IndianaTwin

"What is hard is Berrios isn’t likely making it as a starter in the 60s. His inning load just isn’t there." Perry threw 167.2 innings and Pascual 156.0 in 1965. Berrios threw 200.1 this year. Pascual had 1.1 WAR on the year and started in the series. Berrios would be a significant upgrade over 1965 Pascual and wouldn't have required Grant and Kaat pitching on two days rest in the series. Kaat lasted three innings on two days rest in the seventh game after going 2.1 on three days in the fifth game. For context, during the season, he'd averaged 7.8 innings on four days rest, only 6.1 innings on three days rest, and 5.0 innings on his four starts on two days rest. (Caveat: The latter includes him pitching just 2 innings in the final game of the season. Given that they won by 7 games, that may have been a tuneup. Even so, he averaged less than 6 innings in the other four starts. All in all, Grant, Kaat, Berrios, Grant, Kaat, Berrios, Grant would have been a better arrangement than Grant, Kaat, Pascual, Grant, Kaat, Grant, Kaat.

From reading reviews of Carew's new book, I think at least a three-part series focusing on 1) his childhood; 2) the 1977 season; and 3) his transplant would be a winner. And Oliva's journey from Cuba to a lifetime with the Twins, including the what-coulda-been injury, would get me tuned in. Depending on what happens with MiLB, nearly a half-century with the Elizabethton Twins.

Herbie's fist pump puts goose bumps on the goose bumps that come from hearing Jack Buck's "...out there! (pause, and then louder) Out there!"

It sounds like the 20-man taxi squad concept is part of the proposal, for purposes of having players available for call-ups, etc. Here's my thought -- to minimize the need for travel for Florida each time someone is activated, play 7-inning "JV games" in the morning to keep those 20 extra players sharp! With so many of us quarantined, the TV ratings would be better for those games than four hours of SportsCenter repeats.

I've thought, too, that the simplest thing would be to just pick up the schedule, but it would certainly leave things uneven in terms of schedule strength, home/away balance, etc. I don't know if the three 10-team leagues/divisions/conferences still has traction, but at earlier time, we were hearing the goal of getting to 100-120 games. In this structure, it would be very easy to have 12 games (two home and home series of three games each) against 9 teams for 108 games. If that's too many to fit, another option would be 10 games against 9 teams for 90 games. And if they wanted to minimize travel, they could turn them all into five-game series. That would mean each team just makes one trip to each city. It also has the advantage of having synching rotations with the series, so a team doesn't run into the unfortunate situation of having all four series line up with Cole or Scherzer. Each team sees each pitcher twice (assuming health). With an off-day after every other series, that would require 107 days of games from start to end. Start July 1 and you'd "only" have to extend the regular season to Oct. 6. Take out some of the playoff off days and three rounds would still get done pretty early in November. I haven't checked this, but I'm pretty sure the "Old Farmer's Almanac is calling for mild weather in the Twin Cities through the 10th of November.

I don’t know if this is Baker’s rationale, but one thing I like about the current situation is it gives one more thing for fans to argue about. I do have a proposal for interleague, however. I think they have it backwards. Use the DH in the NL park so that NL fans get to see the Nelson Cruzes of the world hit. Go without it in the AL parks so that AL fans can see the novelty of pitchers flailing. I mean, of Bartolo hitting.

From what I see, most things on the Internet seems to be written by 10-year-olds.* *Exception being Twins Daily, of course.

Remember that Thorpe and Smeltzer can't be LOOGYs. Now they have to be LTO(OETI)GYs. That's Lefty Three-Outs (Or End The Inning) Guys. Doesn't have quite the same ring to it, does it?

Close to 20 years ago, I was in next-door Johnson City for an indoor track and field meet and took advantage of a break to drive over to Elizabethton to see if I could find the ballpark. After I got home, I told people how I'd stopped by this minor league park where I was able to talk to the assistant general manager, the head groundskeeper, the assistant groundskeeper, the ticket manager, the p.r. guy, their souvenir shop manager and probably a couple more positions. Then I'd say, "Of course, that was all the same guy." He was about ready to head to spring training, and a new batch of caps had come in. I don't remember if he gave me one or if I had to buy it, but I still wear that E-Twins cap proudly and think of that day each time I pull it out of the closet. It would be a bummer to have them go away, because I never was able to get back there for a game.

MLB Network is playing Nats games all day and now has Game 5 against the Dodgers. I know this isn't a "how's Maeda going to do" thread, but he just came in and finished the eighth after Kershaw gave up back-to-back solo shots. He struck out the side, getting guys to swing at pitches that were way outside the zone and flinch at others that were out there as well. Then, when it seemed like guys were paralyzed looking for that, he'd bust a strike up and in. Guys looked very uncomfortable against him. Methinks he's going to be really fun to watch.

He's before my time, so I'd have to look it up on baseball-reference.com. But I love the concept. My guy was very highly regarded coming out of both high school and college (that's a hint) and came over in a trade in 1979 after turning in a 141 OPS+ in limited action with California. He had some pop and managed 8 homers, 6 triples, and 19 doubles out of his 103 hits over the next three seasons in Minnesota, before getting released and picked up by Oakland. He only mustered 252 games over the course of his career, though 172 of them were with the Twins.

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?