Otto von Ballpark

Mijares came up the same year as David Price, no less! (Although Mijares was a reliever in the minors too.)

I think "hope they keep him as a starter" refers to 2020 -- not to fall in love with him as a reliever long-term this fall. (Although I think we'd all be happy with the level of performance to make us consider it!)

Interesting info, thanks for compiling it. I appreciate the efforts to add context in your posts, but I think it causes confusion in some spots. The 162 game averages probably exaggerate more than they add context -- hardly anyone plays 162 games, and minor league seasons don't even last that long. Unless we want to compare our prospects to a typical Cal Ripken Jr. season! You have the right idea using ranks, but those too are problematic -- you hint at one issue by noting the Southern League only has 10 teams. But even that understates the problem with ranks, as most of the best prospects get promoted midseason and fail to officially "qualify." Kirilloff's 15th and 8th among official qualifiers becomes 34th and 19th among 150+ PA hitters (the minimum level to include Larnach). Larnach's OBP -- which you note would rank 9th among qualifiers -- actually only ranks 24th when compared to all players with 150+ PA. Fortunately, Fangraphs lets you set your own thresholds quite easily: https://www.fangraphs.com/minorleaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=6&qual=150&type=1&season=2019&team=0&players=0&sort=8,d or https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders/minor-league/?pos=all&lg=6&stats=bat&qual=150&type=1&team=&season=2019&seasonEnd=2019&org=&ind=0&splitTeam=false&players=&sort=8,1 There will never be perfect context in minor league stats, but I think the best bet is to completely ignored traditional "qualified" ranks and just eyeball your own arbitrary threshold. Then stick with that across all of your comparisons -- so you're not comparing Kirilloff to one size group and Larnach to another. Finally, focus on rate stat ranks ranks like you were doing (AVG/OBP/SLG/OPS, K%, BB%, even BABIP), and mostly leave counting stats out of it (which are too dependent on hitting environment). For wRC+ and ranks, you could even broaden it beyond the specific league to include the whole AA level, which helps with the league size issue.

Interesting, I haven't seen a specific timetable yet anywhere. Victor Caratini of the Cubs had the same surgery on April 15th this year, and started a rehab assignment on May 6th -- so he was only on the shelf for 3 weeks. Of course, that was called an "incredible" recovery: https://chicago.suntimes.com/cubs/2019/5/7/18619009/cubs-catcher-victor-caratini-s-incredible-recovery-from-hand-surgery Allegedly Delino DeShields had a 3 week recovery last year too: https://www.mlb.com/news/jose-ramirez-surgery-for-fractured-hamate-bone But Joey Gallo had the same surgery on July 25th and is still out, 32 days later, still reporting "some soreness" when swinging a bat (of course, the Rangers are out of the race at this point, with little incentive to rush him back either): https://www.mlb.com/rangers/news/jesse-chavez-hunter-pence-joey-gallo-injury-updates

KC and the White Sox did it, just last season.

3rd in most runs scored, 5th in fewest runs allowed? Yankees are 1st and 6th. The 1999 Rangers were 2nd and 7th.

Every successful player had to make adjustments to be successful. That doesn't excuse teams from any transaction before that point. Maybe Anderson shows some ability to adapt in those 20 innings, enough to beat out Zack Granite for a 40-man spot, and they want to see him work with the new pitching coach in the spring. Who knows? Maybe we ultimately are unable to help him make the adjustments that the Marlins made, but I'd rather try a little bit more than we did, than instead pointlessly trade him for -- in your own words -- "virtually nothing." If the Twins thought Anderson was no different than DJ Baxendale, well, they were wrong and I think it's fair to point that out. Let's flip this: in a bizarro world, the Twins are the ones who turned Schales into Anderson last offseason, and got some good performance out of him in 2019. Don't you think we'd see lots of posts here crediting the Twins for that pickup? (There would be adjustments to discuss too, but the original acquisition is related and a necessary precondition to making any adjustments.) In that bizarro world, would you still chime in to say that giving credit for the trade is pointless because there was no way the Twins could have predicted Anderson's success when making such a minor trade? Would you also point out that even if the trade was a success, it's not worth discussing in isolation because every team has successes and failures and all that matters is the aggregate of such moves? That's how your posts to me are reading right now, and it doesn't really make a lot of sense. I mean, if you think some are being too hard on the Twins and you are trying to counter that, I understand -- but you are making some pretty generalized, blanket statements here. There's nothing definitionally wrong with questioning the Twins actions and approach in this particular case, even if they've earned some credit from other moves.

Sure. I was just using WAR as a back-of-the-napkin shortcut, to show there is some good competition for best FA signing of last offseason. It shows Cruz is in the conversation, although nothing clear-cut.

Sure. But that doesn't mean it's foolish to discuss the individual outcomes (good or bad) on a fan message board. (Well, maybe it is foolish, but for different reasons. ) We can discuss the success of Ryne Harper. We can discuss the miss on Anderson. We can discuss all kinds of things. As long as we keep the proper perspective, there's nothing wrong with that. (And that proper perspective can include reminders that this FO, on balance, has done more right than wrong so far. Probably best to do that without dismissing the discussion entirely, though!)

Rule 5 (not V ) picks are $100k now -- but the bigger cost of a Rule 5 pick has always been the roster spot. Teams obviously don't have to try out every minor leaguer with good numbers -- but if a guy is good enough to be a likely Rule 5 pick, and close to MLB at a position of need, I generally want my team to try them out. Or at least force other teams to roster them under Rule 5 restrictions rather than trade him for "essentially nothing."

Ah, so you're looking for more of a "contrarian sportswriter's MVP vote" take. By bWAR, Corbin, Morton, and Fiers could each be the difference between their teams being in a playoff position vs 3-5 games out right now. Even Donaldson, LeMahieu, and Brantley, again by WAR, could each be the difference between their teams being 6-8 games ahead vs only being up 2-3 games, which can be important. (Imagine if the Twins were still up by 6-8 games... hopefully again soon!) I know, those teams probably wouldn't be trotting out zero WAR players in the absence of these signings, but the Twins probably wouldn't have a zero WAR DH this year without Cruz either! We can't give Cruz extra credit just because his predecessor was Logan Morrison.

It is pretty crazy, although it is the PCL plus the juiced baseball. Davis still leads the PCL in wRC+ (min. 70 PA) at a crazy 227, but there are quite a few guys with impressive numbers in that league: https://www.fangraphs.com/minorleaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=4&qual=70&type=1&season=2019&team=0&players=0&sort=18,d

I don't remember that. Cruz was traded as a rookie/prospect in 2006 but hasn't been traded since. He was on contending teams every year he was a regular, from 2009-2014, up until his Mariners contract, so I doubt he was being shopped either -- his teams weren't selling. FWIW, outside of one year (2010), he wasn't super valuable until he signed in Baltimore and then Seattle. 5 of his top 6 Rbat seasons have come since he left Texas in 2014. So I'm not sure having him 10 years ago would have made a difference for the Twins anyway. The trade talk that I remember from 9 years ago (2010) was the Twins potentially trading Hicks and Ramos (and/or Gibson?) to Seattle for Cliff Lee -- but Cruz's Rangers got him instead for Justin Smoak.

A team may have interest in 10 guys like Anderson in other organizations around the league. They can't acquire and roster them all, though. Maybe the Rays picked up a different one. Maybe they already had their own guy to look at. (I doubt guys like Anderson are shopped to every team around the league either -- maybe the Rays would have done the Marlins deal too if it was presented to them, or even beaten it in their own opinion, although the Twins may have valued Schales differently.) That doesn't mean if a team *already has* one of these guys, that they should necessarily dump them without giving them a low-cost look. I don't fault the Twins for missing out on another team's Anderson, although I hope we're always looking and we can pick one up occasionally.

I also acknowledge it happens to other teams too. Hence why it's not anywhere close to a firing offense in my book. But that doesn't mean it's unreasonable to discuss it. A guy like Dereck Rodriguez, with modest numbers in AA? He's too far away from contributing, there is a bigger cost to giving him a 40-man spot -- not a big deal to lose him. Oliver Drake or some other out-of-options guy? Zero flexibility -- generally not a big deal if we have to cast them aside. But Anderson sticks out a little more, because he was so close to MLB, at a position of need, and still had the flexibility of minor league options available too. Plenty of times those guys don't amount to anything either (Luke Bard), but unless you're really confident they're another Jake Reed at best, you'd at least like to give them a look first like we did for Curtiss, Chargois, etc. Especially when Belisle was still on the roster, or later with a new pitching coach.

Someone thought he had enough value to be a Rule 5 selection, or the Twins probably don't trade him. If he has even that much value, that close to MLB, I'd prefer to give him a look ourselves rather than trade him for "essentially nothing" as you say. I think it's fair to point that out.

I don't fault the Twins for not seeing his dramatic breakout occurring. But I think it's fair to fault them for not taking a chance on him being useful, at minimal cost (basically a 40-man spot), considering how close he was at AAA, how opportunities were available here, and how we had a new pitching coach coming in. And I guess I need to disclose that this fault is not worth firing over. But it's worth discussing on a Twins fan site, hence my post.

By this logic, isn't it wrong to criticize any trade, ever? After all, apparently no one offered more? Also, the Twins limited their own trade market for Anderson by leaving him eligible for the Rule 5 draft, which is I think what prompted the trade to the Marlins, since we realized he was likely to be selected. Give him a 40-man audition and there may be no reason to trade him. Wouldn't trading a guy for "essentially nothing", as you say, be a big pretty red flag questioning why you should be trading him in the first place?

Interesting read on that topic here: https://www.espn.com/espn/page2/story?page=lukas/081118

But with our roster flexibility, it probably doesn't even have to come down to Cave, Wade, or Larnach in a starting role. There's still Marwin, Arraez, Adrianza, etc. Also Cruz for a real disaster injury corner OF scenario!

Player to be re-named later!

Fangraphs has a much wider spread -- 44.9 career fWAR for Puckett, vs. 58.6 fWAR for Killebrew from age 23-34. Eyeballing it, it looks like a primary difference is baserunning (Fangraphs has Killebrew at roughly 3.5 WAR ahead of B-Ref just in baserunning categories, and Puckett as roughly 2.6 below B-Ref in that same). Fangraphs also has Pucket about 2.4 WAR behind B-Ref in batting, and 1.1 WAR in positional adjustment. Replacement level is a little different between the sites too...

Puckett's career was age 24-35. 51.1 bWAR. (Almost as remarkable, from his call-up in 1984 to getting hit by a pitch in his last career PA in 1995, Puckett played in 1783 out of 1843 Twins games, or 96.7%.) Killebrew's best 12 years were age 23-34. 54.9 bWAR. Looks like he missed significant time in ~3 seasons, although that makes his total WAR even more impressive. (He didn't provide anything before age 23, but he did tack on another 5.9 bWAR at ages 35-36, but it's probably fair to ignore that given the circumstances of Puckett's career end. If you want to get technical, Killebrew didn't play in Minnesota until age 25. His best 12 years here were still 53.5 bWAR, though.) Of course, players are more than just their career stats. Puckett had the best two single seasons between them -- 7.8 and 7.1 bWAR. Killebrew's best two were only only 6.5 and 6.2. Pretty darn close!

Paul Molitor had 3.7 bWAR his first year here too, as a FA signing. FA Dave Hollins posted 3.1 bWAR the same year *and* netted us David Ortiz in trade. Whoa -- Mike Morgan was worth 3.7 bWAR for us in 1998? In only 17 starts? Relievers naturally have lower WAR totals, but Aguilera and Swindell had nice years as FA signings. Juan Berenguer and Carl Willis too.