Otto von Ballpark

Agreed, Chief. Although the sentiment might be more, "realistically, one bad spot in the lineup isn't too bad." The problem is when you start to think that way, if something goes awry, you're looking at 2, 3, or more bad spots in the lineup. Look at the Twins this year -- they are punting one if not both middle infield spots, which might be a fine in a perfect world, but they still have big question marks at 3B and RF, as well as some lingering questions at 1B, DH, etc. They could easily be looking at 3-4 black holes in the lineup again in a median forecast, which is bad. Some people probably approached the back end of the rotation the same way. It's a dangerous way to plan if you actually hope to contend.

I'd like to see more pitchers compared to Maddux, fashion-wise.

Just looking at BB-Ref's spring training stats (an awesome new feature there, by the way), so far this spring pitchers are posting cumulative 3.4 BB/9 and 7.1 K/9 rates. Here's how that compares with past seasons: [TABLE=class: grid, width: 300] SEASON BB/9 K/9 2013 ST 3.4 7.1 2012 3.1 7.6 2011 3.1 7.1 2010 3.3 7.1 2009 3.5 7.0 2008 3.4 6.8 [/TABLE] It would obviously be interesting to see how past spring training rates compared with the following seasons, but this suggests overall rates aren't too out of line in the exhibition season. In any case, Hicks' sample is quite small, so it may not be terribly meaningful anyway. Just something to keep an eye on, especially as the games get a little more "real" further into the exhibition schedule.

Rich Becker is actually a really good comp for Hicks right now. And as a reality check, his career might be Hicks' most likely "good" outcome, at this point (although injuries certainly affected Becker). Much is made of the Twins "passing the torch" in CF, from Puckett to Hunter to Span, but it's interesting that none of the three projected as stars in the minors.

Looking at spring stats, interesting to note that Hicks has only walked 1 time in 34 PA. That worries me a bit -- I want to see that OBP translating to higher competition, that's going to be key to his potential MLB success.

Not to be a killjoy, but I have to second the poster who stressed that Hunter was a late bloomer. You can't project Hicks based on Hunter alone. There are probably a hundred guys in every age cohort that post similar minor league stat lines to Hunter. Only a very small number of them develop at AAA and in the majors like Hunter did. You have to compare Hicks to all of those guys, and consider all of those potential outcomes. (Although Hicks would probably have a very different set of comparables, based on walk rate.) I would be curious to see what ZiPS would say about Hicks' career potential right now, but I'd give him rough outcome distribution like this: 50% bust potential (below average major leaguer), 30% average major leaguer, 20% above average (Hunter territory). And that's probably very favorable to Hicks, before we see whether he can continue his trends from 2012. On the radio yesterday, Dick Bremer compared Hicks to Andrew McCutchen. Another bit of a late bloomer. I would put the odds of Hicks ever posting a season like McCutchen's 2012 at maybe 5%? (Of course, McCutchen probably won't post another season like that either!) How many guys have we seen compared to Roberto Clemente, just because Clemente didn't become a star until his 6th major league season? I think Delmon Young even got compared to Clemente for awhile because of their ages and "similar stats". Comparisons are definitely fun, but it's important not to lose sight of the basic facts. Hicks posted a solid all-around season at AA last year after a few disappointing years. For some guys, that's their peak; for a special few, it's part of an improving trend.

I think the "extra year of control" angle is generally overrated: - If he's a solid major league player, they will almost certainly sign him to a long-term contract which buys out those seasons anyway. - And it seems the only way to save money doing this would be to keep him down long enough to delay arbitration, then go year-to-year in his contracts until free agency, but then you'd be taking an even greater "risk" that one of those years he might have a big season and cash in with a huge arbitration award. I'm guessing service time is very rarely an issue in situations such as these.

I think the article's contention that Harden "has served as a starter and as a relief pitcher" is fairly inaccurate. He has started 160 of his 170 MLB games, and never had more than 3 relief appearances in any one season (and some of those were obviously rehab situations). He also started 71 of 78 minor league games, with 4 of those relief appearances coming in his debut professional season in 2001 and at least one more in a rehab assignment. Any attempt by the Twins to use him out of the bullpen will be a conversion. It may be a necessary one, due to his arm health, but relief pitching will be a new role for Rich Harden.

Exceedingly outside, I would think. Unless you are referring to a player yet to be drafted or acquired. Sano looks too one-dimensional so far to be ranked tops in baseball, and Buxton is still all athleticism and little performance.

Me too. I've got a healthy skepticism about Buxton. Interesting to see him ranked high in a lot of places, but I think a lot of that is carryover from his pre-draft projection and #2 draft position. This year's performance (and next year's ranking) will be much more meaningful for him.

Actually, not as bullish as I expected from Seth, but still a bit bullish. For example, that team HR total would easily be a Target Field record, and almost match the Twins 2009 Metrodome power surge. Someday, it will probably happen, but I don't see that happening this year. Also, there are no predictions here for anyone to "crater" -- every year recently the Twins have had several players, even regulars, see significant performance drops (or fail to establish an acceptable performance level, in the case of rookies). I don't see that trend completely disappearing in one year. Dozier, Escobar, Parmelee, Mastroianni, and Benson are likely candidates for this in 2013. So is Plouffe, after his second-half collapse in 2012, plus rookies (Hicks, Arcia) and old guys (Carroll), of course.

Remember, that's not 50% higher than some "true value" or market value price, but simply 50% higher than the Twins chosen season ticket price. If you don't want to pay that price, buy a season ticket, or go to a different game, or just do what I do and watch craigslist or scalpers on the street. I posted this in the original blog comments, but it would be interesting to see this Twins historical ticket price data compared to other teams in the league. Obviously these prices have been a league-wide (or economy-wide) trend, but it would be interesting to see where the Twins fell on that trend line.

I can't speak for Gleeman or the Geek, but I'd guess it's all about K rate and BB rate. The guy has always had solid rates in the minors, even if he wasn't dominant, and unlike some other minor league relievers (Jim Hoey, Sean Henn), he actually carried it over to major leagues, at least for 35 innings last year. He's definitely worth a shot this year, possibly better than any of our 2012 relievers outside of Perkins and Burton.

Interestingly, I think it's precisely because Benson has been so terrible lately that he's in the discussion for a major league spot. Basically, he's fallen enough on the prospect list that his development path is no longer a vital concern, so he's not much different from the other warm bodies who could fill the spot until Hicks is ready. Don't know if that's actually the case, though -- he's not out of options and he's only season removed from some solid minor league success (2011). His presence in the competition could just be lip-service, and he's ticketed for AA again or perhaps AAA to play a corner spot.

Wow, that's some cool data! It would be really interesting to see how the Twins compared across the league, but I'm not sure if such thorough data like this is out there for other teams...

A related question: when re-posting a user's blog post to the front page, is it possible to copy over the comments too? I commented on the Ron Davis post when it was first posted on the author's blog here, then a few days later it got re-posted as a front page article, which is great (more people see it) but the comments started at zero again. Not that my comments on the original blog post were that insightful, but sometimes I might put a little research into them, and it certainly makes me less interested in participating in non-article discussions in the future if I know that conversation could get superseded at any moment by a duplicate front page article.

Brock: have you literally never seen this issue? I see some form of it every time I visit the front page or articles. Even on a completely different computer with a different browser and IP address where I'm not logged in to the site and I've never visited the site before, Seth's Rafael Perez article shows one comment on the article page right now, when the count on the front page and in the forum is 9. And even on other pages, the comment count near the top of the article page almost never matches the comment count on the front page or at the bottom of the article (even if all of the comments are properly displayed on the article page). Seth's Buxton article today shows 4 comments at the top when there are actually 8. It seems to be most prevalent on current/active articles, so I'm guessing some values aren't getting updated or refreshed as often as they should.

I still see it. Seth's Rafael Perez article shows "7 comments" on the front page, but only displays 1 comment when I click on the article. I have to manually find the forum thread to see all the comments. Refreshing the page or trying a different browser does not help. It seems like the article comment display is only built periodically, so it isn't in sync with the forum comments or the comment count? I also saw a similar issue when posting a comment a few days ago too -- that seemed to be related to caching. The article in question had 19 comments, then I posted on it. However, the article page continued showing only 19 comments, while on the front page and the forum, it was up to 23 comments including my own. In that case, I switched to a different browser and I could see all 23 comments on the article page. (I think I logged in on both browsers, I can't recall)

Rarely does a team go with a single strategy like you outlined. Virtually all of them mix approaches, and the Twins were no different this offseason: Kevin Correia fits your approach #2 in the Twins eyes (durable innings eater) Pelfrey straddles 2 & 3 (injury make good) Harden straddles 3 & 4 (minor league contract) Vance Worley probably fits plan 1 (spending) although the cost was players(s) in trade rather than money May & Meyer probably count toward plan 4 too (rebuilding) Most of us have argued they didn't do a very good job at approaches 2 & 3, and many are disappointed they didn't execute approach #1 on the free agent market, but I don't think there is anything unusual here.

Here are compiled lists dating back all the way to 1990: Compiled List of Baseball America's Top 100 Lists from 1990 to 2010 - Beyond the Box Score It would add these names to your list: 1B - David McCarty (16), Paul Sorrento (91) 2B - Chuck Knoblauch (72) OF - Midre Cummings (33), Rich Becker (37) P - Willie Banks (13), Rich Garces (15), Pat Mahomes (25), Johnny Ard (46), Mike Trombley (53), Marc Barcelo (70), Todd Ritchie (73), Kevin Tapani (88), Alan Newman (96)

If you are considering injuries or the possibility of injuries, nobody should really be at 100%, right? Actually might be kind of interesting to see your health forecast here -- Correia would certainly be the top starter then, probably at the max percentage for pitchers (whatever that would be - 98%?). Echoing some of the other comments: Gibson is way too high (dude's never pitched in MLB and has barely pitched since surgery) and Deduno is probably a bit too low (he should be notably ahead of Walters and Vasquez). In the bullpen, Burnett really should be 100% (even though many of us are not fans), and Swarzak's probably close to 100% if not for the injury. Tim Wood is too high (I don't think he's guaranteed anything), as are Pressly (always bet against the Rule 5 pick!) and Thielbar (although Seth seems to be a fan). I hope Butera at 95% is too high, but you're probably right, unless the Twins come to some interesting arrangement with Mauer, Doumit, and Herrmann.

If "might be" = "greater than zero" this is true, but: Walters has a near-zero percent chance at being a solid major league starter for a full season. Deduno and De Vries are only marginally better. Gibson and Hendricks are better, but perhaps not in 2013 due to their age and experience, and Blackburn and Pelfrey are still very big question marks for 2013 due to recent injury and/or ineffectiveness. And Correia is Correia. Not to mention that there are still serious questions about Diamond and Worley too. I wonder what are the cumulative odds that the Twins rotation is league-average or better this year, in terms of run prevention? I don't think I'd go any higher than 25% in my most optimistic take.

I don't know anything about Olt specifically, but Buxton seems like he is getting overrated a bit. True, he was the #2 overall pick, and a consensus one at that, but he seemed a bit "generic" as far as top draft prospects go (no really super-plus tools) and his rookie league debut, while not unimpressive, wasn't really impressive either. In a hypothetical world where he could be traded right now, I'd have to think long and hard about a deal like this, particularly if my scouts/coaches had developed any pessimism about him since the draft. Obviously 2013 is a big year to see if he can transition from potential to production.

I think they had plenty of reasons to dump Valencia, beyond any suspected PED use. Bullock is more interesting -- his suspension is for a "drug of abuse" and probably speaks more to his intelligence/character than anything. Could have been a factor in the Twins trading him.

Interestingly, the 1984 collapse was Ron Davis' age-28 season, and the 2001 collapse was LaTroy Hawkins' age-28 season. Obviously they rebounded a bit differently...