ashbury

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.

> Sometimes a different coaching staff has success with a guy with a strong head. I just wish I could come up with a nice list of pitchers where the reverse has worked in the Twins favor. Maaaaaybe Pavano counts? Santana as a Rule 5 draftee, which somewhat changes the subject. Don't know of too many others, off the top of my head.

For now, Liriano can mop up for Jeff Gray, as far as I'm concerned. After 10 days, re-evaluate.

On Sunday morning in Tampa, tell Liriano that he’s going to throw 7 innings. He can do it in 90 pitches or 150, but he’s not coming out of there until he gets at least 21 outs. One caveat to this. You can't bluff, and you have to have a Plan B just in case. If you are at the point of putting him into the bullpen with one more failure, then this strategem is as good a shot as any. If he has to come out after 4.1 innings anyway, then he's banished to the bullpen; if that wouldn't be your move, then you can't try this ultimatum. Since I'm ready to put him in the pen, I like your idea.

These all sounded to me, at the time, like rumors planted by the Twins, trying to goose the market a bit and get the most for Santana that they could. Note the Think Factory item says the source was the Twins and the Dodgers were "considering". It's very unclear that the Dodgers were actually interested even in Kemp (plus lower-grade prospects) alone for Santana, much less throwing in Kershaw. If Kemp had actually been dangled, Smith would have jumped on the deal. Ditto for the speculative offers from the Red Sox and Yankees - they were all trial balloons, no concrete offer was ever on the table from these other teams. Just my opinion, of course.