunshine up Terry Ryan's backside for how great that move is...but on the flipside of that, can we PLEASE stop trying to re-sign guys at the absolute peak of their value? The Mauer thing was a special, extreme case, but they did this same thing with Doumit, and they try to do it with every mediocre starting pitcher as soon as they have consecutive OK starts. We don't need to lock up Kurt Suzuki long-term. The A.J. thing may have messed up some of the need for him, but it seems like he could and should be moved for decent rental value. I'm thinking C+/B- value. I hope the talk of resigning him is to somehow hike up his trade value, though I don't think that makes any sense.

"Blackie" was reference to Blackburn, which is one possible comparison. It also reminded me of Scott Erickson (the black socks): http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/e/ericksc01.shtml Erickson probably had better movement (and less control) than Gibson, but whether or not you buy any comparison, Erickson is a good example of what happens in this league when you absolutely cannot miss bats. A sub-4 ERA in 1991 and 1992, and then he leads the league in hits allowed in '93 and had to be one of the worst full-time starters that year (this predates me a bit both in age and I lived somewhere else, but you get the point). Probably the best career path Gibson could hope for is someone like Brandon McCarthy, who basically never walks anyone, but will get knocked around on occasion. At the end of the year though, his numbers usually average out to something decent. The stat they threw up in his last start about having the most extreme splits between wins and losses was interesting, because the next four guys on that list were either elite pitchers, or guys that do strike people out). Gibson's whole approach is predicated on putting the ball in play - he really never had a prolonged track record in the minors of striking guys out. We're actually fortunate to end up with a mid-rotation guy out of his injury history, but I think we're seeing about as good as he'll be.

Well said. And for all the Mauer criticism, I really don't harbor any ill will about the "retirement from catcher". I just get baffled when people in the national (and even local) scene talk about Mauer going back to catching. It will NEVER happen. They said it will never happen, and they gave a medical reason why they aren't risking it. He's 31 now and was a mediocre/inconsistent catcher at best the last two years. His bat wasn't that great this season, but part of the reason for that probably was post-concussion recovery that happened from catching. He's not catching anymore. As for the WAR question, I hate WAR with a burning passion, but understand that one of the issues of it is that it is a cumulative metric, not an average. In other words, he has to play long enough at an above replacement level to continue to add it up. At 1B, that accumulation will slow down quite a bit.

Yeah...I'm going to complete reject the statement that the Twins are the unluckiest team in baseball, or even "unlucky" compared to other teams. The only sense in which they have been unlucky is the element of luck in their draft classes from probably 2005 to 2010. But to say that their drafts failed purely out of luck requires you to say that luck is the only major factor in finding success in the draft, which I don't buy. They drafted poorly and didn't sign impact free agents for over half a decade...how is the team supposed to be successful if those two things are true? The injuries to pitching prospects like Wimmers, Gibson, etc. are hardly atypical in baseball. You can throw names like Strasburg, Harvey, and Jose Fernandez into the heap of pitchers who have needed Tommy John. The difference is that those guys were good enough in the first place that they can come back and succeed for plenty of years, even if they lost a couple of ticks off their fastball. I'm not sure what else would even classify as unlucky? Morneau wasn't unlucky, he was just injury-prone. The concussion stuff started in 2005 (or earlier), but he had a number of other physical issues (including the neck again this year). Mauer has had injury issues in 2011, 2013, and 2014, but he's just one guy. Even when he plays like "Joe Mauer", the team may be good like they were in 2010, or terrible like they were ever since. And so many of the injuries have been mismanaged, it's hard to tell where the poor management supersedes the impact of the injury itself. I do think the Twins from 2015-2018 will be better than they were the last 4 years, but luck isn't the reason why they were so bad.

Any comparison between the Yankees and Twins in terms of free agent strategy, especially before 2012, is borderline ridiculous. The Twins didn't even play the free agent game until recently. Willingham, Nolasco, Hughes, and now the rental on Morales really signal a sea change in management/ownership, even if we still aren't signing guys to $100+ million deals (which, let's face it, the majority of them end up being bad deals anyway). But I don't see those moves as "rebuilding". You have so many guys in jobs they have had for so long, I just instantly assume that people like Gardy, Ryan, etc. don't want the the bottom to completely fall out, so they add a veteran piece here or there to appease the fanbase and to keep it from being a completely rebuilt roster. And I have to catch myself because whereas in hockey or basketball that would be a terrible strategy that would get you stuck with draft picks in the teens, the MLB draft is so much more unpredictable (and until recently, was dictated as much by signability as it was by talent) that tanking doesn't really do anything for you. Sure, you can end up a Byron Buxton because your team was bad, but you could also just sign Miguel Sano or a Cuban player with no impact from the draft whatsoever. And that Buxton pick could just as easily have been Mark Appel, which isn't looking that great right now.

I'll answer this thinking more back on mid-20's Mauer than current Mauer, because people with his body type in their early 30's almost uniformly can't be all that agile/athletic. Most of the Mauer being athletic discussion came with the silent preamble "For a catcher," or "For a 6'5" guy,". Unlike the people who wanted to put him at 3B, I never felt like Mauer had the type of athleticism that demanded to get him out from behind the plate to benefit from it. In other words, Craig Biggio was a catcher but they moved him to 2B both to preserve his career and because his speed/agility was wasted behind the plate. Mauer isn't like that. He has really interesting athletic abilities - including decent top speed for a long-strider and impressive hand-eye coordination - but those may have translated in more useful ways in sports other than baseball.

Overall, I think Gardy's been fine. The team "feels" better this year because it's a more dynamic team with young, inconsistent players in the lineup who are occasionally terrific. I felt almost cornered into play the contrarian when they signed Kendrys Morales, because it felt to me like a team that just wanted to believe they were buyers as opposed to sellers or rebuilders SO badly. This despite the fact that Nolasco has been mostly a flop so far, the rotation as a whole still can't strike anyone out, and they've been buoyed by a few unlikely breakouts/hot starts (Colabello and Suzuki) come to mind. And they're last in a so-so division with a losing record, so let's keep the praise in check. Overall, I'm fine with Gardy's job performance. But I still get the sense that the team has benefits from things he didn't control directly (like Hughes being a bargain and Dozier being on a near 30-HR pace the past 365 days), and he also hasn't suffered as much as he should for some of the questionable decisions, such as the outfield defense situation. I don't think this team hits well enough to sustain Willingham in left and a combination of Arcia and various infielders (Nunez and Santana) also playing tons of outifield without the proper pedigree to do so. And people say that's a personnel thing and not a "Gardy" thing, but I totally disagree with that because Gardy's influence is very strong on his need for a 3rd catcher and preference for hording "utility" infielders at the expense of multiple guys that can defend in CF and LF.

Slow down. Phil Hughes as a Top 20 pitcher (or maybe Top 20 AL pitcher) may be a discussion. Gibson is not even close to that. Anyone who's played fantasy baseball or tracks this stuff regularly knows how this turns out. It's not that pitchers can't find success if they fail to miss bats, it's just that they are so much more prone to wild ERA swings based on luck, defense, etc. Kyle Gibson is one of the worst starters in baseball at striking guys out. If you look at the top 40 in innings pitched (as referenced above), he is THE worst, save for Jeremy Guthrie. Even in a good defensive ballpark, that will eventually come back to bite you. Someone above mentioned Mike Pelfrey. Pre-TJ Pelfrey is actually a pretty good comparison to what Gibson is doing right now. Both guys look big and throw reasonably hard, but are painfully bad at missing bats. Pelfrey would a year with an ERA in the high 3's, but it would be sandwiched with two years in the 5's. And that was in the NL. I'm not being "down" on Gibson, I'm just being realistic. You don't usually "learn" to miss more bats in the majors. I would actually be more encouraged right now if his ERA were 4.70, but his K rate were 7.5. Gibson this year isn't walking a ton of people, and only has given up 4 HR's so far. What that means for his overall results is that you're basically looking at a "best case scenario" unless he strikes more guys out. Gibson is going to give up homers, and there will be times where the hits fall in bunches.