Woof Bronzer

You're saying it doesn't matter what the count is, the odds of getting a good pitch to hit is all the same? Hot take.

Here we go with the fallacy that "in order to get extra base hits we must strike out a ton." Houston has struck out less than any team in baseball over the past 5-10 years. Ask them if they've had trouble scoring runs as a result. If there is a direct correlation between increased Ks and increased XBHs, I'd love to see it! For example, since the Twins struck out more times than any team in history, it would follow that they had more XBH's than any team in history too, right? Did that happen?

They're taught that - just like MLB hitters were taught that for over 100 years - because with 2 strikes, behind in the count, your odds of getting a pitch to hit are diminished. Making adjustments in order to put the ball in play is simply playing the odds. Which is what I thought analytics were all about.

Good point. I guess I'd rather they make adjustments while refusing to acknowledge past mistakes, than refusing to make adjustments altogether. We can only hope.

Little leaguers are taught, with 2 strikes, to choke up, go the other way, protect the plate, etc. We are at a point in the sport where little league teams have better fundamentals and a better overall understanding of baseball than certain professional teams.

"I really do not think it should be something we focus on," emphasized Baldelli. "Baserunners and hitting balls hard is really what we did. We did a pretty good job of executing and making decisions at the plate, things like that. We can talk, probably later on, maybe not today, about different adjustments we can make, that actually are a topic. Because "not striking out" is just a blanket statement that is not constructive. Not striking out is not going to lead us to more effective run-scoring opportunities." And this is why I have little hope for the future as long as this leadership group is in charge. This is a man who gets paid to know baseball; he does not understand that by definition, not striking out can ONLY lead you to more effective run-scoring opportunities - walking or putting the ball in play are both net-positive outcomes for an at bat. And here he is, unwilling to question the conventional wisdom he's been told to believe, unwilling to do an honest appraisal of what worked this year and what didn't, unwilling to consider if maybe he doesn't have all the answers, maybe he made some mistakes this year... What's mattered most is power, the ability to hit for power. The reality is that striking out less this postseason has not led to more wins. In fact, you're below .500 in that sense. That's a fact, right? Uh, no Derek, it's not. What is he talking about? The Twins struck out 52 times to the Stros 37 and lost 3-1. If you need to lie to support your case, maybe it's time to open yourself up to the possibility that maybe it's not the strongest case to be made. And the utter arrogance on display here: "that's a fact, right?" Falvey and Baldelli seem to be under the, again, mistaken understanding that you must strike out a ton in order to hit for power. Have they ever stopped to consider if it's a coincidence that Houston has led the league in k% over the last 7 years, has made the ALCS every one of those years, and still manages to hit for power? For guys that like to fashion themselves analytics geniuses, they don't seem to understand the analytics of an at bat. Your chances of a home run when behind in the count are so low. Especially 0-2. Why not adjust with 2 strikes? It's clear from these comments that this idea, taught to little leaguers, never occurred to anyone on the Twins. Hitting for power is great; swinging out of your shoes when you're down 0-2 is just stupid and flies in the face of the "analytics" these guys flaunt. I just cannot get over the arrogance of these guys coming off a season where they set a MLB record for strikeouts and ended the season with 6 straight Ks.

Winning 87 games in the worst division in league history is award worthy? Man, Twins fans need to set the bar just a shade higher. I get that this year was better than the last 2 but my goodness, we were the 7th best team in the AL! We don't need to crown Rocco for this "accomplishment".

"forgetting the fact that Buxton has rebounded from injury time and time again in the past, and isn't yet 30" This is such an odd thing to say about a guy who over his career has missed as many games as he's played and is coming off a season when he very clearly could not rebound from injury.

True. We may as well give up, we'll never beat them. Let's keep aiming for AL Central titles and call it a day!

Yeah trying not to overreact to the Astros series, but it's not like we've never seen the lineup dry up like that before - that's who they were for half the season or more. And I just can't see Wallner and Jeffers ever being elite. I'd argue it's really difficult to be an "elite" hitter as an HR or bust guy. Not impossible, but difficult. I'd argue that we do have an elite hitter in Lewis though. And Julien has earned the opportunity to see if can become one too. I'd love to see him get some at bats against lefties next year.

I agree, and probably closer to 3 or 4 if we really want to be serious about October. That said, do you emphasize this or a #2 starter? I know the answer is "both" but I'm curious where fans are at on the priorities. As someone who has been screeching for years about starting pitching I tend to lean that way but man, that Astros series was eye-opening on the hitting side.

Lol. Game Day is as official as me drawing a rectangle on a tv screen. If you think the problem is a close call, and not the fact that a man paid millions of dollars to hit a baseball watched the season end with the bat on his shoulder, again, don't know what to tell you. Robo umps are not going to solve your problems; you'll just blame the robots instead of the umps when your team loses.

The Cuzzi foul ball ended up costing the Twins 1 base. The missed foul tip in this years Game 3 gave the Twins a free baserunner. I'm sure plenty of other calls have gone the Twins way, but you like those, so it's not a problem. If you think umpiring had the slightest thing to do with why Twins lost this series, man, I don't know what to tell you.

Small sample size, no? Over the course of the season the cumulative ump scorecard (not official) for the Twins was...drumroll...-0.03 runs. Within the margin of error, i.e. statistically insignificant. The Twins are not "so often the victim of bad calls"; you just remember them more than you remember the ones that help the Twins. Which is normal! It's called being a fan. Umpiring all evens out in the long run.

According to MLB the current system is accurate to 1/10th of an inch. Relative to the diameter of a baseball this is 96.5% accuracy. This doesn't take into account the tech issues that the system (like any software/tech system) encounters. If a system is down for a couple seconds that's a 0% accuracy. There was an Athletic article earlier in the year about some of these issues happening at AAA this year. This is part of what some of us have been saying. The rule book definition of the strike zone does not allow for a precise upper and lower boundary of the zone. Here's what MLB says: The official strike zone is the area over home plate from the midpoint between a batter's shoulders and the top of the uniform pants -- when the batter is in his stance and prepared to swing at a pitched ball -- and a point just below the kneecap. So the zone varies by player and even by pitch, if the player changes stances. How thick is the line? Shoulders aren't totally flat, which point of the shoulder do you use? What does "just below the kneecap" mean to the 1/10th of an inch? The reason it's hard to find the data is because it's hard to measure the data.

Life safety is different than sports/entertainment.

My point is that fans do not actually care about fairness, and that fans are totally ok with bad calls that help the team. Look at the poster above who wants robo umps because he thinks they'll somehow turn the last pitch of the season into a ball. As your poll helpfully confirms, fans care only about winning.

I'm not a tennis fan, you're correct. Every sport that has gone down the replay rabbit hole has said something like "nobody is talking about doing X". They always end up doing X. Every sport that has gone down the replay rabbit hole has said it won't add game time. It always does.

I was a bit skeptical at the beginning of the year that he was another #3 guy we seem to stockpile, but his 2nd half was strong and more importantly he was outstanding in the playoffs. Twins have not had an ace for a long time (despite what many would like to believe) but Lopez fits the bill. Probably the most promising thing to emerge from the disappointing playoffs.

Agreed. I'm arguing that robo umps won't make things better, and will lead to further implementation of technology/replay that will make the sport - which already has issues with pace and action and interest and overall entertainment value - an even less entertaining product, which has happened in every single sport that has gone down the replay rabbit hole. I'll grant you the possible exception of tennis, but google "tennis bad umpiring" and you'll be bombarded with articles complaining about the umpires, so it would appear replay did not solve the problem of bad umps in tennis either.

We should take a poll. Would fans prefer a) the Twins win a playoff game due to a bad call or b) the Twins lose that game but it is umpired perfectly and "fairly"? My guess is 95% will vote for A and 5% will lie. Fans don't tune in to watch a crisply officiated game. They tune in to watch their team win.

It evens out over the long run. Umpire scorecards are by no means official and need to be taken with a grain of salt, but look up cumulative umpire scorecards per team per season if you don't believe me. This is simply false, and proves what I've been saying: fans don't want "fairness", and in fact they love bad calls if it helps their team. If robo umps would have made the same call you'd be complaining about the terrible robo umps.

We made the playoffs, and in those playoffs we had ourselves a moment or two. That's something. Thanks everyone for the spirited discussions this year, what a solid community.

If this was the case TD would have at least 1 article complaining about calls that went the Twins way and calling for "fairness". If you can find one please pass it along. And over time it evens out. Ask any NFL fan if the refs get everything right even with replay. I'm guessing not a single one will say yes. It's actually the opposite. When replay first came up the league said "subjective calls like pass interference will never be reviewed." One bad call in a playoff game and now suddenly it's reviewable. Review has so complicated football that fans can't even tell you what a catch is, and it has slowed down games dramatically. And it has yet to accomplish the one and only thing is was intended to accomplish: "getting all the calls right".

I disagree. Where a ball hits relative to a clearly marked line is simply a manner of camera resolution. The strike zone is not a clearly marked line. It is invisible, and dependent on the size of each hitter and the hitter's stance. Apples and oranges.