Jim H

You have a fun list. Exact rankings probably don't matter, and I haven't seen any of these guys play like you have, but Vargas seems pretty high. I would think him and D. J. Hicks are about the same till they get to AA. I expect at least one of them will have a lot of trouble with advanced pitching. I like Polanco too, but I wonder if he really will end up at short. It sounds like both Santana and Goodrum have better shortstop tools. It is just wether either can develop them and hit enough. I like the fact you have different young pitchers than others that do these lists. I consider that a good thing. If the Twins really have that many young pitchers that merit some consideration, well maybe some them will develop into something good. It is a lot better than a few years ago when the only young pitcher getting much steam was Salcedo.(other than high draft choices) Thanks for your list. I still don't think Deb Romero belongs, he has never dominated any level and even at AAA now, the numbers are not that good. I don't see another Casey Blake here. And yes, I am ribbing you a bit.

I am enjoying your list, so far. You make some interesting comments on the guys you have chosen. I don't place much value on the actual rankings on these lists, but I enjoy the facts about them and who appears on the lists and who is left off. I think some of your young pitchers are so far away that being on your list is interesting only in I didn't really know anything about them before. I also don't know why Deibison Romero is on your list, I would think he is largely a non-prospect at this point. Still, a fun list. Be interesting to see what you do with the last 15.

While I expect this is a different view than most of the people frequenting this site hold, I don't really care which free agent pitchers the Twins sign this offseason. I expect the Twins to sign 2 free agent pitchers, and perhaps even a 3rd "flyer" of some sort. I have no favorites and really don't think it matters who the Twins sign or necessarily, for how long. First of all, I don't think there are any difference makers out there(With the possible exception of Tanaka). Many could possibly give you a very good season, but are clearly unlikely to do that for the length of a multi-year contract. A very good season in 2014 from any free agent pitcher, isn't by itself going to turn the Twins into a contender in 2014. Even 2 free agent pitchers having such seasons won't. The Twins pitching staff needs some immediate help. John Bonnes wrote recently that the Twins Daily crew had identified 16 free agent pitchers better "than Correia". Beyond the fact that this is a rather low bar, he didn't set out their criteria. My guess is they are including guys who were better than Correia but haven't pitched much recently due to injuries. He could also be including guys who should be better than Correia but haven't been (like Hughes). In any case this is a pretty small pool, when you consider the fact the at least 25 major league teams are likely looking for starting pitching help. The odds of the Twins actually being able to get any of the guys they really want with that much competition, isn't very good. The only way for the Twins to get significantly better is through internal improvement. The young former prospects like Hicks, Arcia, Plouffe, Dozier, etc. have to get better. The youngish starting pitchers(Diamond, Worley, Deduno) need to be able to pitch to their fairly recent major league success. The near ready prospects like Gibson, Darnell, Pinto need to perform like we think they can. And finally, and most significantly, the true impact prospects(Sano and Buxton) need to get to the majors and be something of an impact, almost immediately. The potential free agent pitchers the Twins could sign and will sign, don't really matter very much. Unless some of the above begins to happen, the Twins won't get better. Not in any meaningful way. That doesn't mean the Twins shouldn't sign any free agent pitchers. They should and will. It doesn't mean they shouldn't sort through the available free agents, carefully and throughly. They need some immediate help and should get it. But, no matter who they get, the pitching help won't be that impactful. Also, the longer the contract the Twins are forced to give, it becomes extremely doubtful that pitcher will provide any help the last year of that contract. I hope that the Twins get a bit lucky in their free agent signings. I hope whoever they sign stays healthy. That isn't all that likely with most of these guys. I actually hope the Twins can sign whoever they really want to fairly short contracts. When the Twins start getting good again, well there is no way to know what they really will need and how much it will cost to get it. I don't want to see resources tied up in long term pitching contracts or least not to any of the guys available in this free agent class.

It seems many feel the way this thread is going, the Twins should draft a college pitcher with the no. 5 pick in 2014. I don't feel strongly that way, in part because I think the Twins have a lot of starter type arms in the system right now. Most won't stay as starters, and many will never make the majors, but some have top of the rotation potential. If they stay healthy and develop, they will reach the majors quickly. Pitchers with top of the rotation stuff, get to the majors quickly and they will likely perform at high level pretty quickly as well. They should actually (if they make the majors as starters at all) match up pretty well with when the Twins position player prospects start performing at a high level(if they ever do). What I hope happens is this, the sign at least a couple of free agents this winter. I don't mind if they are "make a wish" types, that is guys who are recovering from injuries and are one year contract guys. As far as the draft goes, just find the best players available, some will be pitchers in the early rounds. If any turn out to have top of the rotation potential, they will get to the majors soon enough. When the Twins position player prospects start getting good at the major league level, there should be some starting pitching prospects getting good as well. Who knows how all this will actually work out, but I am not too excited about overpaying guys like Hughes(who was a great deal worse than Corriea this year) or not drafting the highest ceiling prospect in the first round in order get a college pitcher who might contribute sooner.

I really don't pay that much attention to what other teams do in the draft. I have no idea who the Twins should/could/might take in the 2014 draft. I do think the breakdown of college kids versus high school kids is interesting. It seems to me that over the years there have been some patterns to how the Twins draft. During the first 3 rounds they seem to employ "the best player available" stragedy. They may draft high school or college players and there doesn't seem to be a particular leaning toward either pitchers or position players. After the first 100 players are selected it seems the Twins will still go after the best player available but with a greater focus on college guys, through about round 10. There are guys drafted in this part of the draft every year who turn into very good major league players. This is where the Twins found Kubel, Crain, Valencia and others. Kubel was a high school player but the Twins don't seem to take a lot of high school guys in this area of the draft. From about round 10 to about round 20 the focus is still largely on college guys but it seems the Twins focus more on organizational needs. Some years middle infield, maybe catcher some years, or often pitchers though a lot pitchers are taken every year. They might take a shot at a high school player in this range if he has fallen a bit in the draft and the Twins think he might be signable. Some of the new draft money rules may make this tougher. The back half in the draft is interesting to me. Often the Twins will draft high school players they don't necessarily expect to sign, but once in a while they will. Like a Brock Peterson or more often some toolsy kid not really interested in college. The rest of the signees can be a mixed bag. Often 4 year college guys from smaller colleges who had nice stats against poorer competition or major college guys who didn't put up great stats but may have some tool that makes them interesting. I think some organizations don't really put much effort into this part of the draft. I think the Twins do, but they still occasionally will draft, oh say the manager's son, or perhaps the nephew of one the coaches who is blind in one eye. As far as the 2014 draft goes, I kind of expect that the Twins will draft "the best player available". They might like to get a pitcher at number 5 but I think they will go for another toolsy high school position player if they think he is likely to turn into a superstar and they don't think any of the college pitchers available at that point will. Just a guess.

You are aware that in the last 2 drafts the A's have taken high school players with their first round draft picks? Whatever the A's thought was the correct way to draft in 2002 isn't apparently what they go by now. That isn't to say that the Twins shouldn't take a college pitcher with the first pick in the 2014 draft. But, I don't think your premise that taking a college player is always a better idea than a high school player is something most organizations follow. Including the A's.

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.

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

Good piece. I like what you said here. There is a couple of things that bother me though. First, I think the need for more Latin American coaches and Sano's behavior are or should be separate issues. Sano seems to understand exactly what he did, why the Twins disapprove of this behavior and(since he had gotten in trouble for similar instances before) the likely consequences. If that is not true, the Twins do have even a bigger problem. But assuming that it is true, the Twins had no real choice here, discipline had to be applied. All reports agree with you, Sano is a nice guy. At 20 he is probably a bit of an immature one as well. That doesn't change the need for discipline in this instance. Because Sano is a big part of the future for the Twins the whole thing gets blown up bigger than it should. The Twins have benched various other prospects as well over the last few years. I believe they are fairly consistent about this sort of thing. Whether we are talking about stars or scrubs. White players or minority players. Most pro athletes have big egos. They were all the best on the field or the court before they became pros. Part of what professional organizations have to deal with is getting all these egos to work together and respect each other. I don't think there is any easy answer to that. Especially given the disparate backrounds, differences in bonus money and the fact that the Twins are dealing with a bunch of kids in the minors. I do think the Twins organization takes helping Latin American players and really all players acclimate themselves to pro ball, seriously. Should they/could they do better? The answer is probably yes. At the same time I know they have classes for Latin American athletes and that they have a several Latin American coaches stationed at Fort Myers. It would be nice to know a little more of what they actually do before condemning them for what they do not do. As you suggested above, being a star and being a good guy are not mutually exclusive. I also do not think the Twins are trying to supress personality or curb enthusiam. What they are trying to do is channel it. Puckett, Hrbek, Olivia, Killebrew and many other Twins had plenty of personality. They also acted professionally on the field. Hopefully, that is what will be achieved with these young players as well.

I think the following are the most likely to be traded, in large part because they don't figure in the future for the Twins. Doumit, Thomas, Carroll, Duensing, and possibly Burton. Some that you mentioned could be as well. Certainly if the deal is there, Morneau could be traded. None I mentioned are likely to bring a big return, but only Burton and maybe Doumit figure to help much next year and there are possible replacements. Morneau is likely to be traded because of the expiring contract, not so much that there is a ready replacement. I have a hard time seeing Perkins traded, I can't see anyone offering enough to make Ryan let him go. But it could happen, I suppose. It makes little sense to trade Plouffe right now. Sano won't be ready for awhile, Plouffe could easily be worth a lot more if he can establish himself a little more. His versatility means that he can help at different positions if Sano gets to the majors sooner that I expect. Pelfrey could also gather enough interest to be traded. I kind of think that the Twins might just offer him a contract for next year. If he doesn't sign one, he is a little more likely to be traded.

Part of the argument here is based on the traditional reasons for having your best hitter bat 3rd. A manager has little or no control really, how many times his best hitter or hitters come to the plate with runners on base. The 1st inning is really the only exception to that. If you have 2 hitters who get on base at 30% or better, there will be somewhere around 100 runners on base during the course of the season in the first inning for your 3rd place batter. Largely, OBP of each hitter times 162 games, minus home runs, double plays, caught stealings, and if the lead off hitter scores on a hit by the 2nd place hitter. Putting Mauer in the 3rd spot will increase the number of times he will have runners on in front of him. Unless there has been a home run, if the clean up batter bats in the first, he has runners on base for him. There tend to be a lot of variables here, but if you have somebody with a good OBP to bat 2nd, I believe it makes sense to bat Mauer 3rd. You will increase his RBI opportunities and probably Willingham's as well. I think largely if the no. 2 hitter has an OBP in the vicinity of the clean up hitter(currently Willingham) then you will probably be better off with Mauer batting 3rd. If Dozier or Carroll can't get on base that often, then it makes more sense to move Mauer to the 2nd spot. Especially because moving the hitters up gets Morneau into the 4th spot. But, largely what I am saying is that I don't think it is any slam dunk that it is better for the team to have Mauer batting 2nd.

One of the things we all do is state an opinion believing or suggesting it is fact. Often on this site and others, certain opinions often are treated as fact, even though they often aren't even all that well supported by the evidence. The latest opinion to be treated as fact is that it is much better to bat Mauer 2nd than third. It seems to be believed that batting him 2nd instead of Dozier/Carroll will create 1.5 or more wins for the Twins this coming year. Lets look at this for a bit. Moving Mauer up to 2nd spot and Dozier/Carroll down will indeed take approximately 150 PA's from Dozier/Carroll. Mauer will get, maybe 30 of those if he plays in close to 162 games. Assuming Mauer has roughly 100 points more in OBP than Dozier/Carroll, that nets you about 3 additional baserunners for the entire season. The other 120 PA's will go to the rest of the batters who are moved up a spot. Most of these will have better OBP than Dozier/Carroll but the advantage won't be anywhere near that of Mauer. It is even likely that Dozier/Carroll will have a better OBP than at least one of guys batting in front of them. An educated guess would suggest that moving Dozier/Carroll down to the 8th spot might net additional baserunners between 3 and 7. Now, you also get an additional boost because all of these hitters have a better slugging percentage than Dozier/Carroll. So perhaps you get 10 extra baserunners and an additional extra base or 2. I am not sure how you turn a possible extra 10 baserunners scattered throughout the season into 1.5 or more wins. I think that the extra possible 3 or more runs would be statistically insignificant when stretched over an entire season. More, I don't believe it would actually result in any additional runs at all. Batting Mauer 3rd, even with a no. 2 hitter who only gets on base 30% of the time, would mean that Mauer will have roughly 50 extra baserunners on base in front of him in the 1st inning alone(based on 30% times 162 games). Since Mauer is the team's best hitter and best hitter with RISP, it is quite likely that giving Mauer more chances to hit with RISP will make up for the possible loss of baserunners by putting Dozier/Carroll in the 2nd spot. What I am suggesting here, does require that whoever the no. 2 hitter is, he has to manage a decent on base percentage. There is no way to know if Dozier can manage that, at this point. That is likely why Mauer is currently hitting 2nd. What I am really saying is, it is not a slam dunk that the team is "better" by having Mauer hit 2nd. That is an opinion. You can make some strong arguments to support that opinion. Just as I can make at least one argument to support batting him 3rd.

One of the things we all do is state an opinion believing or suggesting it is fact. Often on this site and others, certain opinions often are treated as fact, even though they often aren't even all that well supported by the evidence. The latest opinion to be treated as fact is that it is much better to bat Mauer 2nd than third. It seems to be believed that batting him 2nd instead of Dozier/Carroll will create 1.5 or more wins for the Twins this coming year. Lets look at this for a bit. Moving Mauer up to 2nd spot and Dozier/Carroll down will indeed take approximately 150 PA's from Dozier/Carroll. Mauer will get, maybe 30 of those if he plays in close to 162 games. Assuming Mauer has roughly 100 points more in OBP than Dozier/Carroll, that nets you about 3 additional baserunners for the entire season. The other 120 PA's will go to the rest of the batters who are moved up a spot. Most of these will have better OBP than Dozier/Carroll but the advantage won't be anywhere near that of Mauer. It is even likely that Dozier/Carroll will have a better OBP than at least one of guys batting in front of them. An educated guess would suggest that moving Dozier/Carroll down to the 8th spot might net additional baserunners between 3 and 7. Now, you also get an additional boost because all of these hitters have a better slugging percentage than Dozier/Carroll. So perhaps you get 10 extra baserunners and an additional extra base or 2. I am not sure how you turn a possible extra 10 baserunners scattered throughout the season into 1.5 or more wins. I think that the extra possible 3 or more runs would be statistically insignificant when stretched over an entire season. More, I don't believe it would actually result in any additional runs at all. Batting Mauer 3rd, even with a no. 2 hitter who only gets on base 30% of the time, would mean that Mauer will have roughly 50 extra baserunners on base in front of him in the 1st inning alone(based on 30% times 162 games). Since Mauer is the team's best hitter and best hitter with RISP, it is quite likely that giving Mauer more chances to hit with RISP will make up for the possible loss of baserunners by putting Dozier/Carroll in the 2nd spot. What I am suggesting here, does require that whoever the no. 2 hitter is, he has to manage a decent on base percentage. There is no way to know if Dozier can manage that, at this point. That is likely why Mauer is currently hitting 2nd. What I am really saying is, it is not a slam dunk that the team is "better" by having Mauer hit 2nd. That is an opinion. You can make some strong arguments to support that opinion. Just as I can make at least one argument to support batting him 3rd.

I think he should be batting 3rd. I hope Dozier shows he can hit well enough to hold down the 2nd spot in the lineup. I really think the best hitter on the team, one as good as Mauer with RISP, should be batting 3rd. Just the 50 or so extra base runners in front of Mauer in the first inning alone,(compared to when you bat him 2nd) provided by by even a below average 2nd place hitter, makes it worth batting Mauer 3rd.

At this point it is up to Benson. Willingham's and Parmelee's best position is DH. If Benson plays well at AAA, his chance will come. There is room for Arcia and Benson if they show that they deserve it. Even if the Twins decide to keep Morneau. The best case scenario for the Twins is if Willingham, Parmelee and Morneau all play well. Arcia and Benson play well at AAA and improve on their weak areas. At that point the Twins have all sorts of options. They could entertain offers on all 5. They could resign Morneau, trade Willingham or Parmelee. They could even trade Arcia or Benson if the offer is good enough and they are willing to put up with weaker outfield defense. I don't think Benson is out of chances. He will have to show he deserves more, but he is talented enough that he will likely get looks somewhere, even if the Twins give up on him.

It is surprising how few truly good offensive shortstops there have been over the last 30 years. There might be several reasons for that, often good offensive shortstops get moved to other positions and I think that the defensive requirements for shortstop are so exacting that finding someone that meets those requirements and is an outstanding offensive player is even more rare than I had assumed. Of the 3 "best" shortstops in Twins history Vesailles and Smalley were more offensively oriented and Gagne turned out to be more of a defensive shortstop. Once Versailles stopped hitting, he was soon out of baseball. Smalley was eventually moved off of shortstop as a fulltime position. As you pointed out above Gagne was not particularily a great hitter.

Brad, I appreciate the amount of work you have put into this. Unfortunately, you already know my feelings about WAR. To this point, I don't think you have really showed us anything we didn't already "know". The relative values of WAR don't necessarily mean much, you have already explained why. We already knew that really good middle infielders and catchers are hard to find, especially ones who are consistently good for multiple years. I suspect what your next study will show is that, with a few very rare exceptions, most of the value of the better middle infielders will come from defense. That will be especially true of shortstops. Since we are relying on UZR for that, that will make some of those conclusions unreliable. At least in my opinion. Still, I appreciate your work. I might appreciate it more if it was strickly an offensive examination, and if you had used more traditional stats. Nevertheless, I appreciate what you are trying to show.

I don't see much sense in adding Thome at this point in his career. He can't play the field. He can't run. He can't pinch hit if doesn't get regular at AB's at DH. If he DH's he takes AB's from better hitters. The Twins likely need a RH pinch hitter more than a left handed one anyway. I don't think that a 4 man bench really allows the Twins to carry someone as limited as Thome. I suspect that if he gets enough AB's he will hit some homeruns, but other than that he really isn't a good hitter anymore. I don't think he will hit enough homeruns to offset the low average and the need for a pinchrunner if he does get on base.

Brad, I owe you an apology as well. I guess it seems to me that WAR is the new hot stat, and it is clear far too many don't understand its limitations or even acknowledge that it might have some. Many of us are drawn to baseball in part because of stats and their historical importance to baseball. I enjoy reading well researched stat based stories. I didn't mean to imply your story was lacking in those areas. But I will say that I don't have much faith in conclusions based on WAR. For all the reasons above, and maybe a few I didn't get around to stating. And the general premise of the article. Yes, the Twins have not had many outstanding middle infielders. A few at 2nd, headed by Carew and Knoblach. I remember Versalles as well. 1965 was special, he deserved the MVP award. Gagne and Smalley are really the only other shortstops that were noteworthy for more than a season or 2.

One last thought on WAR. A major component of WAR is UZR. I dislike UZR because I believe the whole concept backing UZR is flawed. UZR gives a grade to every play a fielder makes. That grade is based on where the ball is caught. There are adjustments based on how hard the ball is hit and the handness of the batter. The problem with the concept is that where the ball is hit has no real correlation to how difficult the play is. That depends on where the fielder started from. Fielders position themselves differently for every hitter, often making further adjustments based on the pitcher, the pitch, the count, the number outs, the score, etc. The whole idea that a ball hit to a particular part of the field has the same difficulity no matter who the batter is just wrong. Clearly Thome and Revere would be positioned entirely differently even though they are both left handed hitters. There, I hope you understand where I coming from, even if I am a old, cranky man.

I am sorry you perceive it as a personnal attach. But using a one number to compare players playing different positions from different eras has so much margin for error in it as to be almost completely meaningless. At least that is my perception. You did say in the original post that you did not know how WAR was calculated. Now that is quite a bit different from not wanting to explain it because it is complicated. You also said there at least 3 different versions of WAR with strikingly different numbers. So there is no standard way to calculate it. You picked one because-why? This is the reason I have trouble with these new stats. You are taking or perhaps asking other people, to take on faith that these stats really mean much and the calculations actually lead to what they purport to represent. The problem is they are taking the original stats(which all have flaws) weighing them in some porportion which might distort them even more, perhaps leaving out stats that might even be more useful and creating one number. Now I understand why people use them, and I appreciate your disclaimer. But other than as fun and simple way to look at and compare players, it isn't very useful. It is also likely to be very misleading. Finally again, I am not attacking you personally. But I really think if you are or anyone is going to use these new stats, they better understand them, completely. They also better be able to defend them, because I feel they often lead to some very misleading conclusions about various players.

I find it troubling that people will use a stat that they do not understand. How can you say it is the best way to compare players when you don't understand how it is created? People on this site argue about stats and their sigificance all the time. And that is about stats that they understand. People use WAR because it is easy to use. The idea is that somebody can take a bunch of stats, weigh them according to the value THEY PERCEIVE them to have, and then combine them into one number that allows you to compare players from disparate eras playing different positions with roles that have changed over the years, and actually have that number mean something? All that and you don't even know what stats the various sites are using and what weight they are giving to each stat. WAR isn't really a stat. It is a convenient fiction that allows people to do some things that would be difficult to do with real stats.

I enjoyed this article. Good writing. There are clearly more than one way to rebuild and all plans have risks. It is not like Kansas City and Pittsburgh were trying to be bad for 2 decades. For all the respect Tampa Bay gets, they were bad for a good long while. They also are bit short of good position players right now, which might undermine their good pitching. I think the key is to hire a good GM and then give him enough time to actually implement a plan. Many franchises(owners) get impatient and after a few years, dump whoever they put in charge and start over. I don't know how many GM's Kansas City has gone thru, but you can see the results. They may of screwed up their current rebuild by getting impatient again. The Cubs have been largely bad for much longer than 20 years. They have had money to work with, and sometimes they have been decent for a few years. But they should of had some periods of long term success like most wealthy franchises have. I think that good management is even more crucial in baseball than other major sports. In basketball, one player can turn your franchise around. In football, a good quarterback and couple of good drafts can make you a Superbowl contender. In baseball, the developmental time for prospects is so long and you need so many that it is easy for things to go wrong, even with good management.

Thank you for this. I enjoyed the read. One question I wish you would of asked is whether the Twins have changed their philosophy in regard to drafting pitchers. I don't really think they have, very much. What I think is happening is that college coaches are using their best arms in relief, a lot more than they used to. I suspect that there are many reasons for that, but the one that comes to mind is that rather than locking your best arm in a rotation, you can use him more flexiably as a reliever. Thus you could, maybe save on the arm a bit, but still have him available for more critical situations. He wouldn't necessarily pitch a lot fewer innings either. Thus the Twins taking more power arms might be more taking guys with a little less wear and tear on their arms. Since they are being used in shorter stints, maybe they are showing a little more velocity. Kind of like Perkins going from a soft tossing lefty starter, to a hard throwing reliever.

Oh, I understand saber stats, but I think people need to understand that baseball is a team game. Your stats ARE dependent on teammates. You can try, but you really can't completely take the team out of individual stats. Especially pitching stats where how well you pitch is very much influenced by what the other 8 guys on the field do or don't do. And even when you make the perfect pitch and every teammate does what he should, it can still go wrong when the opposing hitter bloops one in or is just better than you on that particular pitch. It is important also to recognize that saber stats have as many weaknesses as traditional stats. Just different sorts of weaknesses. A stat like FIP will naturally favor power/strikeout pitchers because it focuses largely on when the ball is not hit. I don't really think that is a very realistic way to look at pitching. The other thing is the attempt to create new stats tend to back my point. Many times we feel that players are better or maybe worse than their numbers so people are out there trying to find new ways to measure results. Maybe it is better to say that stats are an inperfect reflection of what happens on the field.