IndianaTwin

And looking at that 1974 staff, there were only 49 innings spread over four guys outside the five starters and four relievers who carried the load. How times have changed. Along with the alphabet rotation I just mentioned, the bullpen was three guys named Bill (Campbell, Hands, Butler) and another B in Burgmeier.

What an awesome list from my childhood! TD needs more Bill Campbell, Tom Johnson, and especially Tom Burgmeier sightings. Please, please, please, can we include Paul Thormodsgard? And as a nerdy kid, I thought it was neat that the '74 rotation followed the alphabet with Albury, Blyleven, Corbin, and Decker (plus Goltz). That was my first year listening to WHO in Des Moines, "coast to coast, border to border, and then some." Now I should go over to the hitter list and beg for Craig Kusick. And my all-time favorite utility player, the awesome Jerry Terrell.

Jim Hughes, anyone? I was so fired up for him 1975. But hey, what does a nine-year-old know...

My son just ordered a copy of "Hall of Name: Baseball's Most Magnificent Monikers," a new book by D.B. Firstman, with the foreward by Jayson Stark. It's like an encyclopedia of about 100 of the best names in baseball history. For each player, there's some basic bio information, an etymology of the name, several paragraphs of bio, his pick for the best day of the player's career (by WPA or some other measure), "Not to be confused with" (references to other names from pop culture), anagrams, and an ephemera of tidbits that didn't make the rest of the entry. Chapters include: 1. Baseball Poets and Men of Few (Different) Letters, led by our own Boof Bonser. 2. Dirty Names Done Dirt Cheap. Fortunately, this is the shortest section, with just 10 entries. But did you know that, according to the ephemera, Gene Krapp died from an unsuccessful surgery to deal with bowel cancer? 3. Sounds Good to Me, chosen for the way the name rolls off the tongue, like Billy Jo Robidoux and Van Lingle Mungo. 4. No Focus Group Convened, which is the leftovers chosen just because of being interesting or unusual. I assume that Calvin Coolidge Julius Caesar Tuskahoma McLish was a no-brainer for inclusion. His anagram is "Oh Jesus! Unlavish, tragicomical, social lame duck." I haven't read it, but it's been fun to flip through. Though he has fun with it, I didn't find anything mean-spirited in the book. It seems to be very well done.

Teddy Ballgame led the league in hitting at 39, slumped a bit at 40, and then turned in a 1.096 OPS at age 41. Of course, I suppose one could say he was starting to slide, since his OPS+ at age 40 “only” matched his career average of 190.

Pablo Sanchez and Kenny Kawaguchi beg to differ.

To play devil's advocate, Killebrew flirted with 50 homers on multiple occasions at a time when there had been roughly the same number of 50 homer season as there had been .400 seasons, and isn't power a part of being a good hitter? Wouldn't someone who hits .300 with 30 homers, 40 doubles and 100 walks be considered a better hitter than a .300 hitter with 5 homers, 20 doubles, 50 walks? If so, then the next question might be, which is better -- .280 with 30 homers, 40 doubles and 70 walks vs. .310 with 10 homers, 30 doubles, and 70 walks. And so on. I think the definition of "best hitter" does take power into play, as well as the good eye that generates walks. That's where OPS is helpful. It blends the combination of getting on base and demonstrating power in a way that values both. Similarly, isn't someone who hits .300 in 1968 in the American League, when .301 led the league, better than someone who hits .300 in the 1930 National League, when the league average was .303. Context matters. That's the advantage of an indexed number like OPS+. It allows comparing across eras. It says that when you take the season, the league, and the ballpark into effect, Killebrew was on average 48 percent better than the average hitter in the league. Great as he was, Carew was "only" 37 percent better than the average player. Because of his power, Killebrew was being more effective with his hits, and he was doing it in a slightly harder context. Don't get me wrong -- I'll take a lineup of nine Rod Carews any day of the week! I just think I'll score more runs with nine Harmon Killebrews.

There's at least two issues with using Offensive War in comparing Carew with Killebrew, however. First is that Offensive WAR includes baserunning, where Carew is going to gain significantly on Killebrew. Second is that there is a position adjustment. Two of Carew's four years on this list had the advantage of being at 2B, whereas Killebrew was playing a lot of 1B in his best years.

I'm 53 and just missed Allison. I get the sense that folks my age and younger dramatically underrate Allison. If you use just the Twins years as was done for Killebrew and others above, his OPS+ is actually 131 over 10 seasons.

My gut reaction was to easily agree with you, but then I discovered that Hrbek had an OPS+ of 128 in 1747 games and Mauer 124 in 1858 games. In fact, in OPS plus, Hrbek's 128 is even above Puckett's 124. Looking at OPS+ in Twins years only gives us Killebrew (148), Carew (137), Oliva (131), Hrbek (128), Mauer and Puckett (124).

Is overlooking Odorizzi and Chacin intentional?

Know your ‘staches, people. Rollie Fingers had a handlebar. Al Hrabosky and Randy Dobnak have a Fu Manchu.

Give Odo a bonus! As in, go back to him and say, "We'll bump you up to $22MM for this year if you give us two more years at $16.6MM each and a $1MM buyout on a $15MM contract for 2023." That's like giving him 3/$56.2MM now, which is slightly better than three years at his $18.7MM QO. Plus, it's guaranteed and slightly front-loaded, which helps him from an investment perspective* and it's slightly beneficial to the FO for planning purposes as other guys move up the arbitration calculation, etc. *Past performance is no guarantee of future results (particularly in this market) yadda, yadda, yadda...

Do we know if Chacin has an opt out? And if he would accept a minor league spot if it came to that?

Hablo solomente un poco Espanol, pero bienvenido a todos.

Are you saying there are only five “true #1” pitchers in the majors? Because that’s how many guys had 200-plus innings and a 3.25 or lower FIP last year. When Berrios and Odorizzi are two of the top 20 guys in fWAR last year, that seems a lot better than a “very good #2” and a “starter who can really fill the #3 spot.”

Excellent points, both in naming the concern, but also in noting that they have seemed to get good staff.

Speaking of The Titanic, my wife had her colonoscopy yesterday. (TMI, I know.) While there, we were joking with the receptionist, who described having a friend who went to see "Titanic" in the theater. Before it started, he stood, faced the audience, and announced, "I don't want to spoil the movie for everyone, but the boat sinks." PS: It was clear by the way. I know -- WAAAAAAY TMI. PPS: I will wait until Valentine's Day is past before revealing to my wife that I've shared the results of her colonoscopy on TD.

I'll give it an A, though I have to say that the vast majority (all?) of us don't have all the information to make an accurate assessment. Most of us are like the student in the eighth row, trying to suggest that the teacher that e = cm^2, rather than the other way around.

Great article. Deserves a Like just for the picture of the kid and Gibson.

It ranks up there with Grant Balfour and Bob Walk among names you don’t want your pitcher to have.

Remember that Hill can be moved to the 60-day IL in a few days, so Chacin can get the spot later if he earns it. Effectively, with adding Maeda and dropping Graterol and Raley, this puts us at 39.... ...with several days yet to sign Taijuan Walker.

As a SQUIRREL, we much prefer you getting hit with brilliance than with a car.

Pending a physical.

Given that virtually every team goes more than five deep over the course of the season, it would be interesting to extend your list at least Nos. 6 and 7. Based on your notes section, I’m guessing that the Twins would rank significantly higher. That’s part of what I think is the strength of their rotation. I don’t think an injury to someone in the top three will have the devastating effect for the Twins as it would for the others. I’m too cheap to pay for The Athletic. As you beyond who he’s sandwiched by, does Berrios seem about right. That ranking seems low to me, considering that he’s still A bit younger than average and should improve. I do find it interesting that he’s ranked a spot ahead of Wheeler, who this board was generally enamored with and seemed to rank higher than Berrios.