Jim H

I believe that Rasmussen does hold the same job that Knapp used to. I also don't think the Twins Pitching Philosophy has changed. They continue to emphasize working quickly, throwing strikes and working down in the zone. They discourage "nibblers" and while they don't discourage strikeouts they want their starters to get deep in the game. They want to limit walks. Nothing I have read, suggests the Twins will increase pitch limits, that is, 100 pitches is about it for most pitchers, most games. I expect that many fans want to see siginificant changes in this Philosophy. I don't expect that to happen. During most of the Twins run of success in the 2000's this Philosophy worked pretty well, with largely home grown or at least Twins developed talent. I don't know how this philosophy compares to that of other teams. It seems be to somewhat similar to what St. Louis seems to operate under. Oakland's is perhaps a bit different. Texas seems emphasize different things with their pitchers. Tampa Bay has much better pitchers right now, but I don't know that the organization's pitching philosophy is hugely different than the Twins. Personally, I expect that most organizations teach pretty much the same things. The difference is largely the quality of the pitchers.

The decision to retain Gardenhire doesn't upset me, but if he would of been fired that wouldn't of upset me either. It isn't my decision to make, and I don't know nearly enough to make an informed decision. Some of the comments made do seem a bit radical to me. The idea that Gardenhire is too old to relate to young players(not said directly), I don't know how anyone can know that. People said the same thing about Kelly, but when he retired, they kept him around to work with minor leaguers. Go figure. I think people just want change, which is understandable but doesn't guarantee better results. What is true is that decisions have been made, Ryan and Gardenhire will likely both be with us for the next 2 years, minimum. I hope people can come to terms with it, because it sure will get old reading comments on every thread why both of them should be fired.

As a former history teacher, I rather appreciate the reference to Cortez and the Aztecs. I don't know that it fits the point being made that well, but I appreciate it. I understand the love being given Francona. He has done a good job so far in Cleveland. He also has some warts. Some of his Boston teams seemed to underperform their talent, and I really do believe he deserved some of the blame for allowing/not stopping/not being able to stop the unprofessional behavior going on in his clubhouse. He is certainly knows his baseball and his players like him, which probably isn't as important as some think but at least that usually means he won't be an excuse for the players not to perform well. I guess I am not too fond of GM's who seem to make managerial changes every year or 2. I rather like continuity and expect there is more advantage to that then constant change. While it can be true that a change like Cleveland made can energize the franchise for awhile, that is usually a shortlived thing, unless there is a strong foundation there.

I appreciate the work that went into this post. I am afraid that what I take away from it is that if you have good hitters, platoon advantage doesn't matter. Also getting platoon advantage doesn't necessarily make you a good hitting team. Most of the teams near the top of your list in platoon advantage aren't really that good of hitting teams.

I want to apoligize to Mike. I don't want to be personal. This turnaround was basically caused by what the Indians decided to do 5 years ago. They had a nice home grown core of players, Martinez, Sabathia, Lee, Sizemore and others, but they weren't winning. Instead of trying to keep the core and build around it, they traded most of them away for young prospects. So in a way they built through guys they had drafted. They also punted away 5 years and got back lesser talent than they had. It worked, this year anyway, because the starting pitching came together. They really don't have much of a core group of players. I think Masterson is a front end starter, maybe one or more their young guys will be. Some of their position players are nice, but I am not sure any are all that special. Now, I am sure Francona and the new coaches deserve credit for this year, but really Masterson is just pitching back to what he has done before. So is Jiminez. The young guys are perhaps finally maturing to their talent. Maybe it happened because of Francona maybe it happens anyway. I am also having a hard time seeing how this is all that different from what the Twins have done. The Twins turned Cuddyer and Kubel into extra draft picks trying to get more talent. They traded Span and Revere for potentially high end pitching. The Twins have acquired a lot of young talent, (thru the draft,trades and internationally) probably or at least potentially, better talent than Cleveland. The Twins are just not as far along the rebuild as Cleveland. Now as I said in the earilier post, I am happy for Cleveland. I don't think they have a strong enough foundation for this rebound to be continue for a long period, but I could be wrong. I just don't think anything Cleveland has done to this point, is really anything that they the Twins should model themselves after.

Mike, You don't have to try to turn every thread into an anti-Ryan/anti-Gardy thread. Since that seems to be your plan, it would be better if you picked better examples than Cleveland. Since the early 2000's they have largely followed the Terry Ryan blueprint of doing things. Build through the draft, make shrewd trades, use every avenue except spend wildly on expensive free agents. The only problem is, they weren't nearly as good at it as Ryan was. Now they have a good year, largely because every starting pitcher on their staff is a whole point lower on their ERA from last year. You try to turn it into anti Twins management rant. Let's just be happy for Cleveland's success this year. If it turns out to be a long term run, well maybe we can learn something from it.

Sorry I didn't realize you weren't doing pitchers.

This quote by Ryan, I believe this is true. You can find teams that went out, spent massively in the free agent market and had successful years. Rarely if ever, did the success last much beyond a year or 2. Usually if it did, there was a strong home grown nuculeus to build around. I think that is what Ryan is saying and I agree with this approach. I do expect some spending in the free agent market this winter, and I hope it is an impact pitcher. Since, including international free agents, there probably isn't more than 2 or 3 impact (No 1 or 2 starters) starters I don't know how likely my hope is.

You realize of course that the number of games that Hunter missed was not markedly different than the number of games Mauer missed during their last 5 years together in Minnesota?

According to Gamevision Pitchf/x takes its picture at the front of the plate. Since the plate has depth and the ball can enter the strike zone from the top or the sides, the data supplied by pitchf/x probably is not accurate all the time. Framing does not steal pitches like Pitchf/x data seems to conclude. The pitches are probably being called accurately by the umpire a good share of the time. I don't doubt that pitchf/x is accurate at the place it takes its picture. What I don't understand is why a lot people don't seem to understand that the picture doesn't accurately protray the strike zone.

The idea that Pitch f/x is correct to within a half inch is wrong on the face of it. The plate has depth, 16 inches of it, and a pitch thrown by a major league pitcher has movement, vertical and often horizonal. No matter how Pitch f/x is calibrated, front-center-back of the plate, it is not only possible but quite likely, that on close pitches, a pitch will catch part of the strike zone but miss the part that Pitch f/x is monitoring. For example, using our favorite pitcher Correia as an example, 2 of the pitches he throws are a sinker and a cutter which runs away from a left handed hitter. For Correia to successful really, he needs the umpire to call his sinker a strike, even if it only a strike at the front edge of the plate. In fact if the sinker is a strike at the back edge of the plate or even worse, strike height where the catcher catches it, Correia will likely be in trouble. That will mean that pitch will likely have been at least mid thigh or higher in the hitting zone(which is actually in front of the plate for most hitters, especially pull hitters). For a sinkerball pitcher having a sinker that high or higher in the hitting zone usually means that ball will be hit hard if it is in or near the middle of the plate. Correia has to hope that the umpire will call the plate because if he is forced to bring the ball up to get a called strike he will get hit harder than he would otherwise. When Correia throws his cut fastball to left handed hitters, again he wants the umpire to call the front edge of the plate. Ideally he wants to hit front corner of the plate away from the hitter letting it run outside the strike zone further back. If he has to throw that pitch so that the catcher can frame it or have it be a strike in the middle of the plate where Pitch f/x is likely set up, well that pitch will be close to the middle of the plate in the hitting zone. He could also try throwing that pitch inside but then he wants to hit the back corner of the plate nearest the hitter. Here framing might do him some good if the umpire actually pays attention to such things. A Pitcher has to have good control to take advantage of the depth of the plate. But when Bert talks about a pitcher trying to bounce his curve right behind the plate, what he means is that pitch can be a strike or close to a strike at the front edge of the plate. If it is close the hitter may have to chase that pitch in a pitcher's count. If the pitcher starts that pitch too high it can be right in the hitter's hitting zone in front of the plate, even though if he takes that pitch it might appear plenty low based on where the catcher catches it. Often when pitchers are the commentators on broadcasts they will often disagree with Fox-tracks or whatever they call the the version of pitch f/x that broadcasts use. The main reason for that, is pitch f/x has no way to measure the depth of the strike zone. Pitchers understand using the depth of zone, even if they don't explain it very well.(I don't know if I have either) By the way, the depth of the plate effects high pitches as well. On high pitches, the pitcher wants to be above the hitting zone at the front of the plate, but hopefully catch the back of the plate in the strike zone, if you are trying for a called strike. Sometimes guys without great velocity can get that effect because their ball will drop a bit more than guys who throw in the high 90's.

To some degree the better results you are referring to depend a bit on sample size. If we use the last 3 years, well yes the Rays and the A's have much better results. If we compare the last 15 years, well the Twins would likely come out on top. I don't know if either sample size is exactly what we should be looking at. I suspect that both the Rays and the A's would like greater resources to work with. Both teams, like the Twins have come up short of winning a World Series and both have shipped off productive talent before they likely wanted to(sometimes called trading at peak value). What I admire about both organizations is that they both have found quite a bit of good, young pitching. It is also true that both organizations are short of home grown offensive talent. There are trade offs.

This was a very good article. Thank you. While I understand the impatience and even anger that many show towards the Twins organization, I tend to appreciate what the Ryan and others are trying to do here. I am old enough to remember when the Twins came to Minnesota in 61. In over 50 years of Twins baseball, there have been 2 periods of sustained competitive baseball by the Twins. The mid-sixties to early seventies stretch and the 2000's stretch. The 87 Twins and 91 Twins were exciting and fun, but both were the kind of rather flukey years that happen in baseball, not really the result of a strong and deep organization. I am excited for might happen over the next 10 years or so. The Twins have acquired some very fine front line talent, potential superstars. Things might happen and that might not occur, but clearly the talent is there. What I like, as you suggest, is that the Twins have not abandoned what has worked for them before. There are a number of potential Radkes and solid positional talent in the organization. Guys who will likely get the most out of their talent, and they could turn out to be better players then we currently expect. What is needed is a certain amount of patience. I have nothing against going out buying some front line starting pitching, even if it means overpaying. What I hope we don't see, is getting too impatient and trading potential front line talent for 2 years of even very good pitching. I think Kansas City will regret trading Myers even though the trade has made them much more competitive than they would have been without the trade. The discussion yesterday about trading Rosario illustrates what I mean. If you are sure he isn't a front line talent and he can bring back 2 or more years of top flight pitching, make the deal. But he could be pretty special, I think, and making this sort of deal is probably pretty short sighted. It could make you more competitive right now, but is highly unlikely to turn you into a playoff team, and will almost certainly make you worse 3 or 4 years from now. Personally, and I realize that many don't feel this way, I want a team that has a good chance to be competitive year after year for many years. I don't believe in rolling the dice and trying extra hard for a World Series in any particular year. It is too easy for what happened to Toronto this year to happen and now you have morgaged your future, saddled yourself with long term contracts that you can't easily get rid of, and each year your chances of competing get worst. Again I appreciate, your post.

I agree with diehard. It isn't a matter of defending the front office at all costs, it is picking fights that matter. Of course Pinto is helping his cause a bit for the future. He is getting to play everyday. Whoever the 31st and 32nd guys are, won't. It might as well be Fryer and Martis as anybody else you might name. Also there are other considerations that get miminized or ignored. Some pitchers have put in a lot of innings already(such as May) and may get more (May in the AFL). I think largely, the late season promotion thing can be interesting, but because it is such a small sample, its results tend to be overblown. Clearly most of the evaluation on these guys is based on their season long work, not some potential few innings or games at the end of a long season. Even if they occur in the majors.

We are talking about the 31st and 32nd men on the active roster here. I see nothing wrong with rewarding organizational guys in this way. The idea that you can talk yourself into believing that there are "rational" reasons to criticize this kind of move is what is silly. Neither Martis or Fryer is likely to play much, and if they do it not the end of the world. The "rational" idea that a "real" prospects should have these spots really doesn't make any sense. A few innings or games at the end of the season isn't going to make anybody better or make them more ready to help next year. This just looks like another way that some can find to criticize the Twins.

I agree with this 100%. Unfortunately, that is not what most people are talking about. If you can get a Sanchez, well yeah, he might not be worth the money but he will likely still be good. What I take exception to is going out and way overpaying an Edwin Jackson when you know he isn't really all that likely to be any better than a Correia. The only place Jackson has really outperformed Correia over the last 5 years is strikeouts. That gets him more years and a lot more money per year, but doesn't really make him better, or likely to be better than a lot of non strike out pitchers. I have no problem with the signing or Correia or Pelfrey this year or even if they are back next year. What I think the Twins will need to do, is try to identify the next Kazmir or someone like him, a guy who turns out to be good whether it because he has recovered from injury or some other reason. I hope they can try for a high upside guy who is more of a sure thing, and that they manage to get him. But if that can't happen, I would like to see some money invested in a guy or guys who have real upside, not just perceived upside like Jackson.

I agree that Arcia looks better in right than left as well. I also think that Arcia needs to be put there and just let him play. He is going to be good. As far as Plouffe goes, I agree with most of what has been said. He hasn't estabished that he can be a regular, but there is the power that continues to make him intriguing. Platooning him gets difficult with the limited position player bench most teams play with, but his positional flexability opens some possibilities. The Cuddyer comparsions have some merit, but his minor league track record and inconsistent major league play, largely suggest that he probably won't reach that level. Fortunately for Plouffe, he should get more chances or at least one more good chance to establish himself as a regular or a guy that can be a regular somewhere. Sano would appear to need a bit more minor league seasoning and that could be true about Hicks as well. There could even be an opening at first. I don't really think his glove is that bad at 3rd, and that is probably his best fit. Of course with Sano coming, he would have to fit with some other team.

I think it is a little early to make any kind of decision on moving Mauer. First, as far as I know, this is the first time he has had this issue. If the doctors believe it is going to a recurring issue, well then yes, move him. If that is not the case, well, then the Twins have things to figure out. Is Pinto a big league regular? Is Morneau a reasonable option to bring back? If not, who else do you want at first? How soon are all of these high profile prospects likely to make an impact?(Not how soon are they going to be in the big leagues) How soon will the starting pitching prospects make an impact? I think you figure out what is best for Mauer, and how all the other questions are answered around him. I doubt if A J is any part of even a short term answer much less a long term answer. I can see the Twins going several directions in the short term, but you can see some of what they hope to be long term answers in the system. For example, people are talking about what to do with Dozier. The long term answer at 2nd is probably Rosario, but there are certainly several different ways to get to that answer. A lot of what the Twins need to do, is figure out the best way to get to their long term solutions. That doesn't necessarily mean get them all up here as soon as possible. Unless, of course you don't mind looking like the Houston Astros.

I sort of agree with Mike, except for the cheap shot about the organization. Usually these things tend to work out. When Rosario looks ready to play in the majors there will likely be a spot open in the outfield. He will get to play some at 2b as well. If Dozier keeps looking good at 2b, well that could open up trade possibilities. I don't think I would be in any big hurry to move Dozier back to short. Florimon looks very good defensively, at times it looks like his bat could be adequate. I would like to see a bit of stability in the infield. Leave Florimon and Dozier at short and 2nd until somebody comes along that is clearly better. There could/should be a lot of young guys forcing their way to the majors next year. Some of them have considerable questions surrounding their defensive ability. I wouldn't mind seeing a bit of defensive stability in the middle of infield.

Part of the problem for me in this debate is that I suspect different people are using similar words but talking about entirely different things. If people are accusing the Twins of not using the "advanced metrics" commonly available to the general public, well I not so sure that is a bad thing. When you look closely at the "hot" metrics like WAR, FIP, UZR well, there are a lot of reasons to be more than a bit sceptical about their value. Now if the Twins are not using some of the customized analytical analysis that should be available to major league teams, that is a different issue. I don't know what they might doing in this area. There is some evidence that they are carefully scripting innings and pitch counts for the very young pitchers in the organization. Now, how they are determining this, that is what they are basing this on, I don't know. Again, when preparing for the trade deadline they were consulting with Goin on this, exactly what information he was giving them, well that was kind of vague. Ryan and the Twins organization can be rather closed mouth and rather vague about how they come to various decisions. That doesn't mean that they are using a lot of analytical research to help making their decisions. On the other hand, they could be using it in certain areas. It is almost certain that scouting will be more important for evaluation of talent then "advanced metrics". In other areas, well I don't really know.

While this debate is sort of fun, the big question is the concussion issue. If it getting hit in the facemask a couple of times a game brings back the concussions or doctors believe that will be the case, Mauer has to be moved. Otherwise, moving Mauer to another position will likely be nuanced. He will gradually play more at (I suppose) 1B/DH depending on health, available quality replacement at C, who the other 1B/DH's may be, just what the lineup needs to be on a certain day, etc. I suppose if Pinto turns into a quality catcher with an above average bat, moving Mauer, takes place faster. If that doesn't happen and Morneau is still around, Mauer will play less there. The same is basically true at DH or RF. Maybe one of the young guys(Sano or others) has a big league bat but not a big league glove. So they play DH a lot and Mauer plays more at catcher. As others have said, it comes down to maximizing Mauer's value, but guys surrounding him figure into this as well. I do think the Front Office will spend a lot of time trying to figure this out during the off season. If all the young guys(Sano, Arica, Buxton, Pinto and Rosario) will have impact bats and BE ABLE TO STAY AT THEIR PRIMARY POSITIONS, well you have one future on what to do with Mauer. If that can't or doesn't happen, well now you probably have to do something else with Mauer.

This is probably true. Still, there are a number of relievers and even some closers, who were primarily fastball-changeup pitchers. I can even think of a starter or two were basically fastball-changeup pitchers. Johan Santana comes to mind.

I don't know the answer to this question and if Fort Myers brass says it can be done, it can be done. Still, I was under the impression that there were rules to cover that sort of thing. It seems to me that a player at a higher level can't be demoted after his season ends to play in the playoffs at a lower level. Apparently, I am wrong about that, even though I sort of remember reading that, somewhere, years ago. Hopefully, if there are some sort of rules about that sort of thing, someone will find them and let us know.

A lot of the names proposed here would seem to be ineligible. Somehow I doubt Buxton or Walker are all that likely to be sent to the AFL. They have already had pretty long seasons for their first full years. Especially since they will be in playoffs. Usually the Twins sent several relief pitchers, maybe a starter or 2 that didn't get many innings for one reason or another, and often a catcher who isn't necessarily a top prospect. Since the Twins top prospects are either foreign born or a long ways away from the majors, it does become an interesting guessing game to figure out who may be sent. I could see Hicks being sent, if he is healthy. Kepler is an interesting idea, but I am not sure if he is really ready for that level of competition.

I suspect that there are so many things to consider about promotions that it makes the proccess a bit tougher than it appears from the outside. For example Fort Myers is "owned" by the Twins while the other long season afflilates are owned privately. Some consideration to keeping the fans and owners of those affliates happy has to figure in. Putting the "prime" prospects exactly where the organization thinks they need to be at any given time, is or should be very important. You also can't neglect those who might contribute to the big league club either. It is also well to remember that none of this is an exact science. Plenty of lower level prospects contribute greatly to the major league club, and some become stars. For all the talk about "generational talent", when you are talking about guys who haven't played in the majors, that kind of talk is premature. Hrbek appeared to be that kind of talent, and was pretty darn impressive as a rookie. Puckett looked like Ben Revere with a better arm his first 2 years in the majors. Hrbek went on to be good, but not great. Puckett, of course, turned out to be pretty special. What I think is that whether a guy is promoted quickly or not is usually not all that important. An extra few weeks in in low A or not promoting a guy to AA exactly when it looks like he might be ready for it, won't really matter much in the long run. Even if a guy spends a little extra time in AAA when every internet expert thinks he should be promoted isn't the end of the world. It seems most fans would like to see good prospects in the majors as quickly as possible. There is very little evidence that learning in the majors is better than learning in the minors. It clearly depends on the individual, but I would rather see the Twins be a little conservative on promotions, especially with very young guys, than push them up too quickly.