Otto von Ballpark

Then you understand your comparison was apples and oranges?

I think 2018 Kepler in 4 years, on a reasonable 1 year contract with two reasonable team option years, could absolutely still be an asset. Nothing elite, of course, but valuable enough to trade for something useful.

No. The average salary is suppressed by pre-arb and pre-FA salaries. You are comparing apples and oranges when you say "Fangraphs claims FA Kepler would be worth over 5 times the average player!!!!1!1!1!" Look at the average FA projected to produce 2.6 WAR. No, they generally don't get $20 mil for a single year, but they often get a multiyear deal with a discount value based on something close to $20 mil (obviously context dependent on projection confidence, upside, age, other options on the market, etc.). Michael Brantley just got a 2/32 deal with a 2.4 WAR projection -- given the age difference, that's probably not an unreasonable comp for Kepler on the open market. (Meaning, while Brantley has been better than Kepler, he is also significantly older which balances the equation a bit.)

So it's Fangraphs fault? I'd say Harper's and Machado's expdctations are more set by actual contracts like Stanton ($325 mil), Pujols ($250 mil at age 32), and Cano ($240 mil at 31).

FWIW, this isn't really how Fangraphs values players. They have calculated a rough estimate of how much a win (1 WAR) costs on the open market. Yes, they use this figure in a table to illustrate each player's WAR value in dollar terms, but no, they don't really think that Kepler should have gotten $21 mil or Dozier $40 mil or whatever. It's really just saying, a player projected to perform at that level could cost that much on the open market for a single year (a long term deal would involve long term projections/discounts, of course).

That's the value of a win (1 WAR) on the open market. Kepler is not on the open market, and won't be for some time. Every team is getting "steals" and "incredible" values from pre-FA players by this measure. That said, it's a good contract for the Twins. It adds 1-3 seasons of control at reasonable cost, which not only has the potential of value as a player, but also extends his value as a potential trade asset too.

I don't think so. I mean, I don't think players can use the "arb1" salaries from guys like Jose Abreu or Masahiro Tanaka as comps without context in arbitration. Or if a pitcher signs a contract like Pineda's, with a low first year salary due to rehab and a higher second year salary, I don't think those salaries can be used without context either. I suspect the system allows enough discretion to avoid that.

Gordon's not necessarily out. This contract could make Polanco a much more attractive trade asset down the line. Obviously, we'd all love for Polanco to do well and become a permanent fixture in Minnesota too, but if Gordon and Lewis force the issue, we could eventually flip Polanco for, say, a young pitcher down the road. Like Jean Segura and his contract was flipped for Taijuan Walker, etc.

I don't know why you'd say that is the premise behind analytics. Terry Ryan had the same premise, without analytics, and we moved on from him. The premise behind analytics could just as well be to identify smart risks to take. Also, everyone focuses on the extremes of Buxton and Sano -- but we actually have a pretty stable core right now. By definition, it would be hard for a young team to average 82 wins these past two seasons without a stable core. Berrios and Gibson look like 3-4 WAR SP for 2019, and Berrios has 4 years of control left. Rosario, Kepler, and Polanco all look like steady 3 WAR players, each with 4 years of control too. A couple elite prospects not far away too. Look like Fangraphs projects us to 83 wins, with only 2 WAR each from Buxton and Sano. We don't need to wait until we're projected for 90 wins, or at 90 wins, to supplement with significant external talent. (You are correct that this front office might wait until that point, and might not land a player then anyway -- but that doesn't mean it's right.)

On radio, yes. But not much on TV. As of 2014, "a Mariners game will occasionally be simulcast on Sportsnet Pacific but not enough to make it a consistent viewing habit." http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/eh-game/vancouver-s-mlb-debate--toronto-blue-jays-or-seattle-mariners-073118544.html All of Canada is considered Blue Jays territory. But, the Blue Jays elect not to enforce any MLB.TV blackouts, so fans in Vancouver can simply watch every Mariners game on MLB.TV. Here's a tweet from the Mariners TV network (Root Sports Northwest) actually advising Canadian viewers to watch on MLB.TV in 2018 (and also showing pitcher James Paxton being visited by an eagle at Target Field):

I don't understand this argument, in the context of not trying to add significant external talent this offseason. This was a 78 win team last season, and 85 the year before. Regardless of what the young core does, adding 3-4-5 WAR players right now could be huge to this team's fate. If this was a club like the 2012 Twins, or the current Marlins or whatever -- I understand. Adding a 5 WAR player might get those teams out of last place, but the odds are still very low that it helps them to the postseason. But the 2019 Twins aren't the Marlins, or the 2012 Twins. The 2019 Twins are absolutely in a position where they need to strongly consider all methods of adding external talent to the MLB roster right now.

No worries, I don't think the Phillies plan on flipping Realmuto right now.

FWIW, article tag lines are not visible in the forum view. Although I think the satire is obvious enough that it shouldn't require the tag!

Relevant video (probably behind a short ad, sorry): Saturday Night Live: "Wave Starter at a Baseball Game" https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/wave-starter-at-a-baseball-game/2724290

For those who support the proposed 3 batter minimum -- why 3? Why not 2? That would seemingly address the parade of LOOGYs and ROOGYs just as well, correct?

From what I've read, that is exactly the idea being discussed by MLB -- it's just the "end of inning" part doesn't get mentioned in most reports.

The Twins signing a SP was unexpected?

Span's was .718, and that includes his breakout repeating AAA.

But that also means there is still plenty of chaff to cut on the pitching side too -- why single out Granite? It's not like Granite, or Duffey, or whomever is holding the FO back on external upgrades anyway.

That's fair. I am certainly no fan of a parade of mid-inning pitching changes. But I don't think each factor is equal. The pitch clock factor has the potential to be huge. I know it's just comparing two games, but the example I linked illustrates that -- just 10 seconds between each "inaction pitch" added up to 25 minutes for the whole game! I feel like even talking about pitching changes, or mound visits, or intentional walks just obscures this elephant in the room The average time of game in 2018 was 3:05. I know averages are of limited use here, because it's highly variable -- if every game was predictably 3:05 like football it wouldn't be so bad, but you're right, we get too many close to 3:30 and there's no way to predict them. So let's say the range for most games right now is 2:40-3:30. If that average came down to 2:40 with a pitch clock, and the range for most games was 2:15-3:05, I don't think I'd care all that much about the occasional burst of mid-inning pitching changes within that range. Or a few more mound visits, or whatever. Just keep the game moving when no one has any real reason to slow it down, and I can tolerate a few slow downs.

*as the pitch is delivered* That's not the 30-45 seconds that players are taking between pitches. The catcher isn't leaning the moment he throws the ball back to the pitcher. Fielders aren't moving during that time either. All I want, and all the pitch clock is purporting to do, is to trim those 30-45 second gaps down to 20 seconds or less. Virtually nothing will change from a strategic perspective, and in fact it will be easier for fans to pay attention to the little things that happen right before/during/after a pitch -- because you know they're going to happen within the next 20 seconds. Not some longer time that varies based on each batter's glove routine, etc. And that trimming will add up, to significantly swifter games.

Here's another way to look at it: Pitching changes are up, but not enough to explain much of the time of game increase. Here's some breakdown: http://tangotiger.com/index.php/site/comments/are-there-more-mid-inning-relief-changes-these-days#4 An extra 2.2 mid-inning pitching changes per game (combined, both teams) between 1984 and 2013. On average, they probably only explain about 5 minutes of the 23 minute time of game increase between those two years (up to 30 minutes by 2018). I still understand how they are annoying when they happen, although -- they don't happen excessively every game, or even for more than an inning or two when they do happen. I guess there are multiple perspectives on the pace problem: some folks think the game moving at X speed, then shifting down to Y speed for an inning, is bad. But I actually don't mind that, particularly when it is connected to actual strategy -- I can at least ponder and discuss the strategic implications of pitching changes during the 1-2 minutes it takes to happen. Personally, I'm more concerned that the X standard pace of the majority of the game is unnecessarily slow to begin with, as compared to the Z standard pace used previously throughout MLB history, and still used at all other levels of play. There's no strategic implications to discuss about MLB batters adjusting their gloves or MLB pitchers circling the mound, certainly not for 30-45 seconds between every pitch for the whole game. That said, I wouldn't mind efforts to speed relief pitching. Although I'd probably try less invasive adjustments first, before I'd change substitution rules.

No, there isn't? Between batters, sure. But not between pitches with no one on base, generally. It's not like fielders regularly get repositioned once the count goes to 1-0 or something. Even with runners on base, movement and shifting is pretty limited between pitches, unless it's a SB situation -- and that's generally done right before the pitch, or during the pitch, not constantly during the 30 seconds leading up to the pitch.

Comparing to football is apples and oranges. It's a whole different experience. Within the context of baseball, there is no "activity" between pitches with no one on base that can't easily fit within 20 seconds.

With no runners on base, I wouldn't allow them to do this. With runners on, I think I'd require a pickoff throw.