Kirby_waved_at_me

Buxton will either leadoff or bat at the bottom of the lineup today, per Molitor on the radio right now...

The manager's radio show is starting right now on Go96.3

The benefit is that at the end of the season, each starter has thrown fewer innings than they would have in a 5 pitcher rotation. The obvious drawback is same thing; each starter has thrown fewer innings. 2 good starters and 3 ok starters is better than 2 good / 4 ok starters. This year, there's less of a drop off in quality from Hughes to Gibson to Pelfrey to May to Milone than last year, so maybe the Twins wouldn't miss out that much. Ideally, you have fewer starters getting more innings... It probably doesn't have far-reaching injury prevention benefits. If you have guys on innings limits, then it makes sense so they can still pitch in Aug/Sept/Oct without hitting that limit. Otherwise, you're getting too many starts from a guy other teams would stash in AAA.

If they do switch to 6 starters, would they still carry a long reliever? I guess Graham isn't going anywhere. I also wonder if a 2 or 3 of the starters could be counted on every now and then to pick up an inning or two out of the pen (say Gibson has one of his bad starts and Graham pitched two plus innings the night before - could Pelfrey or Milone give them a bridge for few frames to the late innings since they won't be pitching again for several days?)

Agreed - this has taken longer to sort out than anticipated. I think it was almost three weeks ago now that Rob Antony was on the Sunday morning radio show talking about the extra bullpen guy and the desire to get that back to 12 pitchers for Molitor's bench. Maybe the front office felt that losing Nolasco to the DL was going to be a bigger problem? Starting J.R. Graham turned out pretty well all things considered, they should have the rotation all set to go now. I have to believe that another move is on the horizon - whether it is Duensing, or something else. Santana's return will likely force some movement, but a baker's dozen is more pitchers than Molitor can use. It's especially wasteful when any kind of bench bat could come in handy.

I bet Neil Allen can't wait to teach Tonkin to throw something off-speed.

Add it to the Jason Marquis, Livan Hernandez, Sidney Ponson, and Ramon Ortiz pile?

I agree with others that have said why sign Stauffer in the first place; I also think the Twins gave him a fair shot in those 13 appearances to prove his value (or lack thereof) to the team. Once he was signed, it was worth taking the time to figure out if he had some value or not. He may find a better fit in the National League after his release (I don't think there should be room for him in AAA).

If not for his balky back, I think Marty Cordova would have been a pretty special player. . . how many ROY's are drafted in the 10h round?

Kennys is back! Kennys Vargas is back! I am hoping to get to at least two of these three games, I just have to figure out $$ and time.

Ultimately, I think it's called luck until there's data to define the successful situation and then that data is being used in the game to create a successful outcome. For example, if a batter hits a line drive and a fielder is standing right there to get it, we might call that lucky. If that line drive was hit into an extreme shift, then it's considered to be sound strategy to move the fielders into the place the batter's most likely to hit the ball. The Sox error on the Mauer bunt was luck. If Molitor knew that Sandoval is more likely to drop the ball on a throw from the catcher at that time of day, and then called for the bunt to try to force an error, well, that's crazy, but if somehow that was supported by data, it wouldn't be luck so much as a strategy. Molitor spoke about the bunt after the game and sounded almost upset about the outcome. It was not a good bunt by Mauer, so he probably wanted his players to execute the play. Molitor did call for the sacrifice, he wanted to get the guys in a position to score. It worked out, and the miscue seemed to breed more miscues. Again, not actually related events, but the story you tell your kids makes the fish get bigger every year. The Twins are lucky because they can't explain how they are doing it, and it is not a repeatable strategy that is making them successful. If they could figure out how they could get Santana to hit, or to incorporate the trio (Arcia, Vargas, Pinto) back into the middle of the lineup without sacrificing too much on defense, I think they could flip the switch from lucky to good.

Luck and we "play the game the right way"

The funny thing about this conversation is that I think we agree.

I don't think it is all luck, but I don't think the success of the team is all skill, or "grit", or whatever nonsense intangible measurement (Puntos?) that old-school baseball guys want to use, either. My whole point in the posts I've made in the thread is that it is a combination of stats, analysis and outcomes/events. There is luck involved, but I think you can only be so lucky before there has to be something else going on.... The terrible bunt by Mauer yesterday that resulted in a run and a long rally instead of a double play was a lucky break, but it also probably caught the Sox by surprise. The Twins put on a play to force the Red Sox to execute. The Red Sox failed to execute, so they lost. Just because the analysis and conventional wisdom is that play should be a double play doesn't mean the Red Sox get a do-over. If that were case, I'd want all those outs that our infielders in the outfield "should have" caught last year. Yes, the Twins have been very lucky this year... all I'm saying is that luck is (in part) a product of forcing the issue and not taking anything for granted.

I would argue that Terry Ryan does have a reason / incentive to say what he said - though I think Dave St. Peter would have more incentive to say it, since he's the one trying to sell tickets. Ryan takes criticism from the media personally, at least, he talks like he does... This is a team that he (along with the scouts and evaluators that work with him) built and the light at the end of the long, dark tunnel that Ryan has been promising for years is starting to appear. He wants to be able to say that his efforts are bearing fruit. Could he be more tactful about it? Yes. I agree with Baumann's article that the Twins early success is based on generally unsustainable situational hitting and other factors that have swayed in their favor. I also think that Terry Ryan's point, while being a little unfair/rude to Baumann's article, is a valid point in general. Stats and Analysis are important but do not tell the whole story. If anything, the Baumann article makes me want to watch more Twins games, because they are defying the expected outcomes; something unique is happening. Is it really just pure luck?

Terry Ryan was saying he wouldn't trust a scouting report from a guy that only read the stat line. He's saying the same thing about Baumann. He trusts his evaluator's reports because they've seen the player. His decisions as GM are based on reports from people that have seen the player play and have done their statistical homework. He does some scouting too, but there's only so many places one guy can be. His argument is that he trusts his scouts to help him make decisions, and he doesn't trust the opinion of a writer that has only done half the job that a scout does. He's saying Baumann's article is lazy scouting. Not saying I agree with Ryan 100%, but I don't think he's contradicting himself at all. The Twins are benefiting from mistakes by the opposing teams, and so to me the question becomes, how much of the Twins actions (aggressive base running, good fielding, timely hitting) are forcing mistakes, and how much of it is just luck? That question something that could be explored by watching the games in person, or on tv (not just the highlights, the whole game)... How long can a team be lucky before they are actually good?

I think if the Twins manage to stay in the playoff race up to the deadline, there's no reason they should be thinking about 2016. The nature of the beast is that you only get so many chances to make the playoffs, and once you're in, anything can happen (see the 2014 Royals, The W.S. Winning White Sox, the 87 Twins... etc, etc.). It would be a disappointment for the Twins to trade away MLB assets this season for the possibility of being in playoff contention in 2016. That's not to say I think the Twins should be shopping their blue chippers to get this year's Matt Capps - but something akin to the Shannon Stewart for Bobby Kielty deal would be nice. This year that might be a veteran Short Stop, or a bullpen arm, or a DH -- who knows? Something on a smaller scale that fills a need without giving up too much. All of this is assuming of course that the Twins are still playing well in July (and June for that matter).

Well, if you count Ervin Santana, that's 7 starters right there. The Twins could just let each guy pick a day of the week, and then instead of "Hughes" the jersey could just say "Thursday"

Twins should just swing a trade... Bautista or Encarnacion at DH would be awesome.

Gibson is heating up at the right time, and Glen Perkins has done everything that a closer is supposed to do to make the All-Star team. None of the Twins position players have really outpaced the rest of the league, though there have been more bright spots than disappointments. I think Dozier might get a chance since he probably should have been on the team last year and is once again putting up similar numbers. The bar is pretty high for 2B, though. I wouldn't feel like the Twins got snubbed if Perk was the only representative. If anything, it might be a motivational tool for some of the guys, that whole "No one respects us" narrative can work wonders (see also: Royals, K.C.).

What kind of numbers would Rosario need to have to stay up with the big league club? I think they would have to be pretty big...

So, I haven't seen this mentioned before... what are people's thoughts on Rosario staying on after Arcia returns and taking Eduardo Nuñez's spot on the 25-Man Roster? Rosario could play middle infield and outfield, right? I would be ok with that move assuming that Rosario is not completely lost at the plate up here and assuming that he would play more often than Eduardo Nuñez has played so far.

Hicks has never really shown himself to be the kind of guy to hold a grudge, but if he had a chip on his shoulder, the Twins just poured a bucket of salt on it. /hot take

Based on the very unscientific method of my own eye test, It seems like Vargas is taking himself out of the at bat early. His confidence from the end of last year seems to be a little damaged, and he's lost a bit of the plate discipline that earned him his call-up last year. He's deciding to swing or not before the ball is released by the pitcher. The homer he hit this year was and absolute laser beam - and he's had several very hard hit balls this year that show he is capable of doing a lot of damage. If he can calm down a bit and take each at bat as an independent event, he can help the Twins right now.

My hope is for Nolasco to get one more rehab start - then Pelfrey and Milone will get to audition one last time for a rotation spot. If Milone wins, Pelf should go to the bullpen and someone like Stauffer or Boyer should get the axe. If Pelf wins, Milone has an option left, so he should be this year's version of Pino, send him to AAA when the rotation is full, call him up first for injury or ineffectiveness. I think I'd prefer that Pelfrey wins for the moment. But it should be one of those two, rather than May. I could also see an argument for Gibson to be optioned (does he have an option?) to AAA to fix whatever issues he's having.