ThejacKmp

Again, RBIs are a stat you should stop using. They don't prove anything other than "This guy hits with guys on base in front of him." Also RBI does not equal good hitter.

I listen until you say Morneau had more RBI. That can't be the crux of a well-presented argument. Morneau hit behind Mauer his entire career, Mauer hit behind Luis Castillos and Nick Puntos. RBI are utterly meaningless. Morneau had a 120 OPS+. (I know this isn’t the grandmother of stats but it’s an interesting quick way to look at it) Not sure Puckett is real either. If you go by OPS, Mauer has a 127 and Puckett a 124. And that's with Puckett not having a downslope of his career because of Glaucoma. If you take just the first 12 years of Mauer's career his OPS is up to 129. I think it's hard to make a convincing argument Puckett is better than Mauer - especially when you consider how differently bullpens are used these days. Mauer faces tough lefties later in games, not starters on their 4th time through a lineup. Or that Mauer caught 120+ games his first ten years, much harder than playing CF. Tony Oliva is interesting too. He’s at a 131 OPS+. That again doesn’t include catching/concussions/relievers who throw 100 in the 8th etc. Ditto for Bob Allison. And Kent Hrbek (128 OPS+). I’m not saying Mauer is for sure better than all of these guys (except Morneau) just that none of them are for sure better. If we’re go to ranks, I’m comfortable saying that Harmon Killebrew is for sure the best hitter in Twins history. Carew is only a 131 OPS but I’m willing to say he’s unequivocally better because he did it for 19 years which is just insane. After that, I’m not sure you can say that Mauer isn’t #3. You can make a good argument for Puckett or Oliva and a stretchier argument for a Hrbek or an Allison. But to me it’s Mauer and I can’t see how someone could call me a fool for thinking that.

No. A minor league season is not the same as a major league season. It's longer and more strenuous. There's more media attention. The Twins were absolutely right to want Berrios to hit the ground running and to think that some time in AAA might make that easier. No one is past that. Everyone was down on Park until he had a hot spring and now he's a TD darling. Spring training doesn't decide things but it does matter. The stats just aren't the thing that does it -- it matters what coaches and front office personnel see. I trust them more than your hindsight. So should they go to a six man rotation? Seven? That would create more rest days. A good team but not the offensive powerhouse that Boston is. Cleveland was scuffling and again, the road vs. home thing works for Berrios in that situation. Get some confidence going and avoid a home booing.

You can't compare Santiago and Berrios. For one thing, Santiago pitched well in the WBC and Berrios got lit up. For another, Santiago has been through 8 or 9 spring trainings, he knows how to get his body right. Berrios doesn't. And finally, if Santiago is pushed too hard, the Twins don't care that much, he isn't an integral part of the future like Berrios. The lack of big league success is not the factor either. Otherwise Vogelsong would have had the job. Mejia's path also isn't the same as Berrios' path. He was there the entire spring and won the job fair and square. He ramped up the way the Twins want a younger guy to do and he really earned that spot. Berrios would have been getting the spot based on reputation and placating fans. No way he should start the season in the rotation. Spring training stats don't matter that much but the spring training process is vital, particularly for young pitchers. I also disagree with the "4 starters is stupid." There's a value to giving guys the ball every 5th day. Yeah you want to sprinkle in some days of extra rest but you also want guys to have a rhythm. You would have gotten less Ervin starts to begin the year, not sure how that would help. The only start that was dumb was the Tepesch one. But even that may not have been that dumb - I'm glad that Berrios got to debut against the Indians on the road instead of the Red Sox at home. That Red Sox lineup is fierce and if Berrios had a hiccup his first time out, I can see not wanting him to get booed by the home fans (if he'd been knocked out early, Twins fans would have booed him). He's young and an emotional guy, they gave him a chance to breath if he had a bad first game. It's not like he has a home in the Twin Cities, he's essentially on the road either way.

I've been to the lake from the boundary waters. My buddies and I went on a canoeing trip after graduating and that was where we wanted to be. God we were poetic in our youth.

Cheap beer has it's place. On a warm summer day, an ice cold Hamms is invigorating in a way a much fancier beer isn't. I'd like to see you play four games of beer pong and three games of flip cup with some Surly. I'd also like to see a poor college student get drunk on a Wednesday afternoon on a pricey IPA without turning to drug dealing and self-prostitution. That's right, Hamm's is a force for morality and a key cog in the war on drugs. Here's a better analogy: Being the best cheap beer is like being the fastest offensive lineman. You're not the fastest on the team but you're the fastest of a vital cog of the drinking team.

I'm insulted that you don't consider Hamms a beer. It's the best of the cheap beers. For shame.

I can't believe this is even an argument. You're cherrypicking and making a case with major holes. A.) 190 once (though 186 another year makes that 190 number a bit of a cherry-pick). And he's reached 150 six times. You'd rather have 60 innings than 150? That's why starting pitching is always better than relieving. That's why even the great Mariano Rivera was tried as a starter first. Same with Glen Perkins. And Joe Nathan. And Dennis Eckersley. Clubs realize that good pitching should start until it proves it can't. And before you say "And all of those guys were better relievers" - (1) that's obviously a best-case sample, there are dozens of okay starters who never work out in the pen and (2) You predicate this on Liriano being a dominant reliever, which is unproven. It's not some magical truth where decent starting pitcher = dominant closer. We'd have all dominant closers then. B.) I'm not sure a person can call three seasons an anomaly - that's a good pitcher. An anomaly is a year, maybe two at max. And it's not three years - he had two good years with the Twins as well. So a 5 season anomaly? In some places we call that a career. He's received Cy Young votes twice (9th and 11th place finishes). Your argument makes no sense - a starting pitcher with Cy Young votes in multiple years should not become a reliever unless you're sure he's going to be one of the best closers in baseball. Do you truly think that? C.) The trade thing makes no sense either. He got traded for Eduardo Escobar, a nice MLB player. Not sure that's a bucket of balls. And it was only that low because he was a 2 month rental for the White Sox before hitting free agency. The trade to Toronto was a salary dump by a franchise with limited spending. They decided to try to go young - it's also interesting that the trade was universally panned for the Pirates at the time and has been ridiculed in every article I've seen since. Trade markets are more complicated than free agency - you're competing against who is available at that weird moment in time with teams overvaluing and undervaluing guys based on what the team's needs are (see Eaton, Adam). The free agency market is a much better concept of what guys are worth because there are more options and teams can take their time. Liriano has signed a big money starting pitching contract (3 years $30 mill and only that small because he had an extra year on a make-good deal and had less bargaining power) and the Pirates would sign that deal again in a heartbeat. D.) On that vein, the market says it all. 4th and 5th starters get paid $8-10 mill/year. Jason Hammel got $16 over 2 yrs. Ivan Nova got $26 mill over 3 years. Edison Volquez got $22 mill for 2 years. The only relievers who touch that are big-time closers and the occasional dominant set-up man. The best starters blow those guys out of the water. Starting Pitching > Relief Pitching and nothing in Liriano's career suggests he shouldn't have been starting for most of his career. If a team wants to transition him to the pen late in his career, that makes some sense. He's a lefty and could extend his career a half decade. But none of that should be applied retroactively to the first half of his career.

Lineup thoughts: 1.) Good to see Mauer sitting against a lefty. I look forward to having his bat off the bench. 2.) Escobar batting 5 makes me giggle. I guess it works but man, whose utility infielder DHs and hits 5th? 3.) The good news stops there. Castro shouldn't be starting against lefties. Gimenez ain't great but play the platoon Molly.

Meh, I can see it. In the regular season, each game means the same so the #5 is at least as important as the #1. Would you rather have an ace, a pretty good guy, two okay guys and a garbage guy or two pretty good guys and three okay guys? I'd likely go the latter (until the playoffs). I think the real point is that we fret over whether or not we have an ace in Santana when the real issue the Twins are facing is "Who is the #5 starter?" Rain may mean we can get by another week or ten days with 4 starters but at some point they need a 5th starter.* If that's a rejuvenated Mejia or Gibson we might be okay but if that's Tepesch or Wilk, uh oh. It's better to go into each game with a chance than feel favored in one and screwed in another. * The scary thing is that after this week, the Twins could have four double headers pending. That means they're potentially going to need a 6th starter for big chunks of July and August. I shudder to think who that might be.

Greene or McKay. Pitching is a bit of a crapshoot but both guys have something else to fall back on. If Wright were significantly better I'd get it but he's not a once-in-every-five-drafts type of talent.

Do you also consider Sandy Koufax an ace? If you're going with guys like Felix who used to be aces, you kind of have to. Felix hasn't had an elite season since 2014. This isn't "who has been a great pitcher during their career". Also, why didn't you explore the statistical basis theory (#4)? It's the only one that is actually interesting - #1 is barely a theory, #2 isn't particularly fascinating unless you like debating who the #25 to #35 pitchers are and #3 is basically a "which pitchers are great IMO" exercise. You stated that #4 existed but never stated anything to define or even open discussion on it. It's the only one with any scientific rigor.

Combining both leagues to get 60 pitchers? There are not 60 teams in baseball. Makes the whole article suspect.

Buddy Boshers was a reliever that whole time. Wilk was a starter. That's not an even comparison. Would you pick a random middle reliever from the mid 90s and choose him over Mariano Rivera while looking at his early career starting pitching stats (they're not good)? Nope. This is where stats can't explain everything. Wilk has been starting and the Twins see something in him they think will translate to relieving. It's that old adage of choosing between two guys with the same home to 1B time - one with perfect form and one with terrible form. You pick the guy with the terrible form because you can teach him to be better. We know what kind of a reliever Buddy Boshers is, we don't know what Wilk could be. I'd take Wilk every day.

I mean, all kinds of guys have bad outings. The indictment of a rule 5 pick shouldn't be one game. Haley hasn't been good but he is a Rule 5 pick. Those guys are overmatched and you're trying to sneak them through the year in a mop-up role so that you can send them down to the minors and work on things in a low-leverage position the next year. That's how Rule 5 is supposed to work. Your Tepesch criticism is right on though. That was sad and that's what paved the way for Haley on Sunday -- the Twins used a lot of pitchers Saturday so Haley was in a game that was way too close for your Rule 5 pickup. Not sure who else they should be turning them into? Tepesch is pretty awful but I'm encouraged by Wilk's potential as a LOOGY. There just aren't amazing players floating around on the wire. I'd like to see Wimmers/Burdi/Chargois get a shot as the summer goes along but I'm willing to trust the FO that those guys aren't quite ready yet and indulge them throwing things at the wall to see what sticks with a guy like Wilk.

This is how you defend the move: Thrylos posted his splits against lefties over the last three years in AAA. They are ridiculous - high K rates, low BA against. It's not crazy to see him as a reliever and though the Twins can't start him in the minors like you might prefer to, he's not going to be in high leverage situations. It's not like the Twins used him to replace Pressley, he replaced Rucinski. The Twins haven't been pressed for position players and are carrying 13 pitchers. With the lack of left handed pitching in the upper minors, it's not awful to take a shot on him with Rucinski's roster spot and use him as a low-leverage mop up man while experimenting with him as a LOOGY in the vein of Ryan O'Rourke. P.S. While looking on BR, I saw that Wilk's minor league hitting features a .596 OPS. That's not bad for a pitcher. I'm going to file that away for when the Twins play a 14 inning game in a NL park this summer . . .

David Hurlbut is a starting pitcher thriving in AAA. That's actually more of a need for the Twins. After years of tons of mediocre depth, the Twins have a pretty bare stable of starting pitching. It's Santana, Hughes and Santiago at the MLB level and Mejia, Berrios and Gibson in AAA. Then you have Tepesch and Hurlbut. With Gibson struggling, Tepesch being Tepesch, Mejia being unproven and Phil Hughes a pretty big injury risk, the Twins need Hurlbut as emergency depth. It would not surprise me at all if he started a game or two for the Twins this year. He's likely #7 or #8 in the starting pitching ranks and teams regularly hit that guy. I wouldn't mind seeing what he can do. I was pretty upset about Wilk when I first heard it. Then we heard he's not going to be starting. Then I looked at his splits against lefties. Then I looked at our current left handed relievers (Rogers and a bunch of trash). Then I realized I was wrong to be upset about Wilk. We overreacted ladies and germs. Apologies to the front office, they weren't wrong on this one. Way to do your homework. (But if Tepesch starts more than one more game I'm going to poop in the glove outside Target Field. That man is not even hot garbage, he's frozen garbage you scrape off the driveway after the raccoons get into your trash in November.) EDIT: I forgot Duffey. There is Duffey. But he'd likely need to be stretched out a bit and I like him in the pen. But there is Duffey.

Were we told or did we tell ourselves? I don't remember any member of the Twins FO saying that the picks would be studs. They understand that development is tough.

There's a Salt N Peppa lyric about opinions that you should Google (it's a bit too vulgar for here, Google "Opinions are like"). Opinions are awesome but they matter when they are backed up by logic and facts - that's what moves them from "could bes" to "probablys" or even "certainlys". No one here was mean or disrespectful during the whole process and no one got testy until you started coming back full of fire at very reasonable arguments (Kohl Stewart is underperforming but he's still super young, we shouldn't give up hope). You made an emotional assertion that multiple people showed to have little validity using logic and numbers. Doesn't mean you're a bad person or dumb, we all do that from time to time. Like I did that last week about Kyle Gibson. Things seem one way in the moment and then time shows that we overreacted (see Dozier, Brian or Sano, Miguel). Not surprising that happens more often in sports and politics. Fandom is an emotional thing - the reason we come on this board is to take that emotion and subject it to some scientific process in order to find a bit of larger truth. And because we have nothing better to do. One advanced hint: when someone throws numbers at you, look at 'em and go find numbers of your own. If one person says "This is true" and the other person says "But numbers" the numbers always win. Numbers vs. Numbers is a whole different ballgame.

Interesting to see if Adrianza's May 10th deadline means Danny Santana is in his last week with the Twins. Perhaps the strong showing by Vargas makes this more likely? If Grossman isn't going to be your everyday DH, he deserves more opportunity as the 4th OF. That makes Santana significantly less valuable. That said, the Twins haven't really needed a middle infielder - Sano and Polanco have not demanded defensive substitution late in games and Escobar has hit so well I wouldn't want to see Adrianza taking his PT. Not sure where I fall on it. Santana has the ability to steal a base and play a better OF, Adrianza has that new (used) car smell and plays a better IF. They're even both switch-hitters. I guess I'd stick Santana for the pinch running ability but I can't blame anyone who feels the opposite. It's just so hard to know where the Twins will have a need - OF or IF. My gut says the OF. I think this mainly shows that the 25th man is not that important.

I don't disagree with the overall theme but Mauer is a weird counterexample -- people have been castigating him his entire career.

Time to get Engelb Vielma up to AAA. He's now got 110 games at Chattanooga with a .684 OPS. There's no one blocking him at AAA (Gonzalez is organizational filler and Adrianza is headed to the majors in the next few days) and Vielma and Gordon both need to be playing SS 75% of the time. Time to see if he can hit AAA pitching. If he holds his own, the Twins have a really nice shortstop ready to take over if they trade Dozier and move Polanco to 2B. He may just keep it warm for Gordon but at the least he's a nice utility option (if not trade bait if he shows he can hit on an MLB level).

He is 21 and has shown an ability to adjust.

No offense but this makes no sense - the whole point of exit velocity is that no matter where you hit the ball, the harder you hit it the more likely you are to get a hit. For every DP that a guy gets because he hit it hard, he's likely to lose one because a fielder can't get to the ball. If we were going to guess who would hit into DPs you'd pick someone who doesn't hit the ball super hard or soft - someone in the middle. Also, it's time to stop rippin' Mauer for grounding into an obscene number of double plays. Throughout his career, Mauer has hit into a DP in 13% of situations where a double play is possible. The league average is 11%. He is slightly above average but not by some obscene amount.

Unfair to criticize the Twins for not buying a year of Dozier's free agency. No way that was ever on the table on his end. Because he came up in his mid 20s, he won't hit free agency until he's 30. He was absolutely not interested in hitting free agency a year later - the later he hits it, the less likely he is to get that massive pay day. Dozier at 30 might get a big deal, Dozier at 31 is significantly less likely to get a big deal. I'm not saying there's no number you could give him that would make him give up a year but I am confident that that number is so high that the Twins would be insane to think about it. The deal they signed was the right deal and only possible deal.