Jham

For instance.

Home runs are not luck which is why they don't factor into BABIP right? So the fact that he went from 7 to 0 leads me to believe something more significant was wrong with DanSan last year. The eye test, to me indicated a player who lost confidence and was trying hard not to strike out. Rather than trying to drive the ball, he was trying to guide it or just make contact. I think that cautious approach got him behind in counts, caused weaker contact, made him chase more, and slowed his bat speed. You'd expect fewer to no home runs that way, and that's what we got. Maybe Bruno can work in a little leg kick action for Danny. The kids got talent and he's darn likeable.

Not necessary, not meant to be offensive either. We've all heard the speculation. No need to go there. Sorry if I was poking the bear. Bottom line, I am expecting a continuation of the downward trend, but not a large one. I do see his issues as a bat speed problem rather than a concussion thing. His previously elite bat speed allowed him to watch pitches a split second longer without hurting him much anywhere but the power department. As his bat has slowed, he is not able to let the ball get as deep, he's had to guess more, start his swing earlier, and try to pull the ball more. So far, this transition has been difficult for him. I doubt it will become any easier. In defense of the poster who predicted 20 HR, the transition from an up-the-middle/away average guy to a pull/power guy is pretty common. AJ Pierzynski comes to mind. But usually that transition happens earlier in the career.

.265/.340/.740 11 HR's, Career high in K's, low in walks, possible made-up injury, possible retirement, tons of temptation to go PED on recovery. On the bright side, he was very very good coming off of his surgery and rehab 2 years before a contract year last time around. So maybe he'll surprise me.

I get your arguments. As I've stated, I'm not saying anyone is wrong for wanting to see May start. You've pointed out the mixed data I've been referring to, perhaps unsustainable walk rate, perhaps unsustainable BABIP... In terms of value of eating innings, every average starter will likely contribute to more wins than every above average reliever, at least on paper. We could go to a 6 man rotation, and take some innings away from the other 5 starters. We could swap May's innings for [insert starter] and hope that there would be no drop-off in the pen. In my opinion, the safest route based on actual major league track record, is to put May in the pen. Perhaps this lacks some upside compared to May in the rotation, but I do not see it as an unreasonable, irrational, or maliciously pre-determined move. Just a decision to go with the bird in the hand in a season where their already chasing a few bush birds (Park, Buxton, Sano in right). I can appreciate the irony in you calling my predictions "unicornish" and parody compared to your settled science, when really we're interpreting the same stats. Since you complained that my analysis revolved entirely upon walk rates, I'll assume you didn't read the bleacher report article I posted which also examined control (limiting walks) and command (putting the pitch where you want it). His command didn't really improve. On May's side, the article points out, is his ability to get swings and misses on pitches in the strike zone which compensates for his average ability at getting pitchers to chase (likely another command issue). To further elaborate on the BABIP and FIP arguments, I would point out that May gave up only one HR through the end of April, 20 innings and change. Unless he was somehow limiting trajectory of contact, (controversial at best), you'd expect his BABIP to be higher since the hard-hit balls mostly stayed in the park. This would explain some of both BABIP and FIP. Fangraphs published May's splits between starts and relief last year. His numbers were substantially better out of the bullpen in all but 2 categories: You guessed it, walks and home runs. He walked more out of the pen (still far below his minor league average) and despite his dominance in the pen, gave up home runs at the same rate indicating that he may have been a little lucky as a starter that more balls didn't leave the yard. Again, this isn't to say that May's relative success as a starter last season can't continue or that he can't continue to improve, it's simply pointing out logical rationale for keeping him in the pen. He's a good player, and a potentially dominant reliever. Just about every dominant reliever could have been an adequate starter. Sorry if I don't see this move as evidence of poor management. Finally, I'll concede whatever arguments you want regarding "upside" if it means you'll stop making fun of my postings. Thanks.

One of higher upside SP? Santana: RotoWire News: "hitting 94-95 MPH on the radar gun, MLB.com reports. (3/6/2016)." ERA of 4.00 last season and 3.95 the season before. Hughes: RotoWire News: Hughes reported to spring training 15 to 18 pounds lighter (2/23/2016). 27-19 as a Twins starter. Gibson: peaked 34 on BBA's top 100 prospect list, 3 appearances, May made 1 list (68) as a Philly. You can make an argument for Duffey having more upside based on his success. I'll concede Nolasco and Millone on upside, but would not bet on May having a better season as a starter than both of them. But then I'm going to expect you to concede upside on Tyler Jay, Berrios, and Kohl Stewart. I'll even give you Gonsalves and Thorpe, who are a ways away, and Alex Meyer who seems unlikely to make his lofty potential. If he never starts again because he's too successful as a reliever, that isn't such a bad thing. We have plenty of comparable arms, imo, especially this year.

And I think that's super fair. I also think it's fair for management to weigh that risk against his potential usefulness as a reliever. I believe it's a tough call, and, as others pointed out, what's best for the team and best for May's future/development may not completely overlap. I can see how May would be frustrated, "work on your command" and then show the improvement and still get moved, but ultimately, the team should make decisions that are best for the team, short and long term. I think we'll see May get another shot at starting at some point.

This is a much much much more reasonable position. It doesn't state that May is certainly one of our 2 best starters or that he is not better out of the pen. My comment about the rose tinted glasses refers to the sample size used when May was a starter, and that those stats were largely calculated with a significant outlier, his BB rate which was the main reason his numbers looked so good. Wanting to see if he could continue to build on those numbers as a starter makes perfect sense. Betting that his peripherals were aided by the suddenly found control and moving him to the pen where he both filled a need and opened a spot for another starter was perfectly reasonable also. I'm fine with either direction the team wanted to take with May, I personally believe they made the right choice and made the move before his peripherals jumped up. That's just an educated guess based on his minor league numbers which is why I'd be fine still starting him.

Without looking at the actual numbers, I have more confidence in Gibson as a ground ball pitcher, being able to beat league average in home runs as worked into the xFIP calculation than I do in May continuing to be 1/2 his career average in walk percentage. But I hope Rick Anderson really did turn May into a strike throwing machine and that Gibson really can limit homeruns and outperform his xFIP.

Yes, this exact bullish belief. Go ahead and look at May's season through whatever tinted glass you want. I merely point out that the results are decidedly mixed, and the numbers you love and base your "settled science" upon were likely too good to be true, and I'm the bad guy. Starters, in general, are more valuable than relievers. They pitch way more innings. But this premise is flawed because it assumes relief pitchers and starters would be equally effective in either role. I would argue that 3.00 xFIP May out of the pen could be more valuable than 4.00 xFIP May the starter, and that's without factoring in a likely regression this year. If you think May has turned some magical corner and that he can go from a guy who struggled throwing strikes to minor leaguers, to a guy with pinpoint control plus in the zone command, that's fine. I like optimism. But don't ignore the indicators that paint a different picture, and don't call your opinion settled science. And don't use his history as an effective minor league starter to support the notion that he's a good major league starter without acknowledging that he has struggled with command his entire minor league career as well. I'm going to post the link to this article one more time, because it gives a fair and balanced assessment of reasons to be hopeful that May can maintain his form from last year, as well as explaining the reasons we should be skeptical. I know it's hard to take seriously when May credits Rick Anderson for his improved command, but it actually is a good read. http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2016/2/12/10962680/trevor-may-twins-walk-rate-control-command

Which is the point of my original post, that there is decidedly mixed results. His hard hit % went up to 29% last year, so maybe his BABIP will remain high. The smart money is on it going down, same with his walks going up. You can find all kinds of reasons to ignore or contradict data, and I do it continually. There's some evidence showing that his mixed results should have been better, there's some evidence that says it could have been even worse. It is, however, NOT arguable that May was much better out of the pen (4.01 xFIP 1st half, 3.08 2nd half). For the record, I would have been just fine giving May another shot in the rotation and moving Duffey, a former closer, back to the pen.

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2016/2/12/10962680/trevor-may-twins-walk-rate-control-command "Over 775.0 innings, he walked 11.6 percent of the batters he faced — more than twice his mark from 2015. Can he maintain that unbelievable progress?"

I have never understood the bullish belief that a) May is a better starter than reliever, and b ) May is a good starter. May was a disaster as a starter two years ago, rookie jitters, etc. I get it. Last year's results were decidedly mixed. He had good stretches and bad ones. His fans assumed he was getting unlucky based on his peripheral stats, but refused to consider whether his relatively strong peripherals were aided by luck. When he was a starter, he gave up a minuscule number of HR/ball hit in the air, and his walk rate was a mile below his career average. As such, his average to poor traditional stats mixed with good peripherals likely aided by luck made his season impossible to analyze from a standpoint of being definitively clear about anything regarding May as a starter. The same peripherals told us Nolasco is probably not nearly as bad as we think either, so I don't get the irrational love for May as a starter when it really can't be argued that he's not a flat out better pitcher out of the pen. I actually expect some regression from him this year there as well.

Forgot the part about multiplying the result, whether process or result or combo, by investment. As in, there are some players where neither the process nor the result will make much difference because the investment trumps both. Well, the investment plus finding the right shade of sun glasses...

http://www.startribune.com/twins-day-at-camp-may-running-out-of-chances-to-start/371895471/ "Danny Santana is day-to-day because of inflammation in his left wrist. He injured the wrist swinging in the batting cage. The Twins hope he can return Wednesday." I'm gonna say he comes back, goes 3-4 with a double, plays a few more games, has a couple good ones, several 0-fors, then goes to the 15 day DL to start the season. If there are no injuries, he'll go to the 60 day. He doesn't leave the organization, and he doesn't sniff the waiver wire.

Twins release quentin if he asks, otherwise we'll option him to aaa as depth and try to keep him there in June. If there is anyone we don't want to lose, but can't justify keeping on the team, there will be an injury he was battling since last year, probably santanas wrist, arcias back, or sweeney will pop a hammy. 15 day Dl if no one else gets hurt, 60 day, rehab, rinse, repeat.

K, the article suggested buying out the arb years, not extending 5 years. Even if he is declining, he still likely has value if you want to buy a couple free agent years at a nice discount. The proposed extension is team friendly. It rewards good performance, and provides substantial savings of things go right. If we disagree on the type of player Gibson projects to be that's fine. If you're arguing that only mvp calibet players (hunter?) Should be extended then i think your premise is flawed. The closer to fa a player gets the more attractive the open market becomes. In many cases you lose the final year of team control anyway because of the pressure to trade a guy instead of letting them walk. Leverage swings from team to player at that point. The arb figures go up as well.

I think you're missing my point. You can say Hughes arm is stronger and more likely to last than Gibson's. Both sides have arguments in that regard (more innings vs. prior injury). My point is that buying out arbitration years is always going to be much cheaper than buying out FA years or signing another FA on the open market. You let young players know that they'll be rewarded for early success. You avoid forced trades and contract distractions. We waited with Mauer, Hunter, and Santana and got burned in 3 different ways, 1 having to offer a bad contract, 2 letting a star walk and getting nothing, and 3 being forced into a take-what-we-can-get trade when the expected price war didn't materialize. Each of those moves set the team back further than an early extension of Joe Mays, Scott Baker, or Brian Dozier.

Hughes and Gibson are similar ages. Hughes also has around 1200 MLB innings on his arm. Gibson has 425. Hughes seems like a durable workhorse, and Gibson has had Tommy John. I'll take my chances with Gibson's fresh arm vs. Hughes' potential loss of arm strength. Really that is my point. You can have Gibson for less than the going rate in arbitration, let alone the going rate in free agency. You need 5 starters. If I'm GM, I'd rather risk being wrong on an extension than wrong on a free agent or a loser in a trade. I'd also like to establish some stability and culture in the rotation. Maybe set the stage for a Berrios extension. I understand that you can get great production at a tiny cost if you want to take advantage of the rookie deal. In the end, I doubt Gibson would be happy with that, and I would bet seeing the Twins make all their young players play out their rookie contracts and negotiate arbitration each winter would make the Berrios camp awfully nervous.

I would not bet on any of the above pitchers having a better season than Gibson this year let alone for the next few years. Hughes and Ervin are likely to decline, and Berrios is unproven while Gibson made some significant strides last season, particularly in his ability to mix in off speed pitches to get K's. Gibson projected to have 2 upside as a prospect. Berrios a 1-2. Gibson is close to reaching his full potential. Berrios may be our ace in a year or two, but it might well be the veteran Gibson we trust to start Game 1 in the World Series. I'm ok extending a guy like that. It might not save us much. But if his K's go up to 7.5/9ip and he wins a couple playoff games in the next year or two, he may be a guy we wish we would have kept to avoid having to go to FA and purchase more Nolascos and Hughes. In general, I hate classifying types of players to extend (young aces v. avg 3B etc.) because it should always depend on price, market, and team need. Of course you can extend a Berrios early, but it won't be close to cheap, if he agrees at all. You need at least 5 starters. The extensions proposed were very reasonable for Gibson at current level, let alone if he takes another step. I want to win, and extending Gibson makes sense to achieve that end at a modest price. Plouffe is another story. His hot and cold streaks remind me of other streak hitters like Jacque Jones and Jason Kubel. The end came pretty quickly for those two once the decline started. I'd like to get out on Plouffe before his cold streaks become permanent.

Is virtually everyone so certain that Park will instantly succeed and take over DH? I've heard a lot of people say low risk/high reward, particularly if he succeeds over the length of the deal. He is one of the more intriguing players on team with a lot of intrigue. I think everyone is anxious to see what a line up that included Buxton, Sano, Kepler, and Park would look like if they all turn out. Everyone wants to see Park face major league pitching to see if he can make a quick adjustment and hit 25+ dingers. But I haven't seen one person argue that he will be able to step right in and have immediate success. My guess is that our opening day DH will be the DH we ended with last season. Rosario Buxton Arcia.

This a fine idea in theory. It makes sense, and has benefits. At the same time, the opposite argument also makes sense, that you can rely on your veterans, and if one falters, you've got young studs to plug in. Young players have options, veterans don't. Young players can be sent down, veterans must be sent to the DL with an imaginary injury. There are merits to going young or going with experience. I have doubts about May's ability to sustain his level of success in either role, although he seems to be learning to pitch a bit. I'd move Meyer back to starting since he's seemingly lost some zip on his fastball and break on his breaking ball. He's still a big strong kid, and if he can re-learn his craft and learn to mix spins and speeds, the rotation is a more likely landing spot. Berrios will force his way in soon enough. Bringing him up immediately simply isn't necessary. Duffey forced his way in last year, and is 50/50 in my mind to do it again. No matter which direction you go, it's nice to have actual quality options compared to prior years.

Well in a bubble where you can predict the future, I suppose that could be true. I think you doubled down on the absolute Chief was warning you to avoid. Aside from the fact that Chief was directly referencing money and not prospects, a small percentage of prospects ever make a difference at the big league level. Most of the time you can easily recovery from losing a couple prospects, even blue chip prospects. Your assumption that giving up a prospect or two would hurt us in the future is an over-assumption. Well run organizations should have some balance between present and future. If your goal is to win a championship, you run your organization one way. If your goal is to win multiple championships, you might run it another way. If your goal is to stay consistently competitive and make money by convincing your fan base that you're a small market team who should be prouder of making the playoffs on the cheap than winning a World Series on a larger budget, then you're the Twins. If your goal is to consistently be a farm system for other big league squads, then you run through your prospects with little thought to your W/L record, and provide the other teams with detailed reports of your prospects so they refuse to trade for the bad ones, and wait to outbid you on the good ones. After 7-8 years, you may have accumulated enough high first round picks to finish at .500. (Twins last year). At this point some teams may think it more fun to actually make the playoffs and go after a Gomez and a Fiers. To each their own. People enjoy baseball for a lot of reasons. Watching prospects develop is the one good thing about following a losing team. Following a winner, no matter how its built is much more fun, to me.

Santana, Hughes, Gibson, Milone, Nolasco. As of now. 5 proven arms (when healthy). Berrios should have been brought up and pitched out of the pen last year. The Twins' explanation (excuse) for holding down players has often been stated that "once we call them up, we want them to stay up." Makes sense at first glance. On the other hand, it completely wastes option years, and keeps guys down that could have helped in the short term, like last fall. That said, the risk of starting the service clock early is that it brings about your decision to extend a year early. If you aren't going to extend, then you should trade. So in essence, you trade a year of a veteran stud in his prime for a couple months of a rookie stud-in-the-making. Think how different things would have been if we would have waited a couple months with Mauer. What does his contract look like if we aren't forced to extend after an MVP season? In truth, a couple pitchers will probably pitch themselves out of it. Duffey I suspect... another pitcher will come up with a real or more likely imaginary injury, allowing us to stock pile him, Milone I suspect... May will be not be given a real shot, and we'll be left with Santana, Hughes, Gibson, Nolasco, and Taylor Rogers who will get skipped most of the time until Berrios gets called up. When Milone dominates AAA and nears the end of his post 60 day DL with maximum allotted rehab stint, another starter (probably Hughes) will come up with some injury after not pitching well and go to the DL after failed attempts to trade Nolasco, Milone, and Hughes.

I get the stats arguments, particularly if you can't watch them play, or are measuring something that is difficult to judge or misleading when looking at with the eye test. There was a time where Boyer earned his way into more high leverage situations. At that point, he either got tired, hurt, or the league caught up. He had a lot of really really quality outings. He had a lot of terrible outings. I'm not judging this on ERA like you've accused. I have no idea what his ERA is. I'm going on watching nearly every one of his appearances. Without looking, I would say his bad outings looked better in the box score than they actually were because he was coming in during a messy inning. I'm guessing that's true of every player asked to come in to mop up. Point is, the value of watching the games is to get more information than that contained in a box score, even with advanced metrics. I saw Tonkin and Presley fail again and again in high and low leverage spots. At times, they showed signs of adequacy, for instance, Presley's one start was decent. At no point did either of them approach dominance, or even the level of Boyer's best outings. Best vs best, Boyer was better. Boyer is not that good. I don't know which advanced metric or scouting report you are looking at that has lead you to believe that either Tonkin or Presley will ever be dominant. Clearly, that opinion hasn't come from having actually watched them pitch. If you don't believe that the Twins with Boyer was a better team than Twins with Tonkin last year, then I'm not sure we're talking about the same two players. Sorry if I don't want manipulate my roster just so Bremer can reference how Tonkin is Kubel's brother in-law right before he gives up back to back HR's and gets sent down for the 8th time. I'm actually not that low on Tonkin or Presley, I'm just confused as to why it's even worth arguing about. Maybe if Tonkin gets more innings he'll turn into Rivera. Maybe if Rubio hoists up 30 threes a game he'll turn into Steph Curry. Sorry if this got a lil over the top. It's been a long off-season...