Woof Bronzer

Does anyone know if the Twins are still doing the "develop every pitcher to throw 3-4 innings" thing?

Yeah, that's the problem. 5 isn't enough, and those 5 aren't good enough anyway. That would be a bottom 10 rotation.

Especially when that owner is CEO and describes himself as "very hands-on,"

This team has won between 72-80 games for 3 years in a row. They "didn't do much" in any of those offseasons. So if you are looking for another 75 ish win non-playoff season, you're right, they don't need to do much.

If Tommy Pohlad really wants to invest in the team and build a sustainable winner, he could go out and overpay for one of the best FOs in baseball. The fact we have Zoll, a guy who rostered a player the team had no intention of playing for several months, and whose primary qualification seems to be that he's a yes man, speaks volumes about Tommy's true priorities.

I don't know, you started by ridiculing the notion that hits are meaningful as some sort of uneducated, old fashioned opinion. Then you erroneously stated the Brewers won Game 1 on a homer while totally failing to mention they actually won it on a slap hit after a bunt, the very strategy you dismissed as "romantic". You seem to be really invested in the idea that homers are the best way to win games. But this isn't what analytics are supposed to be about, as you yourself note. You also suggested anyone who disagrees with you is intentionally ignoring math. This is another trademark of the analytics crowd: if you don't get it you're just a rube. Here are some additional metrics that have a higher correlation to winning than out homering your opponent: Out-XHBing your opponent Out OPSing your opponent Out OBPing your opponent Out batting average-ing your opponent (lol) We need to end the cult of the home run. Home runs are one way of scoring runs but as teams like the Brewers and Guards show, you can be successful without them. Getting on base, hitting with power, avoiding outs, and being able to win games in different ways is more important than just hitting home runs. The data is pretty clear on this. Your comment about WS winners being top 10 in HRs perfectly illustrates what I'm talking about. You're starting with an assumption - HRs are the most important - and cherry picking data to support that. But in a vacuum that statistic is meaningless unless you compare a bunch of other data. What other statistics do WS champs seem to share? For example, you'd have to go all the way back to 2014 to find a WS champ who wasn't in the top 10 in OBP. That's math and data, right? Isn't that data point just as meaningful as your stat on top 10 HR teams? One could go through hundreds of stats like this to determine which ones best predict success. Yet you don't seem to be interested in this, and accuse folks who disagree with you to be "pushback against anything resembling math" and characterize analytics as "anything old-school types don't like". To be honest you seem to be the one pushing back on math, and labeling any disagreement as "nostalgia for How The Game Should Be Played". It sure seems to me like you are guilty of the very things you accuse others of doing. Analytics shouldn't be about fixing the narrative, and finding stats to support it. It should be about objectively analyzing data, and there's very little objectivity in your post. You are starting from a thesis you believe to be obviously true - HRs are of primary importance - and working backward to find evidence to support that, while ignoring all other math and data. You are doing the exact things you criticize "old school" folks of doing, just using different metrics.

You have perfectly illustrated the mindset I referred to in my post just after yours. If you are really interested in data and math, surely you would be interested to know that out hitting your opponent has a higher correlation to winning that out homering your opponent. 2026 playoffs to date: Outhomer your opponent: 15-4 Outhit your opponent: 19-3 2025 playoffs: Outhomer your opponent: 31-5 Outhit your opponent: 39-4 To be most successful in the playoffs on offense you need more than one way of generating runs.

That tied the game. The difference in the game was a chopper up the middle after a walk and a bunt.

Nice piece. To your point about the "HRs are king" mindset....the favorite statistic of the analytics crowd this time of year is "in the playoffs the team that outhomers the other has won x of y games". Gleeman will tweet this, Smoltz will mention it on the broadcast, writers at Athletic and ESPN will cite it. What they won't say, for some reason, is that OUTHITTING your opponent is actually more correlated to winning in the playoffs than outhomering them. (Data shows there are actually about 20 stats that better correlate to winning a game than outhomering your opponent. For some reason we only ever hear about one of them though.) So far this year: 15-4 if you outhomer your opponent, 19-3 if you outhit them. And it makes sense: HRs are hits too! But when you can also string a few hits together it's just another way to score runs. In the short sample size that is the playoffs, if you can only score runs 1 way you are a bad weekend away from golf season. Look at the White Sox, they were unbeatable until they very, very, very much weren't. They could only score runs one way and it cost them their season. Analytics and "Moneyball" was about finding competitive advantages to exploit. It was supposed to be driven by cold data. Now it seems like the analytics guys just want to push a certain narrative, like they've cracked the code to baseball that hasn't been cracked in 150 years, and homers are the way. I don't understand it.

Plus they'd be paying a defensive premium on his contract for 1 year at a premium defensive position. Jeffers as a poor defensive 1B at slightly above average offense is not worth the $20m/year for 3-4 years it would cost to sign him. I am also surprised by the number of fans who 1) trash Buxton for playing 60% of games, and yet 2) want to resign Jeffers, who also only plays 60% of games, to a long term deal into his 30s.

I guess I'm unaware of this "surplus" of which you speak. This team has won between 72-80 games 3 years in a row. We have an overall talent deficit. Unless we've got a skilled GM who is always fleecing the other team (LOL!!!) then MLB player trades are a marginal upgrade at best. The strategy of trading all our bad players for some good ones only works on fan blogs. I'll keep saying it. Look at how the Brewers, Rays, Guards, etc build their teams. They absolutely aren't doing it through marginal MLB for MLB trades.

Signing young guys to extensions.

Matt Wallner is from Forest Lake...just sayin....

Is there any evidence to indicate that trading MLB talent for MLB talent is a sustainably successful approach for a middle revenue team?

Unfortunately according to Tommy Pohlad, the plan - the word he used was "expectation" - is to make the playoffs in 27. This isn't surprising given the Pohlads' goal to clear their debts off the books and sell the team for the $2b+ they believe they are rightfully owed. Under Jim it was always a new 5 year plan every year, without ever focusing on the present. Now under Tommy it's 1 year plans, year after year, without ever focusing on the future or what it takes to actually build the sustainable winner he claims to want.