twinsfan34

I don't have any special formula or regression for this 'guess'. The .420-.440 is Joey Votto territory. I think Mauer can do that. Less prep for hitters (almost none now) compared to doing that as a catcher. And the legs under him. Just my thoughts.

I agree, the Super 2 (mid June 2014) will likely be when he'd be considered, unless he's far and away superior at 3B to any other player out of ST.

Yea, the main indicators as to why Rosario dropped is he's played CF/LF mostly in the DR league. It appears he may be moving back to the OF. Granted, as someone mentioned, he was still listed at 2B in their positional rankings. So not sure the first theory holds. Carlos Santana played predominantly 3B for the Indians in the DR league. Others were also trying new positions. I wonder also if the lost time will affect Rosario's development factor in their ratings. I'm not sold on him being great. He'll make a lot of contact. Sounds like a Placido Polanco type, but if he's an OF, there might not be much room for him in the bigs, with the Twins or not as he doesn't have Juan Pierre type speed.

Mauer's 2014. .331 15 HR 85 RBI .420 OBP .851 OPS 152g

Dave, I agree as well. What's 'worse case scenario' of Sano in the bigs? A Rob Deere-esque .235-245-ish, 150-170 strikeouts with 28-35 bombs at the MLB level? Some might say that would 'stunt' his growth. I don't know. Mike Trout only hit .220 in playing 40 games in from late July through September his rookie year. Then in Oct and Nov he only hit .245 at the Arizona Fall League. So, for 5 months, he only hit .220 to .245 against MLB and AA-ish competition. He seemed to turn out alright after that struggle. What? 10 WAR per year... This past Wednesday, we got a chance to hear Mike Maddux speak and afterwards a Q&A. So I asked about the 'struggles' of what he has to work on with his pitchers, comparing and contrasting when he coached minor leagues and it was all 'feet' and 'striding straight towards' home, by the time they get to the pros, it's "all between the ears..." I think there's learners and those who don't learn. So that said, I believe Buxton and Sano are learners. They see something, they remember it. And then they have the physical ability to make them pay. Tony Oliva, Paul Molitor, and Rod Carew are some of the better hitters to ever play the game and they're present around the clubhouse here and there throughout the season. Molitor, obviously all the time. I think they'll do just fine. Watching Xander Boegarts this past year from Boston was that way too. OK...now I'm rambling. Looking forward to Spring Training!

Also, in another clip, at the Twins WinterFest, Sano said he weighs 250 lbs. I have some Ft. Myers Miracle baseball cards that list him at 243. It always bothers me when people try to put together "Top Prospect" lists and list his weight at 195. To me, that means, you've never even seen a video clip of the guy. He was 195 when he was 16-17 years old. A 'low ball' eyeballing him on YouTube would say he's at least 225. I hope he doesn't get too much bigger than 250. Otherwise, Mauer will definitely be playing 3B in the near future. Or as Gardy said in regards to Max Kepler, he'll eat himself out of the [position].

After working with Joe Mauer this Spring, he expects his concept of the strike zone to increase and his walk totals to rise. He also has high expectations to make the big league club out of Spring Training. I love the 'juice' behind this kid. Humble, because, it's not outside the realm of possibility. Reminds me of Michael Jordan. The Star Trib article is here.

Yes, you're right. I probably undervalue Babe in a way. I read some where it seemed he was 'impatient' to 'careless' (maybe a little less poise) in other areas of his game. Possible also over-analytical projection-esque on my part too. Or maybe that fact he was such a good hitter. He had 9 shutouts in his first full season as a SP...I think there's only been 4 seasons in the AL since then (1916) with more shutouts.

Yea, I'd probably put Stan #3 - though with some competition. I'll also need to admit, that Stan "The Man" Musial is my favorite all time player. I've read a lot on him. Listened to quite a few interviews. Seen highlights as available. And the guy is just someone I look up to in every way. He handled things with such poise. From people asking him what he'd hit "against today's pitching" and he paused, responding, probably around .280. The reporter gasped, really only .280?! Stan responded, "Well, I'm 80 years old" with a wink. To asking for a pay cut. (A link for some stories, some found in the comments too) to plays where it was clearly a fair ball and him saying to the affect, "what's the point of arguing about it" and just getting in the box and doing it again. I played the same way - likely because I read of guys like him and well, John Wooden is another who really resonated with me. But more than that, Stan's just a great hitter. I love the triple too, my favorite and toughest hit to get. So I have to fess up to all those 'giddy' biases. But that aside, I'd probably put Stan at #3 or at least against in the mix. I find Lou Gehrig's 1934 and 1936 seasons to be unworldly spectacular to me, and they're the only two of their kind actually. 200 hits 100 BB 40 HR More BB's than SO's (nearly 3 to 1 actually) And more HR's than SO (49/46 and 49/31). Also hit over .350 and 150 RBI...but yea...just the hits, walks, number of homers, and having more HR's than strikeouts. I do enjoy watching some of the HR competitions and interviews and the stats of guys like Mickey Mantle and Harmon Killebrew. And I have great respect for Joe DiMaggio and Willie Mays. I love what the OPS+ and these weighted stats do for players. It at least tries to take into account the hitters advantage at Fenway and Yankee stadium or any other stadium for every particular stat...triples to average to home runs. Really helps to be able to compare across decades and even players within a decade. Of today's hitters, I don't think we realize just how good Albert Pujols was this past decade. A .330 hitter during that stretch, with great power, and a great eye, and the fact he too, almost had the amazing more HR's than SO's season, including 9 seasons where he was within 25 or fewer strikeouts of his HR total for that season. In 2006 he hit 49 HR, struck out 50 times, and walked 92 times. So almost double BB to SO total. I'd also put Frank Thomas in there, as the type of guy who can win the game, but also "the game won't end with me getting out" type of player. They can work a walk and a strikeout just wasn't going to be something that happened very often.

Yeah, I've heard the Ichiro story, like he can hit quite a few HR in batting practice. I don't recall Ichiro ever saying he could hit 50 HR in a season. I would not buy it anyway. Ted Williams was hitting 35-38 HR already. He of course, was not short on confidence and perhaps, borderline arrogance, but he made sense when he said at 2 strikes, he would shorten his swing and work a walk or solid contact. He wasn't going to strike out. He could have just said, to hell with it, and swung as hard as he could. To hit another 15 HR a season, and drop his average .30 pts...eh...not sure it would have been more valuable...less walks too. I agree with Ferguson, he only qualified for the league OPS 13 seasons, and he led MLB 11 seasons of those 13. That's retarded. He was over 1.036 OPS every single year, but one. And that was at age 40...while having multiple injuries. Miguel Caberera and Jose Bautista are the only players in 3 years (either league) to surpass that number, and barely. Ted Williams, at age 41, had 1.096 OPS (weighted, 190 OPS+), both better than any season Miguel Cabrera has ever had. That is, Ted Williams, at his lowest point, better than this generation's best hitter. While also having a 75-42 BB/SO ratio. Four seasons, he had more HR than SO's. Unreal. I've only seen highlights, but I just think that Babe Ruth and Ted Williams were unlike any other hitters, in any generation. Defense? Meh, at best. Base runners? Babe was caught stealing a LOT. Ted, had no wheels. But those guys, at the dish, with a stick in their hands. Babe had a solid arm I guess. All around players, athletes, to good at every phase of the game, well, that's another story. You have to weight the areas of important too.

But if I must... 1. Ted Williams 2. Mel Ott 3. Mike Trout 4. Alex Rodriguez 5. Frank Robinson 6. Al Kaline 7. Ken Griffey, Jr. 8. Mickey Mantle 9. Willie Mays 10. Jimmie Foxx For a list of top seasons at age 20, go here. I believe Alex Rodriguez to be steroid free at that point. I also believe Ted Williams to be in the discussion with Babe Ruth as the best baseball hitter ever. Imagine Ted Williams with 4.5 more seasons, 3 of which at ages 24, 25, 26. The others at 33-34. Seasons 24-26: AVG - .350-.380 AVG HR - 35-40 RBI - 130-160 OBP - .500 OPS+ - 215-235 Seasons 33-34: AVG - .320-.360 HR - 25-30 RBI - 85 - 100 OBP - .480-.500 OPS+ - 165-200 He could have hit 50+ HR a year if he wanted to, but instead went for contact, his BB/K rates are unmatched. 3-to-1, 4-to-1.

I didn't think the argument would get an ear as most have already settled who's better behind even considering it. I love the 'old guys' more than most. We all have biases, the best we can hope for is honest history. Bias history is a given.

Sports have changed a lot over the years. Look at who attends baseball games at a demographic point of view. Baseball was largely a lower class sport for years, fans are generational. Today it's probably more females and also more middle to upper class that probably attend the baseball games. I don't like the NFL as much anymore, it's more about entertainment. Richard Sherman to half time wardrobe malfunctions - they want butts in the seats. Also, saying you find someone attractive doesn't make you superficial, I married my wife because she's hot, but there are plenty hot women out there besides her - she's my wife because of everything else. I wasn't there, but I'm guessing Gardy's comments were in a jest/humor context. I went to a SABR meeting this past Wednesday here in Texas and we had Mike Maddux speak - he's as simple a country boy as you'll find and a lot of the jokes were just that, jokes, but probably could be taken as offensive to various crowds. For me, it was refreshing to know the business world hadn't overtaken baseball and everybody was this generic politically correct robot who speaks in perfect english and is a word monger who says a ton but says nothing all at the same time.

Good for him. I wish I had known about all the opportunities there are there to do/try things like this. I grew up on a small farm, loved baseball statistics, I bought cards solely for the stats in the mid 80's and I'd pay $10-$15 for a Willie Mays card to a Mickey Mantle towards the end of their careers. Then I'd play with stats projections. My parents grew up to parents who were poor and 'survived' the Great Depression, everything they did lived out of fear, so you worked everyday possible, a dollar was a dollar. I got invited to Cincinnnati Reds tryout in Wisconsin, but I couldn't get the car for the ride out there and I had to work a wedding that weekend. I worked 50+ hours a week in food service and construction for many years just to get through an expensive college experience (math/chem/physics background) I don't really use (I had already been through Calc III in high school). I never had the fortitude or love really to do Synthetic Organic Chemistry or Solid State Physics - maybe the brain, but not the love for it. All that to say, I'm glad this kid is trying this out. If he's able to be objective about his hypothesis, it sounds like it could be great. That's the problem with the previous generation, they lived every day in the past and didn't look at the context of the day they do live in - so the 'rules' in faith and in careers and how you lived life, were not taking into account the individual that had to live that life. I have my own views on 'churches' today, and there are definitely legitimate reasons for Generation Y, Z, or any to not want a part of that. And the ones who do want to be a part of those churches, might not be for the right reasons. He makes a great point about worship OUTSIDE of the church buildings. It's a lot of 'environment' to set a mood within those walls. To which is important to acknowledge, is your faith a product of your environment or does it dictate or shape your environment? Many can't 'sing' without 'good music' (environment), the conditions must be right. I love the analytics of baseball, but I also love the stories. An easy way to be humbled is to cleave to one side entirely. The Stats summarize a bunch of decisions, but aren't necessarily cable of telling the moment. The real beauty in Life and in baseball are often in the seemingly small decisions.

I think Jokin did a reverse scoring to get the points system he has - which I think probably many publications would do (e.g. Buxton #1 overall, counts 100 pts, Stewart #40 overall, counts 60 pts). I'd probably do a weighting system, and weight the top 20 prospects much more heavily as they typically, at least in BA's rankings, where top 20 prospects offer 1.5 WAR or higher during their controlled years at a 48% clip, whereas from #21-40 are at 28%, and the rest they do achieve that same contribution at around a 22% clip. So... 5 in 10 of #1-20 = 1.5 WAR+ 3 in 10 of #21-40 = 1.5 WAR+ 2 in 10 of #41-100 = 1.5 WAR + The interesting thing I found, is that Callis and Mayo, said of Buxton, there really wasn't any discussion over him being #1. It was "Buxton, and then the rest." Which, Boegarts was in MLB last year and held his own. Tavares had 4 hits in a ST game last year against the Twins and that guy is a Manny Ramirez/Barry Bonds (sans the BBs) waiting to happen, just a violent swinger who barrels balls. Archie Bradley, that guy will likely win 20 games at one point. Mark Appel is another. Miguel Sano, "will win HR titles, even at Target Field"...and yet, "no contest on Buxton being #1." Anyone have any background on Trout's 'hype' or press when he was #1. I mean, he was #1 over Bryce Harper on some lists...then #2 on others. I wonder if those same guys would put Buxton over Harper (for those who had him #1). And not that 'hype' means anything for production...but curious. I liked Trout better, but wasn't as cogniscient of what everyone was saying so much, as I am now - maybe because I'm a Twins fan, or maybe just because it wasn't there as it is now. Baseball America gives Buxton a 75 overall. Pipeline gives him a 75 overall. Prospectus, I believe also gives him a 75. 80 - is sure fire hall of famer. Anyone have what Trout got in 2012 in those publications?

Paraphrasing Callis... When it's all said and done, concerning this class, Buxton might be the best defender, have the best arm, be the best base stealer, have the best bat, and his weakest tool? Power, he might hit more than 25+ hr per season. Unreal.

Yeah...and he ended up #63 at the year end. http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/prospects/watch/y2013/

Wow...only Berrios in 50-100. That means...Meyer, Stewart, Sano, and Buxton...does Rosario make the top 40 then too? Doubt it.

Wow...Kohl Stewart at #40?! Only 19 years old... Maybe MLB has more faith in the Twins staff than most...wouldn't think it's just on what Stewart showed last year...

I'll be watching as well. I was thinking it was going to be the top 100 though...

Ha!

ESPN HardballTalk

Wasn't EVERY season, before free agency, a 'built from within' type of setup? Where scouting and signing ballplayers was pretty much it.

Steinbrenner is quoted...on his father's tenure at the helm of the Yankees and then, just sort of a 'we could do this if we wanted to'...so be thankful we don't type of sentiments. "He didn't have revenue sharing, at least for most of his time," Hank Steinbrenner added. "That's what these people in the sports media don't seem to get. If it wasn't for revenue sharing, we'd have a payroll of $300 million a year if we wanted to. So we're doing this despite having to pay all that revenue sharing." ESPN Link here. When's the next collective bargaining agreement? Their profit for 2012 was $471 million. Not sure that counts TV deal money too. Source: Forbes. The rules have to work with the players union, they want their money, and they're not as concerned about competition levels - as the ones getting big checks can sign with any team they want. Whether or not they understand that in order for the Yankees to make so much money, they need the collective US involved in the sport. Which, I wonder, the ramifications of increasing ticket prices...say 10 years down the road as the 'gap' widens amongst the 'haves' and 'have nots' even as far as disposable income. I haven't gone to as many games as I used to. I do have some more money now as a 'professional', but I prefer to watch most MLB games on TV and pay $15-$20 and sit on the 3rd base dugout for Rough Riders (Rangers AA affiliate) games. If tickets were that for the Rangers, I'd probably go to 15-30 games a year. They do just fine without me though. The Yankees, like 'em or not, are still abiding by all the rules. Maybe the rules need to be changed?

That's hardly a mircrowave... Harper was signed in '88. Pags was a platoon/utility-esque. Willis strengthened the bullpen. Chili Davis & Jack Morris were contributors, but still only contributed 3.3 and 4.3 bWAR respectively out of 50.9 bWAR for the team overall. The "Core" (Puckett, HrBek, Mack, Gladden, Gagne, Tapani, Aguilera) was already in place and the recent minor league (Knoblauch, Erickson) additions contributed to the lion's share of that team doing well.