ashbury

Good interview. He asked, and got answers from the man, questions we've been going back-and-forth with on this site. I liked Falvey's reply, bland though it may sound, "So, I look at it as, whether we’re picking first, fifth, 10th, 20th doesn’t matter; it’s important for us to get a lot of value out of each draft." It ties in with something I've thought about for a while (I'm sure I read it somewhere ): with a long draft like baseball's, picking first is essentially like picking last, except you get one bonus pick at the very beginning and you dispense with one organizational filler pick at the end. What you do with that extra pick, swing for the fences or go safe, maybe comes from that way of looking at it. If you're super successful, you'll be picking last, for real, for years to come. So this one bonus pick both looms large and fades into less urgency in the big picture, depending on how you look at it. Obviously you want to pick well - but if you have confidence in your processes, you also take it in stride. "We're essentially picking the same as the Cubs this year. Do we want a player who is 80% sure to be a significant major leaguer for several years, as our additional edge? Or do we want a 50-50 shot at The Next Bob Gibson (someone I've heard Greene for instance compared to) who also might flame out, in which case we're still on an equal footing with the Cubs?" Also, every pick except the first comes directly after several of the most successful franchises, who by their reverse-order in the standings have some credibility for knowing what they are doing. So it's really a challenge to find the next prospect to pick in that environment - someone's already scooped up consecutively several guys you were presumably about to pick. In that light, having the first pick works out as somewhat less than a blessing.

That Gonsalves video needs to receive endless airplay. My Adopt-A-Prospect Ben Rortvedt got one of his base hits on a bunt single. There was already a man aboard at first base, so does someone local know whether this looked like a bunt for a base hit, or if he squared up for a routine sacrifice attempt that somehow went better than expected and yet involved no misplay? It was a road game, so probably no one here will know, but I'm curious. I wouldn't expect a gift from the Wisconsin scorer.

Ben had another productive game, this time in the 4-2 win over the Wisconsin TImber Rattlers on May 20. He did a little of everything: singled, doubled, walked, scored, and drove in a run. The single was on a bunt with a man on first, so I'm uncertain whether our catcher was going for a base hit or just attempting a sacrifice - but the official scorer saw it as a hit and, as they say, it looks like a line drive in the box score. His double in the top of the fifth was indeed of the line-drive variety, pulled left. Both base hits raised his batting average. One thing he didn't do: strike out. Nice game.

Not on board with the notion of Jay coming to the majors as quickly as possible as a reliever, and eventually getting another shot at starting?

I think it was meant as gentle mocking of others. Which as we see here can backfire.

Thank you for the reference. I would not have gotten it.

I second this. He's not very mobile of course, but IMO has soft hands. He could end up a decent defensive first baseman.

My retinas are now severely damaged, simply from *thinking* about such a scenario.

Moderator's note: This is not directed solely toward you, but also to several others participating in this thread. The inclination to imply opposing viewpoints must be idiocy, or to express your ideas in the strongest possible terms, has the opposite effect on your readers, who then discount what you say to compensate. Please tone down the heated rhetoric, everyone. (And please don't compound the problem by responding to this post in-thread.)

Moderator's note: The bickering leads me to think the value of this thread is about at an end. If someone has something new to say about the tangents raised, by all means say it, but do it without throwing shade on the other posters.

"Twins Daily: Keeping Fans Alliterate since 2012."

He's my Adopt-A-Prospect, and to summarize what I wrote up there, I'm no pro scout but when I watched him this past March he was throwing 94, and more importantly the hitters didn't seem to be getting a good read on him. Bottom line, he's got a chance.

Another towering start for Aaron on May 19. Eight and one-third innings, covering 98 pitches, and the results were 1 earned run on 5 hits and 1 walk. He induced 17 grounders versus only 11 flyballs, and 64 of his pitches were for strikes. In only one inning, the 9th when the run scored, did as many as two opponents reach base. Only a couple of strikeouts, if you like looking for the dark cloud behind every silver lining. Rochester needed him to pitch this well, as they scored only two of their own, for the victory over the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Geography Quiz Answers or whatever the heck they are calling themselves. For his second straight game, Aaron Slegers won Twins Daily Minor League Pitcher of the Day honors.

It's probably true that there is more data now. But the concept of "look out, he's a pull hitter" isn't exactly new - even my slow-pitch softball team would yell out "hooker" when a lefty came to bat and we outfielders would duly take a couple steps to our left, if only to show our heads were in the game (mine wasn't). How come shifts in the pros weren't more prevalent and more extreme in the past? There was the Williams Shift way back when, but it didn't really revolutionize the game and instead was retired when Ted did.

Moderator's note: There is no value to this kind of response. Since the target of your response already replied, I'm just going to leave it alone, except to point out that the long version of the site's Comment Policy covers this situation exactly from both angles: "It's much easier to be accidentally disrespectful to other members (or unnamed groups of members) when you make it be *about* them." "A corollary is to be wary of making it be about yourself."Let's keep it respectful.

That's not true to the movie at all! No doubt the studio fired whoever put together that trailer.

Not unless I ask them to. "Enjoy your new coffee table, sir." "Yes, thanks, but what happened to our sofa, and china hutch... and the bed?"

That's a useful page, but defaults to players with "qualified" numbers of plate appearances. That might be somewhat appropriate for discussion of every other fielding position, but catchers should be held to a looser standard because of the more-frequent days off built into their careers. You have to drop the number of 2017 plate appearances to 75 to get 31 players, i.e. approximately one for every team. Fourteen of these guys are batting .270 or higher. (Jason Castro appears in the list of 31, but not in the top 14. ) That's not perfect either, because some of those guys are DHing or playing other positions at times. but ranked lists are just a first cut at understanding anyway.

I have been told that over-analysis has been a chronic problem at Twins Daily, but honestly I'm not seeing it.

"I'm a psychic amnesiac. I know in advance what I'll forget." - ibid. "I'm a psychic amnesiac. I know in advance what I'll forget." - ibid.

Not the first, sorry. http://tompettybook.com/images/tom-petty-sidebar.png

The 40-man is the gating issue as much as the 25-man for that strategy. A complete rejiggering of the relief portion of the 40-man to accommodate more prospects isn't impossible by any stretch, but is more of a gamble (in terms of the subject of this thread) than at first sight. Acquiring better relievers by trade would be less disruptive, although at greater cost. Tough dilemma, compounded by the uncertainty of whether the window has actually opened yet. I think the trade avenue has to be explored first, and if the cost is too high (which I expect) then start dispensing with the Rucinskis and Bosherses. It's too bad Melotakis is on a bad 3-game stretch, because he's on the 40-man already and would be the obvious first guy on the carousel. The risk comes, if the team is otherwise contending, when the carousel guys all have results like Chargois last year and you wish you had Boshers back for mediocre competence.

*shrug* The cliche in baseball articles is to say "raising his batting average to .285" or whatever. I just decided to have a little fun since I dislike specifying a number so low any more often than I have to. "Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative," and I'm on the fence concerning Mister In-Between.

I forgot to thank Dick Bremer an inning ago for putting the jinx on Berrios's nono by mentioning it. Nice one.