Rod Carews Birthday

I can agree entirely that the Twins are not really in the same league as the Atlanta Braves are right now. It's a really good team on a really big hot streak. Ouch! It's like getting hit by a runaway freight train. Like you, I'm very willing to sit back and watch some baseball. Sometimes it will be frustrating, sometimes gratifying. Watching baseball has been like that forever, especially with the Twins. I also agree that once in the playoffs, anything can happen. If playing with the data can get the team a few more wins and get them there, we need to embrace it and hope that it can make up for some of the other deficiencies.

Nope. Sorry. That's research that would take more time than I have right now. I will leave that to you since I'm certain that figuring out who qualifies as an average top or middle tier starter in MLB would be problematic to agree upon. Going back to the original question of whether Derek Falvey has established a pitching pipeline, it is obviously going to depend on how you define what a pipeline looks like -- a subject upon which reasonable minds can disagree. In my mind, progress has been made, but calling it a perfect completed pipeline would be premature. It seems reasonable to say that there are certainly more quality pitchers in the pipeline now than there were five years ago, even with a few trades removing some. I'm optimistic enough to think that we are beginning to reap the benefits of this with pitchers like Ryan, Duran, Ober, Jax, and the like comprising a substantial part of our current pitching staff. Will Varland claim a role? Or will Headrick, Sands, Belazovic, Moran, or Alcala develop into strong MLB pitchers? Time will tell, but odds are pretty good. Some will surely be trade fodder, but others will likely have a substantial role in a future Twins pitching staff. That's more than we had a few years ago, so let's keep at it.

It is a list of only the first two prominent Twins pitchers that came to mind who no one would argue about. I made no attempt at an exhaustive list, nor would that likely convince you. There are certainly plenty more pitchers who have taken a couple of years to develop, and also a list of pitchers who didn't pan out. As a side note, there are also a number of pitchers who came in hot and then flamed out due to injury or ineffectiveness.

I like the concept a lot, since we need something (anything!) to get the offense going. First glance seems pretty good but I'm not sure that Gallo is up to playing CF, although he's a pretty good outfielder in general. I'm also not sure that it is "OK" to drop Correa that far in the lineup, although I think it's a good idea as well. The biggest key though is that we still have to get better production out of Correa and Buxton. They are supposed to be franchise cornerstones and they aren't playing like it at the moment.

OK. You've got me. Varland doesn't have a sub 3.00 ERA and isn't mowing down hitters. He's had some successes and has had a couple of pretty bad games. He's young and got delayed by a year due to covid. I'm willing to give him some additional chances. If the Twins were to DFA Varland he would be claimed instantly by every single MLB team, but let's not call that a success. If the standard is going to be this high, then current pitching pipelines are limited to Tampa Bay and Atlanta.

This is exactly right. Not every pitcher the pipeline produces will be a star. We just need to keep producing guys who will produce for the team, either in the rotation or the bullpen, or who can be used as trade chips to fill out other needs.

I'm not calling him an All Star, a Cy Young finalist, or a HOF'er. I'm merely saying that he needs a little time. Will he become a great pitcher? Who knows. He currently presents with the potential of a pitcher worthy of a spot in the rotation. If that happens, he certainly is a success story for the pipeline given where he was drafted. The average debut age of a major league pitcher from 2015-2020 was 24.8 years old. Not being in the league by 22 or 23 does not doom them to failure. Certainly there are pitchers who are up and good at that age, but there are also some who take more time. I'm not measuring them by whether they become Hall of Famers. I just want to know what they can do for my team in the next few years.

I would say that they are neither and that they fit into a pretty big group of players that hit the majors, take a couple of years, and then start to excel. Some pitchers are good early. A fellow named Blyleven comes to mind. Some don't get really good until their 30's, like Randy Johnson. So far, Louis Varland has done more to make me embrace him than he has done to make me dismiss him. We'll see how that materializes in the future.

Younger than Varland. Cory Kluber, on the other hand was the owner of a 5.00+ ERA as a 26 year old. Cliff Lee was a 5.00+ ERA at 25, the year before he broke out and became really good. My whole point is that it can take a bit to discover what they can do and dismissing Varland already is pretty fast.

Frank Viola had an ERA well over 5.00 through 56 starts in the majors. Brad Radke had an ERA of nearly 5.00 through 63 starts in the majors. There are very few pitchers who come in and immediately dominate.

There are always going to be choices to make when trading. Steer. . . sounds like he is a slightly less good Julien clone. Should they have traded Julien instead? Cano. . . they gave him plenty of frustrating chances last year and he couldn't make it. Sometimes the change of scenery makes all the difference. It would have been nice if we had figured him out rather than someone else. Petty. . . . we only lose that trade if he becomes a big star and he is a long ways away from that at this point. The Twins got will have gotten two very good years out of Gray, plus either a QO third year or a QO similar draft pick to the one they gave up in Petty.

When I see guys like Kiriloff and Lewis come up and have a good approach to hitting and plenty of fire in the tank to compete, it makes me wonder what could have happened to some of the others. Like them or dislike them as individuals, the underperforming players were at some point high performing players and are certainly not idiots, but things just aren't working right now. Hopefully the young guys can rub off on the old guys and some positive things can happen in the second half!

I'm certain that the debate is absolutely based on comfort with statistical/quantitative process -- or more accurately, discomfort with the process. Face it, this is "change" to a more traditional approach, and people hate change, especially if they can't completely wrap their head around it. As to more rule changes, I'm not sure. I think there are interesting possibilities, and things like the pitch clock and new steal/on base rules have been great. However, I think there is enough blowback on the extra innings runner on 2nd rule that we may be in a temporary pause on new rules. Or maybe he says "Hold my beer!" That would be fun!

You are correct that the key is W's and L's. I would suggest that the talent on the field not getting it done might be because they aren't as good as we want to think they are. On the flip side, since the pitching talent IS getting it done, the road to winning is mostly tied up in the bats at this point, so it isn't completely unfixable. No matter what the analytics say, it is still up to the players to produce and the offense is failing to do that. Fix that, and the W's and L's will take care of themselves. Now, if only it was that easy.

I would say that you have a great point. With infinite choices out there, it becomes a question of which items to choose and what points to prioritize, and sometimes getting that right is an imperfect science. However, that "human element" is a data point as well, just not one easily quantified as a single number. It's not that I think the game can be managed "by spreadsheet", it's that I think it never is by anyone, Rocco Baldelli included. The use of analytics just gives us all a nice target to fire at when the team isn't playing up to expectations. Put another way, what if the players just aren't as good as we thought they were?

Data and analytics have become scary words across the land of Minnesota Twins baseball recently. Rocco Baldelli gets criticized regularly for never lifting his head out of the spreadsheet or not trusting his players because the computer told him not to. Many say that the manager needs to go with his gut more often in order to win games or that he needs to take game situations to mind when making decisions. Let’s dig in a little bit. So what is this “data”? Is data all those batting, pitching, and fielding statistics broken down into every conceivable combination and minute detail? Of course it is. That’s what we all think of. How does Batter X perform against a particular pitcher? Are there platoon advantages to be gained from Batter Y? We need a home run, who is most likely to hit one right now? We just need to advance the runner, is Batter Z the right guy to do that? On the pitching side, how well does Pitcher A perform in his third time through the lineup? What pitch should Pitcher B throw to Hitter W to get him out? There are literally hundreds of different statistics out there to analyze and utilize. The breakdown can go on forever and possibly to the point of silliness, like “What is Batter Q’s hitting line against a submarining lefty pitcher wearing a red uniform north of the Mason Dixon line on a windy Thursday during Lent?” So that’s what we understand data to be. It’s all about numbers right? Well, maybe not. The things we think of a data are merely numerically quantifying and confirming what is true (or disproving what is thought to be true). For example, in 1977, everyone knew that Rod Carew was the guy you wanted batting if you wanted to start a rally. That was common knowledge. Why? Well, because he seems to get a lot of hits and walks and doesn’t strike out a ton. It’s a no brainer, right? Yes. That’s right. However, to use a simple piece of “data”, his on base percentage that year was almost .450 (I guess that happens when you hit .388!). Those numbers reinforce or “prove” that he was the guy that the Twins want batting in that situation. Until they don’t. Sometimes Rod Carew struck out. In fact, in arguably the greatest hitting season in team history, he made outs 55% of the time. Even so, he was still the best option in Gene Mauch’s and pretty much everyone else’s mind. What about that “gut feeling”? It’s called anecdotal data. It is a belief in something based on some evidence that the decision-maker values. It’s “the eye test”. He “looks like a major leaguer”. “What a great pitch!” Why do people say that? Because they have seen things happen that confirm their feelings. Their brain is comparing it to other things they have seen and is making a value judgement based on their experiences. We don’t realize it, but the personal computer in our head is keeping track and counting occurrences of how things play out on the baseball field. The brain is analyzing the data that it sees and is coming to a decision. We don’t think about it that way because we don’t think out loud and verbalize that we are analyzing. We just “do it”. No one needs to tell us to drive on the right side of the road, we just know (without knowing any numerical statistics) that driving on the left side would lead to very bad outcomes eventually. Back in days of old, when the 1927 Yankees came to town, managers (and pitchers) knew that they were in trouble getting through the heart of the order. They probably knew Babe Ruth’s and Lou Gehrig’s batting average and the number of home runs they hit, but that’s about all they had. The rest was just their gut – what they thought might be true based on what they saw in the past. As time went on, more and more ways to quantify those gut feelings came along and gradually came into broader use across the league. Do you think that manager Bucky Harris of the 1927 Washington Senators would have liked to have some statistical analysis that would help inform his decisions when facing the Bronx Bombers? I’m certain that he would have. He would likely have tried to use any advantage he could come up with and knowing where Ruth and Gehrig’s weak spots in the strike zone were would have come in very handy. Goose Goslin and Tris Speaker were good, but they were never going to keep up with the unchecked Bambino and Slambino. By the way, Bucky Harris was also the 2nd baseman in addition to being the manager that year who used whatever data he could conceive of to beat those damn Yankees. It didn’t work. The Senators were pretty good in 1927, but still finished in 3rd place. So let’s return to 2023. Why do people think that Rocco Baldelli uses data and analytics too much? Probably because he talks about it a lot and because the game across the league has changed more than fans of one team realize. Rocco is a smart guy, and a numbers guy. He’s playing the odds using as much actuarial science as he can in most of the baseball decisions he makes. Spoiler Alert: This will not always result in decisions working out! Just as with Rod Carew making outs 55% of the time in 1977, it is not an exact science. If Choice A has a 45% chance of success and Choice B has a 25% chance of success, I’m going with Choice A every single time, even if sometimes it will go the other direction. This is what insurance companies do all the time when they set the rates that they charge for your insurance policy. They know that sometimes they will be wrong, but the odds (informed by more statistical analysis than I want to think about or can comprehend) say that over the long term they will have made a good decision. Add in the human element and those decisions get even more complex. But Rocco still uses too much data! If you mean he takes all the information available to him and factors it into the decision, then yes, he uses too much data if that’s your definition. Did Tom Kelly use all the information he had to make decisions? Ron Gardenhire? I’m pretty sure they did and I’m pretty sure they would like to use the additional information that’s available now as well. Are they better or worse managers than Rocco Baldelli? I’m not here to answer that, but I’m certain that the determining factor shouldn’t be whether they used the most complete information available to them to make decisions. Sometimes the data will lead you in the right direction and sometimes it will be wrong, but decisions have to be based on something! What do you think?

If you don't believe that a player can make a difference, then you are correct and the Twins shouldn't trade for Goldschmidt (or anyone else). If a big and costly addition won't matter, then trading for a middle reliever or a depth piece will make even less difference. HOWEVER, for the first time in recent memory, the Twins have an actual legitimate pitching staff. Back in 2019, no matter how many home runs the team hit, no one would have confused the pitching staff with a WS winner. Right now our starters are so good that we are complaining about our top ten-ish bullpen. Additions on the offensive side of the team can make a pretty big difference when the rest of the team is a in good shape. A player of Goldschmidt's caliber could actually make a huge difference. At 35, with plenty of accomplishments and achievements, he would be an instant clubhouse leader, even for the other big names on the team. He is still hitting well enough to more than carry his weight. The question would be cost. . . Realistically, the Cardinals are completely out of contention and probably won't compete next year, in his last year under contract, so they may be ready to deal. He's expensive from a salary standpoint, but it's not my money, so I don't care. If Larnach/Miranda + Winder (or similar) could get something done, I say let's go for it. It's a heavy price, but those are players that may not fit the team in the future anyway. He's definitely the kind of hitter that moves the needle.

I think that the answer to the question posed by the article is "it depends". Some groups, whether they be athletic teams, musical organizations, or business partners, seem to thrive on conflict. The presence of conflict fuels their energy, creativity, and productivity. That can work. . . . for some people, some of the time. On the other hand, conflict can also tear a team apart if it is allowed to get out of hand and/or erodes trust in teammates/management. They key is knowing what the relationships involved will respond favorably to. It's not always obvious and it's not always easy. Interestingly, some fans are voicing displeasure about Rocco's supposed lack of being confrontational with his hitters to "light a fire under them". However, many of this same group would like him to defer to whatever Sonny Gray would prefer in his starts because, after all, Gray has already decided that he hates it in MN and will never resign with the Twins due to Baldelli's style of management. Hmmmmm. . . . .

I believe the answer is none that actually manage in the Major Leagues (or probably minor). However, many astute baseball tacticians here in TD are in favor of letting the pitcher keep on pitching, so that's meaningful, right????

And yet they are in first place. A win is a win. The much maligned bullpen came through. Enjoy it a little.

Deck chairs are what the Oakland A's talk about. Yes, the A's are a mess. Would you prefer being them? They would gladly take Donovan Solano on their team. He would likely be one of their stars. On this team he is a role player, and a pretty good one at that. Certainly beats Astudillo. Are the Twins playing like the Rays? Nope, but no one else is either. That doesn't make them a mess. Solano was a bit of a surprise signing who at the time seemed unnecessary. However, as the season has progressed, he has proven pretty useful, both for his flexibility (he can stand in a few places even if his defense isn't great) and his bat. Downbeat Magazine (jazz music) has a category of award that is called "Talent Deserving of Wider Recognition" and it is given to somebody who is really good but relatively unknown. On the Twins, that guy is probably Donovan Solano.

Who knows? If there is one thing that I find most unpredictable at the end of the season it's Gold Glove awards. I'm generally not an "eye test" kind of guy when it comes to baseball, but I find the fielding stats (old-fangled or new-fangled) to be puzzling sometimes when it comes to identifying the best fielders. Sometimes it feels pretty random.

I don't think it is an article of massive concern beyond making sure that he isn't wearing down as the season progresses. If he has good stuff, feels good, and is effective, he will likely be fine. It's when pitchers are allowed to/forced to grind through inning after inning that most of the bad stuff happens. So, my answer is, watch him carefully with the idea that you will let him keep pitching. I do like the idea of the occasional spot start by a AAA guy helping to give all of the starters an extra day from time to time. In the past, a AAA guy start was a scary proposition. Walter Johnson isn't sitting in St. Paul, but they guys they have there seem pretty capable right now..

And that's with shorter games this year!

Unless the team really thinks he is lost (or more lost) at the plate, I can't see a reason to send a guy with that many MLB at bats down to AAA. Having him available and flexible and effective with a bunch of options is a great thing to have. His presence definitely makes Nick Gordon expendable. Gordon could possibly be a throw in to a deadline deal this year. He might be pretty successful in the right situation.