jimv2

From my observations, the problem with Worley is pretty clear: His stuff doesn't play unless he keeps the ball at the knees. He was doing that in Philly, but since he came over here, he has not. No idea what the solution is, though. There are some hints that he's just overthrowing, and that may be affecting either a sinking quality to his pitches or the release point or....? I suspect this "Vanimal" stuff isn't helping, nor is anxiety. He maybe has a chance if he figures out again how to pitch rather than throw. The problem the Twins have is that he does have upside. He has proven major league ability. But can it be tapped again? We could stash him in the bullpen for a while, using him only in low stress situations like mopping up forgone losses, and maybe he could find himself before we get to the point in May where bullpen depth becomes critical. The DL possibility someone proposed could work. If they DFA him, somebody will pick him up and then DFA him. So if we're going to DFA him, it has to be at a time where a team wanting to pick him up is forced to option (or DFA) another player. That happens on last cutdown day. And even then, a team may be willing to do that. And when that team evntually DFAs him, maybe another team picks him up. But eventually the merry-go-round stops, and the last team gets to send him to the minors to try to figure out a way to consistently keep the ball down. I'd really like for us to be that team. Because if he and his coaches do figure it out, he's a good pitcher.

I had exactly the same reaction. But my first instinct was that it might be a bit of a misquote. From the rest of the quote, I can imagine Gardy joking around with Berardino about how mcuh he likes seeing Meyer pitch regardless of the situation, and then saying something like "but he got ramrodded out of here pretty quick and I didn't have the say-so." Or maybe the quote is exactly right, but it needs to be taken in the context that Gardy never gets, and doesn't expect, a say-so, and so he's kidding around a tad when he said "before i got the say-so." Those guys all work together pretty well. While I'm sure there are player decisions that they don't all agree on, they've been very good about providing a reasonalby united front, and I doubt that would change now. I would answer your last question on the original post by saying that I don't think gardy ever gets any say so on who's on the team. I'm sure he gets input, but I can see a possiblity that Ryan and Antony had already agreed that neither of those two guys was going to make the team out of ST, but that in past years Ryan might have done a courtesy check with Gardy and Antony maybe didn't realize that was typical and just went ahead and reassigned according to the original plan without making the call.

It MIGHT be an exception, but I'm guessing no. I think the Twins will want somebody in Rochester who can be called up to effectively replace an injured starter, and that needs to be someone who's stretched out and on the 40 man. Gibson is far and away your best choice for that, although I guess Kris Johnson is in the picture too. And assuming that Deduno keeps pitching well this spring, that allows him to be the 5th starter--which I think is more likely to suit his talents than being a reliever. Your Kubel/Bartlett scenario is interesting/very plausible. But I sure wouldn't want to lose somebody who is out of options on the chance that either of those two returns to form, expecially since we presumably don't risk losing them by sending them down. IF we had been seeing great results from either, that's one thing. But despite the "hitting the ball hard" quotes, I think the best chance for your scenario to play out is to send them to Rochester where they can get more at bats and prove they can at least handle AAA pitching. Then maybe they can get added to the 40 man and brought up. I do think we have to be looking at trading some relievers for something useful down the road (or maybe even now.) And I don't necessarily mean Diamond/Worley--as someone pointed out, teams know there's a good chance of those guys being DFA'd. I'm thinking more about a Burton, Duensing, Swarzak, Fien type guy in whom other teams might see value, perhaps even considerable value, and for whom we may have some guys like Tonkin or Hoffman or even Diamond/Worley able to step in.

Thanks Seth. These interviews, every one of them, are great. Will be fun to watch Turner this year to see how the hitting is coming along.

That's a different kind of wind.

Adding my voice to the chorus--excellent article. But I want to expand on "That projection is a range of possibilities, but it's a statistically backed range. We average them out and derive a destination." This is completely accurate in the sense of how people on the outside tend to behave. But that behavior represents a gross misunderstanding of statistical analysis. It is not statistically valid to assign characterizations of a sample group to any one data point. You can use statistics to predict an average outcome for a group of people. You can use statistics to say for example (I'm making this up) that 90% of pitchers in AAA who strike out less than 7 batters per nine innings will never win more than 1 major league game. But that doesn't mean that it's unlikely that a specifically idientified pitcher in AAA who strikes out less than 7 per 9 will succeed. People throw out statements like "the odds of Bob hitting above .250 are slim" based on some sort of analysis of other players. But it's meaningless, because there aren't a bunch of Bobs. There's just the one, and he could end up anywhere. Saying the same thing more statistically, if batting averages are normally distributed and the population mean is .250, then when estimating the mean of a sample group you can say that you have x% confidence that it will between .250 plus or minus y. The smaller the sample size, the smaller x is and/or the greater y is. And for a sample size of 1, assuming a large population, either x is so small or y is so big that your conclusion is useless. For example, you could say that you're 99% confident that the one person will hit between .000 and .500. But you didn't need statistical analysis to tell you that. A demographer can tell in a group of 10,000 people all the same age, about how many will die this year. But assuming comparable health, s/he has no idea which ones will die. A sabermetrician can tell you of a group of 1000 ballplayers with a given characteristic, how many will make the majors. But s/he can't tell you which ones. Could be any of them. So like a doctor works with people to assess their health, so the coach has to work with each of the players to figure out which ones will make the grade. And even then, neither the doc nor the coach is going to be right 100% of the time.

It's pretty much meaningless. Pitchers are ahead of batters--they've been in camp longer--and are more focused on getting feel and improving location than on getting batters out. Plus, mostly they're pitching to minor leaguers. ANd some might be working on learning/improving a new pitch. But I said "pretty much" because the lack of runs is at least a hint that what they're working on is coming along. And if the starters were getting shelled and pulled early, that would be discomfiting.

Really excellent blog post. W/r/t Eades: I think he gets less attention because he probably doesn't have the same ceiling guys like Kohl and Gonsalves have. But as you noted, he's already proven that he has a decently high floor. The problem is that we already have a bunch of 3-5 starter prospects which I suspect is his ceiling. We all know you can never have too much pitching, so it's great having him, but the same level of intrigue isn't there for some us. And w/r/t Turner: Gardy and Ryan have made it abundantly clear over the years that the attributes they want most in a catcher are the abilities to call a good game, to keep a pitcher on an even keel, and to control the other team's running game. Quoting one of them--I can't remember which--"any hitting you get [from your catcher] is a bonus." I take that with a grain of salt but if Turner really is a Johnny Bench level catcher defensively, I don't think he'll have to hit all that much to be the starter.

I don't doubt it. But let's think about the math. I'll guess that a sellout is worth 3 mil of revenue. If he doesn't pitch those games, they only get 1 mil per game. So him pitching those two games is worth 4 mil. Assume Nick's high end is right--that he has a 5% chance of making it. Five percent of 4 mil is 200k. So assuming I've taken everything into account--and I didn't, this is way oversimplified--if it costs over 200k to sign him, it's not worth it. I'd be delighted to see someone adjust the math for the nuances I blew off. But the point is that knowing he'd fill the seats isn't enough. THey'll look at the odds of success (who knows if they agree with the 5%) and all the costs of signing him. And then they'll do the math. If we thought that Johan would be the differnce between making playoff and not, then there would be an intangible factor that precludes you from just thinking about the math. But it takes one heck of an optimist to think Johan can do that for us.

Congratualtions on 20 years, John, and best wishes for seeing 30 and more.

Nothing wrong with that at all. The only question is how much of his success in AA can be attributed to be older, more experienced than most of the hitters, and whther that success will carry over to higher leagues. But hopefully they'll put him in AAA and we'll find out. ANd I think--again, Seth, you probably know better than me, that he's fought some injuries and that's one of the reasons he's older. I don't know much about Bixler--lefty 16th round pick is about all.

Leaving aside the question of fairness of NCAA rules--as you said, that's a rant for another day--I don't think you are fairly comparing NCAA and minor league comp. NCAA scholarship athletes get room and board. The room's not fancy, the board is. They typically don't NEED to pay for transportation, while minor league players need a car--or at least access to one-- and often have to pay their own room and board. (At least they did back in the old days. I haven't heard about teams providing full board for minor leaguers, but am not that close to it any more.) College campuses often provide virtually free entertainment of sorts to students, minor leaguers don't get that. ANd of course there's the value of the education. Lastly, scholarship athletes are allowed to work certain other jobs to make ends meet, but it's almost as hard to find time for that during the school year as it is for minor leaguers to find time to work another job during the season. I think the minor leaguers, especially the low level ones, have it financially tougher than the scholarship athletes. Your union comments are interesting. Eventually the power of the union is based on the ability to strike (or in the public sector, to get out the vote.) I just can't imagine minor league ball players getting together and refusing to play.

Two others to consider are: Dakota Watts. Finally seemed to put it together last year at AA (although he was a bit old.) 28 games, 36 innings, 31 hits, 31k, 10 walks, 0.74 ERA. I thought he might get an invite to the major league camp this year, but I guess not. Guys w/ 100mph fastballs don't grow on trees. I would think he'll be at AAA and maybe split closer duties with Tonkin. Brian Gilbert. Drafted out of college last year, assigned to Etown but was quickly promoted to A- in July last year and dominated. Sort of. 13 games, 17 innings, 12 hits, no walks, 1.04 ERA. But only 7 ks. Pretty small sample size. Does he go back to A- to work on ks or go to A+? Or, Seth interviewed him last month and he indicated that he preferred to close, but I guess some are talking about him starting. Seth has him as a starter. I don't know enough about his stuff to see if he really profiles as a starter. OF course sometimes they have people start just so they get more innings and can work on developing a secondary pitch that they'll need to be a ML reliever.

Three guys I expected to see either here or on the starters list (more likely here) and didn't, but maybe I missed them. Thoughts? Adrian Salcedo Tyler Stirewalt Chih-wei Hu Another guy is Tim Wood. I think he's technically still with the Twins org, but don't know what happened with his rehab, or if he's in their plans as opposed to they're just waiting for a time when they're allowed to release him. Echoing a theme from above, I count about 85 guys who should be with the Twins or the full season minor league teams. (That excludes the guys Seth already indicated were injured, but includes a few that Seth has at EST because I think it's time for them to sink or swim--and I'm not positive they'd even be allowed back on a rookie league team. It does not include all the really good starters that Seth thought would start at EST--I too think they'll start at EST.) If you figure 12 pitchers per roster--that may be wrong; I don't know what the roster limits are--that's 60 guys. If nobody else gets disabled (fat chance), that's 25 getting released. I can't find 25--or even 20 if you figure 5 more get disabled in spring training--that I'm ready to give up on.

Can anyone identify who is who in the pictures?

I remember vividly. We had a great team, and needed to win one game out of the last three. I was a kid living on the east coast and couldn't imagine that we would lose all three. And of course back then there were no playoff games, so it was win one and head for the WS. So I started telling everyone that the Twins would smoke the Cardinals in the world series. I ended up taking mammoth amounts of abuse. And for years, I hated the Red Sox. But I got a small measure of revenge. THe Sox had to use their ace, Jim Lonborg, in the final game to beat us. So he wasn't available for the frist game of the series. GIbson was. Gibson pitched 3 games, each on 3 days rest (standard at the time.) Lonborg also pitched 3, but the last , game 7 was on 2 days rest. GIbson was his usual self ("Bob Gibson is the luckiest pitcher I ever saw. He always pitches when the other team doesn't score any runs." - Former Cardinal Catcher Tim McCarver) but Lonborg wasn't and the Sox lost game 7. So I reasoned that the Twins had indirectly made the Sox lose the series.

Pretty much agree. Only argument might be Oliva. WHen he came up, he was the Buxton of his age. Ceiling was Willie Mays. And when you watched him the first few years, he was the real deal. Then he got hurt. Badly. He was still an all-star, but not the same player. And eventually he just had to give it up. So how do you rank a guy like that? If we look at what he accomplished his first few years, he'd be at the top of my list. If you look at how he averaged out over time because of the injury, I'd put him where you did--or maybe ahead of Mauer, with the understanding that Mauer is still active and may end up being rated higher. You can make a little bit of the same argument for Puckett, but Puckett got to play many more years healthy than Oliva did, and when he was hurt, he was done immediately. Had he played a long time, he too could have had arguments for being first on the list, but given where he ended up, I'd put him where you did.

A "few" comments: 1. I suspect Meyer will be at AAA, although there's definitely a logjam. But while there may be more potential on a AA roster, the current hitting and pitching talent is better at AAA than AA, and Meyer will learn more there. And to me, there's no such thing as a logjam when you're talking about your best starting pitching prospect. YOu put him where he needs to be and let the rest of it work itself out. 2. I also think Gilmartin will be at AAA, unless he still has shoulder problems, in which case he might be at EST. I don't think he gains much by going back down to AA, and he's probably our highest ceiling lefty prospect in the high minors. 3. I had Hermsen starting (or at least being a swing guy) at NB. He had a horrible season last year, but he's one year removed from minor league pitcher of the year. I wouldn't think the Twins would give up on him that fast, but maybe Seth has inside knowledge on this one. 4. Given his age and success, I would think the Twins would move Jason WHeeler up to AA. I can't figure out how he wins so often, but I don't think he has anything left to prove at FTM. See if the smoke and mirrors work in AA. 5. I have Eades starting the year in CR. I don't think his Etown results last year are meaningful, but I'd let him prove it in CR. IF he's dominating, then promote him. 6. Seth, you don't have Bard anywhere on your list. I think he's supposed to be healthy again, and I had him at CR, but do you know more? 7. I had GIlbert as the (a?) closer at FTM. Are they really serious about turning him into a starter? To me his skills seemed to translate better to closer. 8. To your EST list, I would add Sam Gibbons. I think the twins are pretty high on him. Again, maybe you know more. 9. ANd lastly, what conversation about moving Pressly to a starting role? I can certainly see him at AAA so they can stash someone with no options remaining on the ML roster, but I've never heard anyone except a few people on this board talk about him being a starter. He had practically washed out as a starter when they converted him to relief, and he shone. What makes anyone think the results of him starting would be any different this time?

Bingo.

I understand the rest of it, but don't get "take advantage of having more of their potential top-performing years under cost-controlled scenarios". You use up a year of control every year they pitch in the bigs. If the guy will eventually be a one or two, it seems you get more of his one/towo years if you hold off promoting than if you waste a year having him be a 5.

"many of us have had the reasonable expectation that Stewart ended up being mentally slated on our prospect list for a call-up at some point during 2016" I believe he will be 21 for all of the 2016 season. Last year was considered a rather weak draft class. So over the last 10 years or so, how many high school pitchers drafted in the top 7-8 spots were called up by age 21? I don't know the answer. Just trying to assess the reasonableness of that expectation in light of past experience.

But get rid of his age 17 and 18 seasons in the VSL and DSL--which IMO are meaningless--and he's at .286 Get rid of 2010--his first full season was a tough one for him--and he's at .300. I completely realize that last step was a bit of cherry-picking, but people grow at different rates and just wanted to point out that many year averages in a situation like this can be misleading. I certainly don't think he's going to average .300 in the majors, but I think the data support your suggestion that .260 (maybe even .280) is very realistic.

I've been hoping Meyer would inherit that.