Otto von Ballpark

In addition to Diaz, MLBTR has added Dustin May and Errol Robinson. Diaz and May were both FV 45 guys on Fangraphs preseason list, ranked 11th and 9th in the Dodgers system, Robinson unranked: https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/top-23-prospects-los-angeles-dodgers/

Taylor isn't chopped liver as a fill-in for Seager either -- 2.7 bWAR already in 2018, after 4.8 last year. I don't know what Muncy's defense is like, but he's been filling in at 3B and 2B too.

Nah, Forsythe would only be included to balance out the cash a bit (luxury tax purposes?). The Dodgers don't need to add 2 infielders, they already have Taylor, Turner, and breakout Muncy.

Nope. Sanchez had one GREAT year with the Tigers (best of his career, in fact), but he just fine for Detroit the previous season (12 starts) and the following season (21 starts) too, basically just as good as he ever was for the Marlins.

This is a very misleading statement/argument. First of all, 1991 was the record MLB game length at the time, up 10 minutes per 9 inning game over just 6 years prior. Using that as a point of comparison for 2018 distorts the difference -- like if I gradually started parking my car closer to yours every day for a month, you might not notice the change over the first 2 weeks, and the change over the last 2 weeks might be equal to that from the first 2 -- but you'd darn well notice the total change by the end of the month. (Yes, I parked too close to someone's car this morning ) Second of all, choosing 1991 implies that there has been a gradual increase spread over 27 years, which isn't true. Aside from a spike in the height of the sillyball era (2000), the average time of 9 inning games remained within a few minutes of that 1991 figure as recently as 2011. The increase "since 1991" has been concentrated in the last 7 years, which is much easier to notice. Thirdly, for Twins fans (and I think the majority of us here are watching Twins games almost exclusively), the averages are much worse than the league averages. 9 inning Twins games in 1991 averaged only 2:42, and in 2018 they are 3:06 -- a 24 minute per game difference! Just since 2011, the Twins difference is a whopping +18 minutes per 9 inning game. Using the average might understate the difference too -- it's not necessarily a uniform +18 minutes for every game, but instead it could create a larger range and more variance in game times. If the time of game is less predictable, it becomes more noticeable. Another change since 1991 is the unbalanced schedule -- 9:10 West Coast games are simply ignored by many fans, regardless of time of game. Replacing them on the Twins schedule with 7:10 starts that don't end until close to 10:30 calls further attention to the length of the modern game. (Thanks to Cleveland and Detroit, the Twins have roughly the same number of East Coast starts as before, but losing some of those could be a factor for other teams too.) And if you'd rather express it as a problem of pace than time, keep in mind they are related. Adjusting the batting gloves between every pitch adds up -- see this study of comparable games from 1984 and 2014, that found the time increase between "inaction pitches" (pitches where contact wasn’t made, and the pitcher received a return throw from the catcher) alone accounted for 25 minutes difference: https://www.sbnation.com/a/mlb-2017-season-preview/game-length

"Give me your setup men, your closers, your huddled masses of relievers yearning to pitch free" (of rigid bullpen roles)

I read it more like, the Return of Erv could make it easier / more likely to deal another starter. There's also the August trade period for Erv too.

Link: http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/pfx.php?s_type=3&sp_type=1&batterX=0&year=2017&month=10&day=3&pitchSel=429722.xml&game=gid_2017_10_03_minmlb_nyamlb_1/&prevGame=gid_2017_10_03_minmlb_nyamlb_1/ 94-95?

The stats from 2017 alone -- the ones most relevant to the Dodgers -- are most definitely not on your side.

Part 2 of the series is up, and I know we've discussed this topic around here: "MLB fans turning gray while millennials tuning out" http://www.startribune.com/major-league-baseball-fans-turning-gray-while-millennials-tuning-out/488240861/

Cash's managing was more annoying than it was incorrect, though. They held us to 1 run over the first 6 innings with a pretty suspect group of relievers. Interestingly, the relievers that ultimately blew it (Castillo, Romo, Andriese) are supposed to be the better ones. And don't forget the boneheaded throws by the Tampa 3B and 1B...

Sure, Belisle's spot could (or should) be used for that purpose instead. But given that it's not, using Magill's is the next best thing. I'm not going to give them a pass for mistakes involving Magill just because they are making another mistake with Belisle.

I think that's basically the rule, but you can't judge part "A" until the runner actually gets to the plate. Here's the frame of the video where the ball enters Sucre's glove: If you use your guidelines as a strict rule, you'll wind up with some silly outcomes. Which is why MLB specifically clarified the role of the ump's judgement for these situations: https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-clarifies-home-plate-collision-rule/c-93914144 You're not going to eliminate all injury risk at home plate, just like you can't at second base on steals, etc. But you can at least remove the "extracirricular" contact (where the primary goal isn't tagging the runner or the base), and the current rules seem to do that.

Sorry, I am reading your posts, and I didn't mean to do as you claim. It's just that, if that's your standard for "may have been the difference" then it's not really a meaningful phrase. Pulling Darvish one batter earlier "may have been the difference". Giving Bellinger the "take" sign a couple times, a lucky (or unlucky) bounce/spin/wind... maybe trading for a reliever instead of Darvish, and moving Stripling back to the rotation would have helped... they got so close to the goal, there are basically infinite factors that "may have been the difference" just as much as the statistical difference between Dozier and Forsythe in 2017. Put another way, if I was a Dodgers fan, I might be disappointed in the end result of the season, but the failure to trade for Brian Dozier would not likely enter my mind as a significant reason. (Especially since we don't know what the cost for Dozier would have been.)

That's fair, but I don't think it's so cut-and-dried. There are more useful outcomes for the Twins than just the comp pick. 2018 still has the potential to be interesting, and Dozier could be useful to us in 2019 -- and a potential QO makes it a little more likely that we could retain him on a one year deal. So I guess I'd put the bar a little higher than the pick we sold for $7 mil with Hughes (and that most observers valued at only $4-5 mil). As Brock says, though, we'll know more in 2 weeks.

See my response to Chief above. Highly speculative that Dozier would have improved the World Series outcome over Forsythe. I think there are fair reasons to criticize Dodgers moves from 2017, obviously, but "they lost the series because they didn't pony up for Dozier" seems to be particularly specious in that regard.

Well, Forsythe had a .297 BA and .435 OBP in the postseason for the Dodgers too, so it's hard to say that Dozier would have been better in that small sample either. Or better enough to matter -- they got to within 1 game of the championship with Forsythe, but Darvish put them in a 5-0 hole in Game 7. Forsythe hitting a HR in each of his 4 PA that game would have only been enough to tie, given he only saw 1 Dodger on base for him to drive in. (Forsythe did reach twice that game, by the way -- a leadoff single in the second, and a no out walk in the 6th to put runners at first and second.)

That's not close. 50 FV prospects like Kiriloff and Gonsalves are useful but not exactly rare -- there were 97 of them on Fangraphs preseason lists. And the Marlins already had the most in MLB, with 7. Packaging 2 together isn't any kind of special offer that gets this deal done -- if that was the best offer, the Marlins would just wait and try again later like the Brewers did with Lucroy. Some relevant reading: https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/valuing-the-2017-top-100-prospects/ https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/top-30-prospects-minnesota-twins/

Didn't Sucre have the ball before Cave got there? He had his foot out before he caught the ball, yes, but Cave wasn't there yet either. But I am certainly no expert on this rule.

Sorry, I thought I was clear. What was fairly close was the production the Dodgers got at 2B in 2017 (5th in fWAR), versus the same for the Twins (2nd in fWAR). The Twins obviously made the right call not to deal him for DeLeon, but likewise it appears the Dodgers made a wise decision in not offering more (Bellinger, Buehler, etc.).

Optioned after the start, so it only "cost" the team 1 day service time. And they can save a few bucks with a 24 man roster for the next 4 days.

Yup, Romero optioned: https://mobile.twitter.com/MikeBerardino/status/1018637448841191429 Hopefully they can line up Mejia to take the 5th start after the break.

Well, I'd prefer the shuttle not come at the expense of the starters. After the all star break, we don't have any off days until August, so there are regular starts available, and Mejia and Romero at least are interesting enough that either could deserve a few turns. If the 5th starter pool was Slegers, Enns, etc., you could probably rotate them with relievers.

My favorite Provus comment, he initially mis-identified Busenitz warming up as Belisle, and quickly corrected himself, as if he realized that Belisle warming could suddenly cause him to lose a significant portion of his listening audience.

A 1 in 4 shot is only 25%. Seems like you might be splitting hairs here. Murphy had very little track record, and was a major suspect defensively. (And his contract is up this year -- maybe the Nationals come calling for Dozier?) Zobrist had a better career and more flexibility, but he was a lot older too. And while the market hasn't boomed lately, I'm not sure it's down enough that Dozier couldn't get a $50 mil offer from someone with a strong finish in 2018. Just last winter, Jay Bruce got $39 mil and he sucks. Carlos Santana got $60 mil to go to the non-DH league. Cozart got $38 mil to play 3B/2B which he had never done before, and largely based on 1 season offensively. Chatwood got $38 mil. Even after Lynn's market fell apart, Alex Cobb still got $52 mil. Again, maybe not likely that Dozier hits $50 mil, but 25% chance sounds reasonable at this point. Basically the chance of him having a great finish and a little market luck, or just a good finish and some more market luck. Fortunately it doesn't matter today. If Dozier's bat is still hot in 2 weeks, though, I think it might be fair to hold out for a trade return comparable to the higher comp pick, especially if we still have an outside chance of keeping things interesting down the stretch -- and could possibly still utilize Dozier on a 1 year QO deal for 2019.