ashbury

Michael A Taylor's bat has to be part of this equation.

I have this feeling that if Sonny Gray were our ailing center fielder turned DH, we'd be getting weekly updates straight from the horse's mouth.

I do think it's interesting that many of the top (and bottom!) run scoring performances have come when the strikeout rate is moderate. It's very hard to have a top offense when you strike out this much, but going to the other extreme doesn't bear that much fruit either (CLE and WAS being the poster teams this season). Unlike the OPS graph, a straight line barely tells a story at all. My take is that the relationship between hitting for average and hitting for power isn't linear, and this graph tries to tell us that focusing on SO isn't the place to start. A strikeout is always a bad outcome, but you have to factor in the good outcomes (HR I'm sure, probably others) that correlate with them. We lack (AFAIK) useful historical data on other bad outcomes, such as popouts and groundouts, and the good things that correlate with them. It makes an even-handed analysis difficult for those who want to know more, because it's always easy to point at strikeouts. As I've said elsewhere, I'm also intrigued by the Pull% numbers found at b-r.com, in which our Twins also lead the majors. None of this is to disagree with the main point you were making.

Golf's gonna ruin his swing.

Indeed, there is this thing called the Winner's Curse that plagues every type of auction. Almost by definition, every player we sign is a mistake at that price in the eyes of every other GM.

I guess I was focusing on their in-season decision making. Like you, I didn't understand their reasoning for signing Gallo, and would have liked moving on from Kepler, back in the off-season. I would especially like to be privvy to the analysis that said Gallo was the perfect fit for this roster.

If you like the thought of Michael A Taylor minus the defensive chops, particularly the arm, then I suppose he should be given another shot. Oakland and KC seem like good places for that opportunity. I'm not particularly persuaded by one partial AAA season of .900 OPS at his age and track record with the bat. But we do need one or two break-glass-in-emergency players stashed at AAA, if we divest both Gallo and Kepler, so I don't advocate trading him for a bag of balls either.

I had a similar reaction but with a different spin: he doesn't seem to have much of a filter on his internal monologue.

I prefer not to assume our FO are idiots, and that the players in question have failed to achieve what was forecast.

There is an aspect I didn't see mentioned, in regard to why the FO has stuck with the status quo until now. Namely, MLB's roster rules, which prevent sending either Gallo or Kepler to AAA, in preference to Larnach or Wallner who do have minor league options. If (and that's a big assumption) the FO viewed all 4 as approximately equally likely to produce wins for the team, then in order to hedge against injury or other events, you make the moves that can be undone later (minor league assignments) and defer the moves you can't undo (trade away or otherwise dispose). The time for this careful approach to managing a long season is over, of course. It's July. But if the FO does part ways with Gallo and/or Kepler, it won't necessarily be that they suddenly saw the light. I prioritize Gallo before Kepler, but I'm ready to see both depart. Bring up Larnach and Wallner to replace them, and if either gets injured then probably I add Chris Williams to the 40-man (his bat is starting to look legit) and shift Kirilloff to replace the injured outfielder. And as a minor detail, if I'm the FO then I eat salary for either player I trade, if it helps brings a decent prospect in return. Sunk cost, and all that - when I cut either one outright then I'm on the hook for the salary anyway. I'll be extremely disappointed if either one is traded for what looks like pure salary relief; you're a major league team, embrace a major league payroll, and use the money to always be improving the talent pool.

Gah, I failed to realize there was a whole page of responses I hadn't read yet. Never mind, it's been covered.

I see your point. Fortunately, good things can happen to you and me, too.

A team leading the majors in strikeouts should be getting something in return, like somewhere close to a leading total in HRs, and that's where I do see a problem with the Ks on this team - not in and of itself but in combination. If the hitters are not capable of hitting for extra bases like they seem to think, then cutting down on the Ks certainly should be advocated in favor of getting more men on base. The sad thing is that abandoning the all-or-nothing approach might not even cost that many homers from what they are currently getting, since good contact will sometimes go out of the park anyway. They are that screwed up. We've got one guy this year who in particular has a K rate of 41%, far above anyone in the majors who has enough PA to qualify for a batting title, and his HR rate is not nearly tops - so he's very simply not worth the price invested in outs. Can you guess who? (Spoiler, his name is in the subject line of this very thread.) The other area I see our Twins leading the majors on b-r.com is in pull percentage, at 33.1%*. Selling out like that is an area I'd really like the team's brain trust to explain to us. And it's the first thing I'd look at changing, even before the more indirect advice to "strike out less". They were much closer last year to league average on this. We've got a guy this year whose b-r pull number is 49.0%. Can you guess who? (Spoiler, his name is in the subject line of this very thread.) Have I mentioned lately that also Gallo's OPS this year is largely built on hits after his team is already ahead? For multiple reasons I am so very, very done with Joey Gallo. And that's a good place for me to close, in this thread about the player. We can talk about larger issues and diverging theories some other time. *Fangraphs apparently counts where balls are hit differently, and I think b-r.com may be more "strict" in what they call a pull, toward the line(s), which may highlight even more strongly the Twins' current tendency.

Good things can happen to good people. Why not us? You don't have to accept the sunniest outlook offered in this article to at least accept that weird shtuff happens all the time in baseball. I'm not willing to slap the casual fan base in the face, with a depleted roster entering the post-season. I am at odds on principle with those who favor tanking, and/or who dismiss being around .500 inherently. Yes, most years .500 is a Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Season if you thought you were a contender. Not 2023. So, unless the team drops out of contention in the coming two weeks, I'm against trading Sonny Gray. He starts Game 1 if we make it there, and either way the compensation draft pick is a hedge against trying to have a chance. A team with a good starting rotation has a puncher's chance. I think it's unfair to say I'm partaking in some corporate flavored-drink mix powder with this moderate approach, but it's already been hurled at someone.

Clickbait headline and article. Moving on ...

I think you have to give our friend DJL44 credit for at least being "close" with that guess. Welcome to the site. I hope we have lots of successes from young Pasqualotto to celebrate together.

Absolutely. Maybe the right phrase would have occurred to me with yet another proofreading pass. :) By no means am I defending the Twins, quite the opposite. There is more wrong than simply "cut down on the strikeouts" and I am far from qualified to say what, except that it looks like such an extreme focus on "waiting for a mistake pitch" that the hitters have screwed themselves up and are staring at pitches down the middle while flailing at breaking pitches down and away.

I don't either. At least not when taken to the extreme that it seems our organizational philosophy has taken it. And/or their blindness to getting players who can't execute whatever plan it is they have. Hit for power, accept an uptick in strikeouts versus league norms, that's the tradeoff I want, not failure after failure. But counting Ks isn't by itself telling us anything, again using the unsuccessful teams I mentioned as guides. Gallo himself seems to be some kind of unicorn of ineffectiveness. Usually OPS correlates well with success, but I've mentioned his game situation splits, and your example of few sac flies is another. Gallo is an extreme outlier that I never looked at before, and I wish the Twins vaunted new analytics department had figured out a way to steer clear of him.

I thought I pretty much stated it, but let me take one more crack at it with more detail. People say in various ways, "it's better to put the ball in play than to strike out. At least it gives you a chance to get on base." What if I said in response, "it's better to hit line drives to the outfield than to ground out. At least it gives you a chance for a homer or an extra base hit in the gap, or at least a sac fly." Batters go to the plate with different plans in mind. Some try to launch the ball for extra bases, some are content to rack up lots of singles. Most probably embrace a blend, based on the count or on the number of outs and men on base. Some are successful, many are less so. Anyone can strike out, some *ahem* more than others. Again, some go up there to "put the ball in play," none go up to "strike out." Apples and oranges. Here's why comparing strikeouts to balls in play is unfair. One is a failure outcome - nobody thinks strikeouts are good for the offense after they happen, no one. The other is an intermediate state before the outcome is determined. And neither takes into account what the batter was trying to do - aiming for home runs includes the acceptance of a higher strikeout rate in return for a higher rate of run-scoring (if successful). The same is true for my concocted "ground out versus liners to the outfield" argument, which is why I don't actually make it. Certain failure (in the rear view mirror) versus potential for success (looking out the windshield) are not equivalent. Our complaint against the Twins needs to be that their approach isn't successful - the strikeouts (and ground outs) aren't compensated often enough with barrages of runs scored. Circling back to the topic of this thread, my complaint with Gallo isn't the strikeouts per se, it's that he doesn't deliver often enough, and according to the splits offered at b-r.com he delivers disproportionately often when his team is already ahead, but miserably when tied or behind. I've pointed out before that the Nationals and Guardians hitters have MLB-low levels of strikeouts yet aren't scoring runs either; conversely, White Sox pitchers lead the majors in strikeouts yet their ERA is worse than average. Strikeouts are not the cause nor the cure. I didn't direct my observation toward anyone in particular. If you haven't been banging the "balls in play, not strikeouts" drum, then it wasn't directed toward you.

But, to address the topic, was Harmon Killebrew never a meaningful participant as a Twin? I mean, there was the TV show "Home Run Derby" back in the 1950s, but Harmon was a Senator then. Otherwise, those should have counted.

Separated at birth.

Thanks for the company, all.

José Ramírez's sneer is even worse when he strikes out.

So far all the responses have been "but, but, the pitching." On the hitting side, I remain at a loss. Hitters who have been playing the game all their lives suddenly have forgotten how to hit, or else stopped progressing earlier in their careers when at the cusp of real production. Anyway, "second half moves" need to involve batters. Simple (and difficult) as that.

Topic: Bullpen trade possibilities Discussion: Fix the offense but first fire everybody in charge.