ashbury

May 15: on this day in Twins history, 2012, Jason Marquis gave up three home runs in one inning, in a lethargic 5-0 loss that also featured (not to be outdone) four different Twins grounding into double plays. Wait, what? You have to wait a year to mark a milestone like this one?

Interesting, I don't know if I had heard that before. It seems like something that could be looked up. There are RISP stats on baseball-reference.com, both for league as a whole, and for individual teams. So I gathered information for years 2009-2012, for Batting Average, for OPS, and for "Runs per Plate Appearance", to see if any trends jump out. I'm doing it by hand, so I don't have time to go back an arbitrary number of years. BA and OPS ought to be more or less comparable concepts whether in total or when just looking at RISP; but actual runs scored measured by R/PA will naturally be a *lot* higher in RISP situations than for all plate appearances, because, well, there are runners on base every time. I'm just looking for trends, anyway. Here's what I compiled, and I really hope I didn't make any errors in either transcription or (in the case of R/PA) my long division. (Sorry I don't know how to line these up in columns in this text editor.) AL BA OPS R/PA 2012 Tot .250 .722 .114 2012 RISP .261 .749 .325 2011 Tot .258 .730 .117 2011 RISP .259 .743 .332 2010 Tot .260 .734 .116 2010 RISP .258 .739 .325 2009 Tot .267 .764 .125 2009 RISP .269 .774 .345 Twins BA OPS R/PA 2012 Tot .236 .660 .092 2012 RISP .233 .706 .279 2011 Tot .247 .666 .103 2011 RISP .248 .673 .320 2010 Tot .273 .762 .125 2010 RISP .285 .780 .347 2009 Tot .274 .774 .129 2009 RISP .278 .799 .367 What I see as a baseline (league-wide) is this: 1) Batting average normally is not too different in RISP situations, maybe a little higher overall but in 2010 it was slightly lower. 2) OPS (which measures walks to homers and everything in between) always is a little higher in RISP situations. 3) R/PA is hard to compare but 2009 was a higher-offense year than the years since then. Then what I see for the Twins specifically is this: 1) Their batting average in 2012 is a little lower for RISP situations, but on a scale seen league-wide in 2010. In 2010 their BA was a lot higher in RISP situation, contrary to the league. 2) Their OPS rises in RISP pretty much like it does for the full league, each of these years. 3) Their offense was better than league-average in 2009 and 2010 and their RISP stats reflect that, and their offense in 2011 and (especially) in 2012 is below league average and their RISP stats reflect that too. It still seems to me that the record indicates that if they improve their overall offense, the RISP part of it will take care of itself too. They don't merely need better production during rallies. They need better production, period.

The Twins lost 2-1 yesterday, wasting a pretty good season debut by P.J. Walters. From the AP story: The struggling Twins offense couldn't come up with a timely hit. Minnesota went 0 for 9 with runners in scoring position and stranded six runners over the final four innings. "We had plenty of chances, but it just didn't work out for us tonight,'' Twins manager Ron Gardenhire said. Hm. On offense, the Twins had 5 hits total, but 6 walks to go with them. The Jays had 7 hits, and no walks. The Jays grounded into two double plays; the Twins didn't ground into any but had a runner cut down on a fly ball. The teams had two extra base hits apiece:, a double and a homer for the Jays; two doubles for the Twins. For the game: TOR: BA=.219 OBP=.219 SLG=.344 OPS=.563 MIN: BA=.161 OBP=.297 SLG=.225 OPS=.522 These are both poor batting results, as you could expect in a 2-1 game. OPS isn't the greatest stat in the world, for various reasons - but it says that in this game, Toronto did a little less poorly. The Twins did a nearly acceptable job at getting guys on base (league average OBP this year is .317), but their slugging was putrid (league SLG is .405). The eventual game winning hit was Bautista's home run. Mauer and Dozier apparently gave the ball a ride but only collected doubles. That turned out to be the difference in the game. Walks are better than outs, doubles are better than singles, and homers trump them all. Bautista didn't have anyone on base when he connected. But he put himself in scoring position nonetheless while standing at home plate, and the Jays won. (Since the Twins only run was scored on a walk, this means two of the three runs in the game were not covered by the RISP statistic, for what that's worth.) For the season, the Twins are 10th in the league in getting on base. They are dead last in slugging average (and in home runs in particular). Not coincidentally, they are also dead last in runs scored. The table setting is below par, and the power is simply not there at all. Adding Komatsu and Mastroianni only addresses the table setting, at best, and does nothing for the glaring need, throwing the offense further out of balance even if they do better than the players they replaced. Until both facets of the game improve, and a balance between getting on base and driving runners in is achieved, run scoring is going to remain at a premium. And until such time as the Twins still lose despite getting better game-OPS than their opponent, lamenting about 0-9 with runners in scoring position is for, well, losers.

The Twins lost 2-1 yesterday, wasting a pretty good season debut by P.J. Walters. From the AP story: The struggling Twins offense couldn't come up with a timely hit. Minnesota went 0 for 9 with runners in scoring position and stranded six runners over the final four innings. "We had plenty of chances, but it just didn't work out for us tonight,'' Twins manager Ron Gardenhire said. Hm. On offense, the Twins had 5 hits total, but 6 walks to go with them. The Jays had 7 hits, and no walks. The Jays grounded into two double plays; the Twins didn't ground into any but had a runner cut down on a fly ball. The teams had two extra base hits apiece:, a double and a homer for the Jays; two doubles for the Twins. For the game: TOR: BA=.219 OBP=.219 SLG=.344 OPS=.563 MIN: BA=.161 OBP=.297 SLG=.225 OPS=.522 These are both poor batting results, as you could expect in a 2-1 game. OPS isn't the greatest stat in the world, for various reasons - but it says that in this game, Toronto did a little less poorly. The Twins did a nearly acceptable job at getting guys on base (league average OBP this year is .317), but their slugging was putrid (league SLG is .405). The eventual game winning hit was Bautista's home run. Mauer and Dozier apparently gave the ball a ride but only collected doubles. That turned out to be the difference in the game. Walks are better than outs, doubles are better than singles, and homers trump them all. Bautista didn't have anyone on base when he connected. But he put himself in scoring position nonetheless while standing at home plate, and the Jays won. (Since the Twins only run was scored on a walk, this means two of the three runs in the game were not covered by the RISP statistic, for what that's worth.) For the season, the Twins are 10th in the league in getting on base. They are dead last in slugging average (and in home runs in particular). Not coincidentally, they are also dead last in runs scored. The table setting is below par, and the power is simply not there at all. Adding Komatsu and Mastroianni only addresses the table setting, at best, and does nothing for the glaring need, throwing the offense further out of balance even if they do better than the players they replaced. Until both facets of the game improve, and a balance between getting on base and driving runners in is achieved, run scoring is going to remain at a premium. And until such time as the Twins still lose despite getting better game-OPS than their opponent, lamenting about 0-9 with runners in scoring position is for, well, losers.

Not to straddle the fence or anything.... but I also agree with much of your point, shs. His AAA season at age 24 with OPS .730 looks an awful lot like an age 25 ballplayer putting up .697 in the majors - tougher league, a (last?) bit of incremental improvement in skill. The age 25 stint in AAA (1.000+ OPS) looks like a tease/mirage, or a "career half-year". But he's a player out of minor league options, and given that the braintrust opted not to cut/trade him but put him on the 25-man roster, it seems like a make or break year for him, plus there was a good chance (at the outset) this would not be a winning season, and for that reason I would have expected him to see more plate appearances by now than he has. Try to build up his value, as a secondary piece in some trade later on. Capps plus Plouffe for some legitimate prospect? However, his results to date would put even a staunch supporter (which Gardy probably is not) in a pickle. As I said, being at all comparable to any portion of Butera's career, not to mention the very lowest point of Butera's career, is not a good thing, and for that reason is by itself noteworthy. The Twins gamble and (apparently) lose on him, somehow thinking that putting the chip only halfway onto the 00 square is better than solidly in there. Anywho, I appreciate the comments.

I'm with you both on giving Plouffe more of an opportunity from the git-go. Still, being within a gnat's eyelash of parity with Butera at his very lowest point last year, seemed worth bringing up. It's not a good thing to be even in the same discussion with Drew Butera. Right now, this makes it hard for a manager to install him in RF and tell him "you're my guy, win or lose".

As of May 3, 2011, the sainted Drew Butera had this set of stats for the Twins: AB: 50 BB: 2 H: 5 2B: 2 R: 3 RBI: 4 BA: .100 OBP: .151 SLG: .140 OPS: .291 This morning, I see this for Trevor Plouffe 2012: AB: 36 BB: 7 H: 4 2B: 1 HR: 1 R: 3 RBI: 2 BA: .111 OBP: .256 SLG: .222 OPS: .478 He's been basically five walks, and one double turned into a home run, better than Drew Butera. Drew came back strong to finish with a .449 OPS. Trevor is already higher than this so can we hope for great things from here on out?

As of May 3, 2011, the sainted Drew Butera had this set of stats for the Twins: AB: 50 BB: 2 H: 5 2B: 2 R: 3 RBI: 4 BA: .100 OBP: .151 SLG: .140 OPS: .291 This morning, I see this for Trevor Plouffe 2012: AB: 36 BB: 7 H: 4 2B: 1 HR: 1 R: 3 RBI: 2 BA: .111 OBP: .256 SLG: .222 OPS: .478 He's been basically five walks, and one double turned into a home run, better than Drew Butera. Drew came back strong to finish with a .449 OPS. Trevor is already higher than this so can we hope for great things from here on out?

In addition to what MWLFan said, I'd like to know from someone like Terry Ryan how a farm team's management can make life difficult for the major league team if they choose to. I believe that Rochester is dissatisfied with their agreement with the Twins, and if 2012 was supposed to mend fences it doesn't look like the product on the field is going to accomplish that. Yet, if Rochester ends its relationship and hooks on with another major league team, we know that the Twins will just get a shotgun wedding with whichever AAA team just got jilted. (Or, some years it gets interesting, and a round of Musical Chairs takes place.) Suppose both the Twins and this new team are grouchy about the whole arrangement - what would be the concrete harm to the parent club? Depending on the answer, this would be the part that is not 100% about player development. In addition, there is a polite fiction maintained that the minor league experience for the fan is one of competitive games being played; anyone who has attended a minor league game can recount in-game situations where this clearly was not the case. (Pitchers getting innings on a fixed schedule, non-tactical late-inning choices of batters, etc.) If at some point the Emperor is finally seen to have no clothes, I suppose a risk to the major league club is having to subsidize to an even greater extent the costs of their minor league clubs, were attendance drop to near zero.

A digression from the discussion on Morneau's wrist, concerning an opinion that the Twins were one timely hit away from winning the 4-3 game with the Angels, that I'll post here now. Twins had 8 hits, Angels had 8 hits. Was it a matter of timeliness? Angels 1st: double, followed by single. One run scores. Angels 4th: single, followed by homer. Two runs score. Angels 7th: homer. One run scores. Twins 8th: hpb, double, single, single, single: Three runs score. For the game, Twins had seven singles and one double. Angels had four singles, two doubles and two homers; one of their doubles was not "timely" (no one on base, no one drove Trout in), one of the homers was not "timely" (no one on base). Weak-hitting table-setting teams depend on long scoring sequences and hope for timeliness. Better-hitting teams get extra base hits and let the good things happen. OBP is good; OPS is better.

A digression from the discussion on Morneau's wrist, concerning an opinion that the Twins were one timely hit away from winning the 4-3 game with the Angels, that I'll post here now. Twins had 8 hits, Angels had 8 hits. Was it a matter of timeliness? Angels 1st: double, followed by single. One run scores. Angels 4th: single, followed by homer. Two runs score. Angels 7th: homer. One run scores. Twins 8th: hpb, double, single, single, single: Three runs score. For the game, Twins had seven singles and one double. Angels had four singles, two doubles and two homers; one of their doubles was not "timely" (no one on base, no one drove Trout in), one of the homers was not "timely" (no one on base). Weak-hitting table-setting teams depend on long scoring sequences and hope for timeliness. Better-hitting teams get extra base hits and let the good things happen. OBP is good; OPS is better.

I hope it's not like last year. After the slow start they turned the corner mid-season, and on July 20 just before the trade deadline they were up to 46-51, mirror image of Detroit's 51-46. There was hope of taking a weak division if momentum continued. As a result, despite treading water the next few days up to the very deadline, they did not move any veterans for prospects; they weren't buyers, either, thank goodness. I supported this approach, at the time. But it was a sad mirage: the bottom fell out (and Detroit straightened up) and even by very early August it was already apparent that the gamble to stay in the race had failed. The outlook for 2012 and 2013 might be very much better now, had some players (free-agents-to-be, marginal guys clogging the system) been traded for good prospects. It cost us a year. This year, I hope for clarity at the trade deadline, and then let Ryan try to work some front-office magic in one direction or the other. Good baseball, but no false hopes, please.

I hope it's not like last year. After the slow start they turned the corner mid-season, and on July 20 just before the trade deadline they were up to 46-51, mirror image of Detroit's 51-46. There was hope of taking a weak division if momentum continued. As a result, despite treading water the next few days up to the very deadline, they did not move any veterans for prospects; they weren't buyers, either, thank goodness. I supported this approach, at the time. But it was a sad mirage: the bottom fell out (and Detroit straightened up) and even by very early August it was already apparent that the gamble to stay in the race had failed. The outlook for 2012 and 2013 might be very much better now, had some players (free-agents-to-be, marginal guys clogging the system) been traded for good prospects. It cost us a year. This year, I hope for clarity at the trade deadline, and then let Ryan try to work some front-office magic in one direction or the other. Good baseball, but no false hopes, please.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]802[/ATTACH] Joe Mauer must have read my post yesterday. There can be no other explanation. He hit a triple in the first inning, driving in Span and then scoring on Morneau's single. If you reconstruct the inning with Mauer hitting a single or drawing a walk instead, and overlook that every change could result in a different approach by the opponents thereafter, this was worth an extra run. He followed up with a none-out double in the third. This resulted in no scoring as the next three batters made outs. In my post, I had said that (compared to his 2008 season) Mauer was a couple of doubles/triples short, otherwise his 2012 so far lines up. Friday's game basically rectified that. Yay Joe. In the fifth, he struck out swinging. In the seventh he was hit by a pitch - a topic I did not discuss yesterday and something Joe apparently came up with on his own. (He did not score.) Finally, in the ninth he struck out swinging again, setting the stage for Morneau to do likewise to end the game at a 7-6 deficit. I won't re-do the extrapolations, but this game brings him really close to his 2008 season, in both OBP and SLG. No one could quarrel with a full season like that. And yet, as I said yesterday, I hope he continues the trend of raising his slugging average even further, even if it comes at the expense of his on-base average, because of the needs of this team. Of course, a game like yesterday's raised both; good on you, Joe. On the surface even the two strikeouts were OK, if he was trying to power the ball, although in the ninth just getting on base would have been a good goal too. However: on both strikeouts his first two strikes were looking, fine-able offenses in my Kangaroo Court. Wait: even on his triple and double, he took two strikes each time. Hold on: ditto for his HBP (a fine on the pitcher for hitting a guy on 0-2, too). All part of his cunning plan to lull the pitcher into complacency, each and every at-bat? Only once in five trips were the first two pitches not in the strike zone (ball one, in the ninth). Well, this is a topic already covered by others and I'll leave it alone. But it's absolutely amazing. Actually, an extrapolation I failed to do yesterday was his strikeout rate. It's up this year compared to 2012, even before Friday's game. Not sure why I didn't think to look at that the first time. If he's only table-setting, up until yesterday, an increase in strikeout rate serves little purpose. His GIDP rate is also higher than in 2008, and that's just plain counter-productive. Anyway, yesterday Mauer Power contributed an extra run by my reckoning, versus what Joe Table-Setter would have accomplished. Losing 7-6 versus 7-5 is no great shakes, and we know the main problem with the team is the pitching; still, I'm glad Joe Mauer reads my blog and finds it helpful.

I was thinking about the 2012 Twins' imbalance on offense, between getting on base (acceptable) and power (low). A guy we look to for power is Joe Mauer, so I decided to see where he stands at this early stage of the season. Arbitrarily I picked his 2008 season as a benchmark - an excellent season by any standard, but not as insanely high a bar to set as his 2009 season, and one very much in line with his career numbers. In 2008 he had 633 plate appearances, and so far in 2012 he has 83. If I scale up his production proportionally, what do we get? Year: 2008/2012 Hits: 176/175 2B: 31/23 3B: 4/0 HR: 9/8 BB: 84/84 This is almost freakish, especially considering how small the sample-size is for 2012 as yet. He's almost exactly on pace for the same number of hits *and* walks - you can see that the OBP's are similar (.413/.410) but these two components line up too. The home runs are close as well, though largely a coincidence because the lone HR in 2012 could just as easily be 0 or 2. It's the doubles and triples, which I'll combine as similar kinds of hits especially for a lefty, where he's coming up short in 2012. 35 versus 23, if this performance continues, looks like a significant dropoff for a season, and continues the trend from his 2011 season; a dozen fewer chances to drive Denard or Jamey home from first if one is there, a dozen fewer chances for someone else to drive Joe home with just a single. Of course, I have to repeat that this is a small sample size, and a mere two doubles stretched from singles would have brought things into (freakishly) perfect alignment. So... what to make of this? First, clutch/RISP issues aside (which I think to be non-existent for Joe anyway), there's nothing horribly wrong with Mauer's hitting, especially only 19 games into the season. Second, nevertheless, I would like to see something changed. Anecdotally, we've seen too many bases-loaded situations not turn into crooked numbers (or even a vertical); this suggests enough table setting and not enough power. It's not only a question of making better use of these bases-loaded situations; some of these situations would not have been bases-loaded at all if somebody had hit a double to drive in a run earlier in the sequence. We can't ask most of the Twins table-setters to change; Jamey Carroll isn't going to suddenly start hitting doubles in the gap, and Ben Revere won't be launching balls over the fence anytime soon. We can't ask Clete Thomas to stop swinging and missing, for that matter, though we can ask Gardy to stop penciling him in. And the power guys, Willingham and Morneau, are providing the power (Morneau's batting average aside). But Joe Mauer is the one guy on the team who has the range of batting skills, IMO, to adjust his game to the needs of his team in a given year. Joe's getting on base at a .410 clip, as mentioned earlier, which is phenomenal. He needs to stop that. Well, if he could give us 2008 numbers, that would be super. But if he has to sacrifice some of the on-base part of his game, to increase the power above even 2008, I think he should do it. Launch a few home runs, drive a lot of balls to the gap. Fifteen homers and 45 doubles/triples? I think he's capable. If he bats only .280 in doing so, with a few less walks, so be it. This is somewhat independent of being in the #3 slot in the batting order, but that's another good/traditional reason too. I don't want to think of him as Joe Table-Setter. We need to see Mauer Power. Not because it would make him a "better" hitter, but because it's what the team needs this year. It would be an aspect of "quiet leadership", given that he's not known for being a vocal leader, that would help his team a lot.

I was thinking about the 2012 Twins' imbalance on offense, between getting on base (acceptable) and power (low). A guy we look to for power is Joe Mauer, so I decided to see where he stands at this early stage of the season. Arbitrarily I picked his 2008 season as a benchmark - an excellent season by any standard, but not as insanely high a bar to set as his 2009 season, and one very much in line with his career numbers. In 2008 he had 633 plate appearances, and so far in 2012 he has 83. If I scale up his production proportionally, what do we get? Year: 2008/2012 Hits: 176/175 2B: 31/23 3B: 4/0 HR: 9/8 BB: 84/84 This is almost freakish, especially considering how small the sample-size is for 2012 as yet. He's almost exactly on pace for the same number of hits *and* walks - you can see that the OBP's are similar (.413/.410) but these two components line up too. The home runs are close as well, though largely a coincidence because the lone HR in 2012 could just as easily be 0 or 2. It's the doubles and triples, which I'll combine as similar kinds of hits especially for a lefty, where he's coming up short in 2012. 35 versus 23, if this performance continues, looks like a significant dropoff for a season, and continues the trend from his 2011 season; a dozen fewer chances to drive Denard or Jamey home from first if one is there, a dozen fewer chances for someone else to drive Joe home with just a single. Of course, I have to repeat that this is a small sample size, and a mere two doubles stretched from singles would have brought things into (freakishly) perfect alignment. So... what to make of this? First, clutch/RISP issues aside (which I think to be non-existent for Joe anyway), there's nothing horribly wrong with Mauer's hitting, especially only 19 games into the season. Second, nevertheless, I would like to see something changed. Anecdotally, we've seen too many bases-loaded situations not turn into crooked numbers (or even a vertical); this suggests enough table setting and not enough power. It's not only a question of making better use of these bases-loaded situations; some of these situations would not have been bases-loaded at all if somebody had hit a double to drive in a run earlier in the sequence. We can't ask most of the Twins table-setters to change; Jamey Carroll isn't going to suddenly start hitting doubles in the gap, and Ben Revere won't be launching balls over the fence anytime soon. We can't ask Clete Thomas to stop swinging and missing, for that matter, though we can ask Gardy to stop penciling him in. And the power guys, Willingham and Morneau, are providing the power (Morneau's batting average aside). But Joe Mauer is the one guy on the team who has the range of batting skills, IMO, to adjust his game to the needs of his team in a given year. Joe's getting on base at a .410 clip, as mentioned earlier, which is phenomenal. He needs to stop that. Well, if he could give us 2008 numbers, that would be super. But if he has to sacrifice some of the on-base part of his game, to increase the power above even 2008, I think he should do it. Launch a few home runs, drive a lot of balls to the gap. Fifteen homers and 45 doubles/triples? I think he's capable. If he bats only .280 in doing so, with a few less walks, so be it. This is somewhat independent of being in the #3 slot in the batting order, but that's another good/traditional reason too. I don't want to think of him as Joe Table-Setter. We need to see Mauer Power. Not because it would make him a "better" hitter, but because it's what the team needs this year. It would be an aspect of "quiet leadership", given that he's not known for being a vocal leader, that would help his team a lot.

And I guess there's: Jamey Carroll "Burnett"

I'll take a crack at some pitchers: Jason Marquis "de Sade" Jeff "Shades of" Gray Liam "Jimi" Hendriks Nick "Blackburn's Ghost" Carl "Hey!" Pavano Matt "Don't Give Me That" Maloney Alex "Carol" Burnett

Another recycled observation from last year, when a certain someone got reassigned... Is it just me, or does this guy http://tinyurl.com/746qaud look an awful lot like this guy? http://tinyurl.com/2a4u9mk

Another recycled observation from last year, when a certain someone got reassigned... Is it just me, or does this guy http://tinyurl.com/746qaud look an awful lot like this guy? http://tinyurl.com/2a4u9mk

He's at .370 after Wednesday night. At this rate, if you wait a couple more weeks before taking him off, he'll be batting 1.162.

My guy Mastroianni is hitting .304 at AAA, after a slow start in AA New Britain. That ought to be enough to get him off the not-hot list.

Regarding the discussion of whom to pick with the #2 choice in the upcoming draft, there is also the group of supplemental picks the Twins will get. Even if the team believes pitching is their sorest need, it's one reasonable strategy to pick a stud position player at #2 and then load up with pitching prospects a little further down in the draft, if you think pitchers are inherently riskier to develop. However, those supplemental draft picks aren't quite the slam-dunk that some people were thinking when the question was whether to re-sign free agents after last season. Here is a lightly-edited excerpt from a posting I made to alt.sports.baseball.mn-twins last December. I'd be interested in people's reactions: ...Supplemental draft picks are of varying value. I prowled around baseball-reference.com's record of drafts, going back far enough to evaluate full careers, and if you look at the second round of the 1994 June draft, i.e. picks 35-63 (about equivalent to current supplemental rounds), the only players who made any significant major league contribution were Troy Glaus and Matt LeCroy. That was admittedly a weak year (1995 had several luminaries like Carlos Beltran and Sean Casey), but LeCroy as the second best player out of all 29 picks after the real first round??? Pretty much the definition of a crapshoot unless your team is awarded all the picks, not just two or three. BTW, I saw a suggestion, probably tongue-in-cheek, that the Twins should sign Willingham and the A's sign Cuddyer, at the same price. Then each team collects the draft pick(s), and trades the two players back for each other.

Regarding the discussion of whom to pick with the #2 choice in the upcoming draft, there is also the group of supplemental picks the Twins will get. Even if the team believes pitching is their sorest need, it's one reasonable strategy to pick a stud position player at #2 and then load up with pitching prospects a little further down in the draft, if you think pitchers are inherently riskier to develop. However, those supplemental draft picks aren't quite the slam-dunk that some people were thinking when the question was whether to re-sign free agents after last season. Here is a lightly-edited excerpt from a posting I made to alt.sports.baseball.mn-twins last December. I'd be interested in people's reactions: ...Supplemental draft picks are of varying value. I prowled around baseball-reference.com's record of drafts, going back far enough to evaluate full careers, and if you look at the second round of the 1994 June draft, i.e. picks 35-63 (about equivalent to current supplemental rounds), the only players who made any significant major league contribution were Troy Glaus and Matt LeCroy. That was admittedly a weak year (1995 had several luminaries like Carlos Beltran and Sean Casey), but LeCroy as the second best player out of all 29 picks after the real first round??? Pretty much the definition of a crapshoot unless your team is awarded all the picks, not just two or three. BTW, I saw a suggestion, probably tongue-in-cheek, that the Twins should sign Willingham and the A's sign Cuddyer, at the same price. Then each team collects the draft pick(s), and trades the two players back for each other.