Otto von Ballpark

That's already pretty easy for most fans of the Twins (and other teams on Fox regional networks). Sling includes Fox Sports North for $25 a month. That's only $150 for the whole season, with no contract -- so fans can sign up late or drop early and save even more money if they like. Sling is available on most devices, but you can also use your Sling credentials to log in to the Fox Sports Go app on virtually every platform. Yes, it would be easier if they simply charged $270 for MLB.TV with no blackouts. But most Twins fans can achieve the equivalent of that already with Sling (or save $120 if they don't need the out-of-market games). A problem is still around the edges of "Twins Territory" like in Iowa. Sling and other streaming services don't always deliver the user's preferred Fox affiliate in those areas. Would be nice to clean that up.

But there is a clock in baseball -- we just don't see it. The game could go on forever, but batters, pitchers, and coaches have never been allowed to take infinite time to perform their tasks within the game. This clock is technically already in the rule book, but it's left to umpire discretion -- which has proven to be extremely ineffective. And I don't blame umpires -- the pace of the players has been slowing gradually, and umpires have enough on their plate without suddenly having to hassle every player between every pitch too. If it was up to me, I'd put a clock on each dugout rail, visible to pitcher, batter, catcher, and umpire, but out of view from TV cameras and most fans. A ball or strike would be automatically assessed for a clock violation, and players will soon be trained to perform within the normal pace of the game, as defined by the first 100+ years of MLB history and every other level of competition in the sport -- minors, college, high school, etc. There's nothing natural or traditional about the pace of players in modern MLB.

Pace isn't just a problem of game length. It's also about too frequent periods of inaction. Baseball has always been a languid summer's pastime, but it hasn't always had every pitcher and batter milking 30+ seconds between every pitch all season long. It can still be the languid summer pastime even if we curb players of that excess. That time between pitches can add up to a lot more than 5 minutes per game. I know I've linked this a few times already, but seriously it should be required reading on the subject: https://www.sbnation.com/a/mlb-2017-season-preview/game-length And it's not just about appealing to fans who find the current game boring. I love baseball -- but I would absolutely go to more games, and watch more games on TV, if games were a half hour shorter on average but packed in the same amount of action. (And even more time than that could be shaved off postseason games.) If you're wondering why, note that I like to bring along my small kids when I go to a game, and I'm more likely to do that if it's easier to keep them engaged in what's happening on the field, and I'm less likely to egregiously break their bedtime. Similar concerns when I try to watch games on TV with some elderly relatives. Also for postseason viewing parties -- it's a bit hard to convince guests to come to my house for 4+ hours on a weeknight, when they don't even have to do that for football games.

While it might seem that way, it's not so. Pitching changes are not responsible for the bulk of slowdowns or increased game length. It's simply extra idle time between pitches that is adding up: https://www.sbnation.com/a/mlb-2017-season-preview/game-length Edit to add: one can still be opposed to pitching changes and modern SP/RP usage, of course, on aesthetic grounds. But it's not really a primary driver of pace or game length issues.

I wouldn't generalize too much, but I'd guess that people get up during an inning more often when they expect the game to run 3+ hours, as compared to a game they expect could run only 2+ hours. Put another way: shorter games, with a quicker pace of play, would incentivize more fans to sit and watch the action. Not everyone, of course.

Problem is, virtually every NFL game is right around 3 hours, even postseason. In baseball, 3 hours is just the average -- there's a lot more variation, and you wind up with quite a few 3:30+ games too. And even that average balloons in the postseason -- I recall there was maybe 1 game this past postseason that was below 3 hours. Perhaps more importantly, the vast majority of baseball games are played in the evening (weekday evenings, no less). While the vast majority of football games are played on weekend afternoons. Add in the daily baseball vs the weekly football, and it's clear that 3 hours isn't equivalent in those contexts. Basketball games are only ~2 hours, so while they can drag at the end if they're close, they've got some wiggle room to do that. And I'm not a NBA fan, but I believe they made some rule changes in recent years to keep those situations under control a bit better. While MLB, to date, has done virtually nothing (no, the zero-pitch intentional walk didn't help). You're right that increasing the roster could slow things down further, which would make it even more important to make some real pace of play / game length changes.

Time between innings isn't really a "pace of play" issue -- that would be game length. Although even there, studies have shown the game length is more influenced by the extra idle time between pitches (the real "pace of play" problem): https://www.sbnation.com/a/mlb-2017-season-preview/game-length

He was probably juicing. It should be 286* (with an asterisk)

There's a bit of a quality/upside difference between Odorizzi and Cole. By fWAR, remember Cole hit 5.5 fWAR in 2015 and was considered one of the best aces in the game; Odorizzi has yet to eclipse 3 fWAR in a season. Cole had twice topped 200 IP in a season too, even without the DH, compared to Odorizzi topping out at 187, his only season eclipsing 170. I don't think anyone would argue the Twins can't emulate the Odorizzi trade from time to time -- TR's acquisition of Luis Castillo fit that mold, Bill Smith basically did it when he acquired Pavano, Rauch, and Cabrera, etc.

I think they were lower value than the Astros guys a year ago, sure. The Astros gave up 3 guys who were very much MLB ready, plus another guy. Musgrove was a roughly league average MLB SP in 2018 when healthy (19 starts); Moran could be viewed as roughly average MLB regular too, depending on how your view his defense (metrics didn't like it). I'm not sure if Gordon or Gonsalves are even MLB ready at that level today, a year later. And I don't think Pittsburgh was trying to rebuild with this trade, but rather reload. There's more to value than MLB readiness, of course, but it's not like Gonsalves and Gordon had notably higher ceilings than Musgrove and Moran either, even if the Pirates were thinking rebuild at the time.

FWIW, Reed also had a ~.450 BABIP in the minors last year.

I read it as, if the pitching depth is bad enough to justify adding Perez, it's probably bad enough to justify doing something more than simply adding Perez.

You are incorrect. Cave is not out of options. 2018 was his first option year, so he has two option years remaining. Granite has 1 option year remaining. Reed is out of options (as is Austin).

Wilin Rosario was considered a poor defensive catcher, and that was 5 years ago. Looks like the Rockies basically quit using him at catcher in his final MLB season (2015), and I am guessing he hasn't played it much since. This seems like strictly a Rochester 1B/DH reinforcement, kind of like Jeff Clement a few years ago.

Agreed that this team should be adding near the top of the rotation, rather than likely at the bottom. But I am glad that they're not penciling in any of those AA/AAA pitchers for the opening day rotation. Really only Romero and Mejia interest me right now, and Romero is apparently ticketed for the pen and Mejia's 2018 season ended rather ominously with concerns around his elbow...

And like Marte was, Polanco is still a year away from arbitration. Seems like he would have more incentive to negotiate than some others. (Berrios is also still a year away from arb.)

Could just mean they're just not that far along yet in trade talks. Or they know Realmuto won't sign an extension, so it would be pointless to agree to a trade contingent on an extension.

Yeah, I'd like to aim higher than either Perez or Pomeranz. But there are definitely reasons to prefer Pomeranz -- better peripherals, more extensive experience out of the pen. Also cheaper / easier to cut.

And Perez has actually been decent for most of that time. Career 97 ERA+, even after his awful 2018. 198 and 185 innings pitched in 2016 and 2017, respectively (with 104 and 100 ERA+ marks too). I don't necessarily like the signing, but mainly because I wanted an addition at the top of the rotation or pen. But Perez has had a good career, and stands a good chance of slotting in the middle of our rotation or pen, or at least as a quality 5th guy.

To that I'd say: how much are the proponents of WAR actually trying to frame their muffins as "healthy" -- versus how much are skeptics simply seeing that as an excuse to pick it apart? In this very thread, we've seen someone dismiss WAR because "there's no way Billy Hamilton can be equal to Mike Trout" -- nevermind that WAR doesn't say that, and no one said it. And other sentiments that suggest Daniel Palka might be unfairly underrated by WAR -- when his entire profile (traditional stats and scouting) seems to match his 2018 WAR exactly, as a one-dimensional, fringe MLB regular. I am not trying to pick on anyone, or be combative -- I genuinely enjoy discussions on this site, I wouldn't be typing these long screeds if I didn't. And I think that WAR is a tool that can add depth to those discussions. So I really want to know if and when people perceive that WAR is being used inappropriately, so I can understand their concerns and try to improve my usage of WAR or even just my explanations and interpretations. Perhaps this thread has run its course to that end, but I hope you keep this in mind in future discussions.

That's not quite what it says. True, a run is a run is a run on the scoreboard -- but over the long run, it's worth more to a *team* to score or prevent runs at positions where the talent to do so is more scarce. That is what WAR is estimating, to complement what we know from the daily scoreboard. The defensive spectrum has been known in some form or other since the game began. The skill of playing as an average defensive CF, SS, or especially catcher is much more rare than the skill of playing as an average defensive 1B (or god forbid, DH!). And with that rarer defensive skill, it also means that, on average, it is slightly harder to find an average MLB bat at those positions too. Historical data bears this out. So a team isn't capturing as much value from Ernie Banks at 1B as compared to SS, or Joe Mauer at 1B compared to C. WAR is reflecting that. And baseball teams are bunched close enough together in talent that I guarantee front offices wouldn't shrug it off as "a run is a run is a run" if they can help it -- they are going to want to reallocate those resources to improve their team relative to their competition. WAR isn't necessarily an absolute measure of a player's performance. It often can be used that way, because teams generally don't play guys out of position too much or for too long -- but it's important to keep in mind that it is really a measure of a player's value within a team, or their value as deployed by a team. I'll gladly include an asterisk if I have reason to discuss Darin Erstad's WAR at 1B, but that doesn't mean WAR is good for absolutely nothing (say it again).

I discussed this upthread. What exactly is the problem that you see? The positional adjustment isn't perfect (again, an impossible standard), but how teams deploy resources across the 9 positions affects the value they receive from those resources. WAR and its related discussions are better off incorporating a calculated estimate of that value rather than ignoring it, or relying solely on an "eye test" to do it.

I think context matters. An MVP discussion isn't that important to require all sorts of caveats about using WAR. It's a simple fan ranking, the digital version of bleacher discussions since the game began. WAR has just finally allowed those discussions to gain a little complexity and nuance beyond the previously irrefutable "he looks good" or "he doesn't look good enough". I think using WAR in that context is perfectly appropriate, even if WAR isn't perfect (an impossible standard anyway). In the context of recommending or judging transactions, usually a little more nuance is called for, and most often it is provided. Those discussions often use projections, which by definition smooth out some of the rough edges of WAR measurement. Like the Realmuto discussion here the other day -- we were in talking in terms of WAR, but no one was simply taking Realmuto's 2018 WAR as gospel or anything. It was just one data point feeding his 2019 projection, which in turn was balanced by other factors and even presented as a range of possibilities rather than anything certain. And again -- this is a tool for the fan's toolbox. We knew the front office isn't pouring over Realmuto's WAR totals -- there are a million other factors which they are looking at. But those factors are often either off-limits or indecipherable to fans, so we simply use the tools we can -- WAR, projections, comps -- to guide our discussions, often as a "sanity check". Some posters really want Realmuto, but wonder if the prospect cost is too steep, or they wonder if a SP might be a better investment, and they can use WAR and projections to get an idea of parameters to discuss those questions in a way that fans never could before. Also, FWIW, it seems to me that Fangraphs isn't shy about noting when defense makes up an abnormally large part of someone's WAR. Maybe not in every list or ranking, but when they specifically discuss Buxton's 2017, or Kiermaier, or even Bryce Harper's 2018, the defensive component of WAR is usually highlighted. Sometimes they stand by their measurement, sometimes not -- but noting it at least allows the reader to factor that into their own opinion.

How does the positional adjustment "considerably weaken" cross-positional comparisons with WAR? Cross-positional comparison using WAR is impossible without the positional adjustment.

I don't think that is an accurate characterization of driv's post. He said would be interested in a Gibson extension, but not "if the price [to extend] is basically the same as what it would be in free agency". In that case, you may even "replace" Gibson with Gibson next winter -- just no point in locking into it now if there is no discount.