Shane Wahl

First: oh my god, people! A real non-baseball discussion? I actually made this claim several months ago: The United States must just walk away from the Middle East. That's overly simplistic, but it is necessary. There has got to be a way to quickly move away from fossil fuels, at least to the point where we don't have to support one of the top five most savagely barbaric regimes in the world (Saudi Arabia, obviously) just for their sweet, sweet oil. ISIS is a group that has really state enemies. This is the true nature of terrorism and they are an extreme version of Al Qaeda. No nation state wants these people in their country. This is where the United States went terribly wrong following Sept. 11. The Taliban, even, just asked for proof. We didn't give it, waged war, and now are going to basically just turn that country over to the Taliban again. Saddam Hussein was a monster, but he was a monster who maintained order. There is value in that . . . because order can be subverted. Power vacuums and civil war can't be subverted. Hence, the rise of these barbarians. This is a U.S. created nightmare. A fully operating Hussein or Assad military would have annihilated these vermin already. It wouldn't even come to be in the first place. Anybody seriously looking at Iraq in 2002 could see that this was going to be a problem. So these "masters of war" like Cheney and Rumsfeld straight up had to know that chaos would ensue. Chaos means unending war, and war means money for all sorts of interests, including Halliburton. It also creates a militarization of American society (hence the use of military hardware by police forces in the United States). These things make sense for those powers that ultimately make the United States government move. This country was found on the ideas of John Locke (and some others, even more radical than Locke). When the government fully moves against the will of the people, the people are obligated to revolt. Still waiting for that . . .

First: oh my god, people! A real non-baseball discussion? I actually made this claim several months ago: The United States must just walk away from the Middle East. That's overly simplistic, but it is necessary. There has got to be a way to quickly move away from fossil fuels, at least to the point where we don't have to support one of the top five most savagely barbaric regimes in the world (Saudi Arabia, obviously) just for their sweet, sweet oil. ISIS is a group that has really state enemies. This is the true nature of terrorism and they are an extreme version of Al Qaeda. No nation state wants these people in their country. This is where the United States went terribly wrong following Sept. 11. The Taliban, even, just asked for proof. We didn't give it, waged war, and now are going to basically just turn that country over to the Taliban again. Saddam Hussein was a monster, but he was a monster who maintained order. There is value in that . . . because order can be subverted. Power vacuums and civil war can't be subverted. Hence, the rise of these barbarians. This is a U.S. created nightmare. A fully operating Hussein or Assad military would have annihilated these vermin already. It wouldn't even come to be in the first place. Anybody seriously looking at Iraq in 2002 could see that this was going to be a problem. So these "masters of war" like Cheney and Rumsfeld straight up had to know that chaos would ensue. Chaos means unending war, and war means money for all sorts of interests, including Halliburton. It also creates a militarization of American society (hence the use of military hardware by police forces in the United States). These things make sense for those powers that ultimately make the United States government move. This country was found on the ideas of John Locke (and some others, even more radical than Locke). When the government fully moves against the will of the people, the people are obligated to revolt. Still waiting for that . . .

Bat him fourth then. I think the 4th guy comes up, on average, with more runners on base than anyone else.

I still cannot understand any justification for batting Mauer third, at least not in this lineup. Potentially I could see a Buxton-Polanco top of the order, but that is not close right now.

I love that 10 pages in we are talking about the merits of bunting for base hits and beating the shift.

Bunting is easy compared to most other things batters are trying to do.

It might translate to a few wins a year. Some people make light of that. I don't!

Indeed. It's weird. One would think that it would be easier to develop other pitches when one has such a fastball already.

I am fine with Hunter doing whatever. As long as that OPS stays north of .750. Pelfrey can throw well all he wants. I don't understand any expectations about him. He's a good guy and we like to cheer for good guys. I get that. But what else, really, is there to say? The team added Santana and Stauffer, thus making it really hard for anyone to make it in the rotation or bullpen who wasn't already there at the end of last year.

Turner to AA, Garver to A+, Fernandez and Navarreto to A ball. Garver should (hopefully) force his way to AA for the second half of the season. Maybe Turner produces nicely and moves to AAA at some point.

Good stuff from Souhan. I find the Strib writers to be good in spring training . . . . I like seeing that about Santana. He is going to be a good pitcher for the Twins. Mark the words. I get the impression that there is something totally different about how ST is going to play out this year and that this is where Molitor might really make a difference.

Also, thinking about Mauer somewhere means that someone else must be better suited to hit second (or first). It just isn't clear who that would be. With Buxton around, I do think that I would love a lineup of Mauer-Buxton-Sano-Vargas-Arcia-Dozier-Rosario-Pinto-Hicks at some point in September.

False. He hit into 12 last year. 7 the year before (with great OPS). 23 the year before (with great OPS). What are you even talking about here? Why does this continue to persist at TD? It's been demonstrated to be false again and again and again.

Yep, Brock. While there is some legitimacy in the argument that Mauer hits to left so much that he isn't moving runners from first to third or second to home on singles, this still revolves around the notion that the Twins are then going to have runners on first and second or first and third with nobody out in the first inning if Mauer is batting second. The very setup to the scenario makes me like the scenario enough to not worry about it too much. First innings with Santana (1) and Mauer (2) both on base are going to be great first innings. I do like the idea of having a base stealer ahead of Mauer, so that is why I like the idea of seeing how Santana does leading off at the beginning of the season. I still want Mauer second and someone who can smack bombs batting third (Dozier vs. lefties, Arcia vs. righties).

Ulgh. The dude (Mauer) seems to hit into more double plays simply because you expect him to do more since he is a great batter. The numbers are not that egregious. The OBP necessitates him batting first or second. I don't understand any other claim about batting third or anywhere else. Maybe in a few years if the OBP drops compared to other players, he can bat sixth. This conversation is quickly degenerating into certain claims about Mauer that are just not consistent with reality.

Wow. First off, cheers to Rickey Henderson, who absolutely would have been the best player in baseball in the past 15 years. Also, Wade Boggs. I am not going to share with you his BB/K numbers. Look that up for yourself and be amazed. Those two represent some some pretty elite players who both were elite leadoff hitters when used there and yet had somewhat different numbers. The walks matter most, obviously, but the doubles-power of Boggs made up for the homers-power of Henderson. I can't understand how steals-caught stolen doesn't ultimately matter more. And I mean aside from the intangible impact on pitchers, catchers, and defense generally that a speedster can have on the bases. Depending on context, it can be almost the same as making a single into a double. It can also remove double play opportunities. On the other hand, it can obviously mean nothing . . . but so can a double or triple if the run doesn't score. I don't really understand this fully to comment in a better fashion.

The Twins will need to have a different GM in order to ever get serious about intelligent statistical analysis in baseball. That is simply a fact. The Twins are lucky that the other aspect of assessment--the eye test--has been done by someone very good at the top in Terry Ryan. That said, the overall antipathy towards statistical analysis by this organization is embarrassing. Ryan seems like a more eloquent and careful-with-words version of Charles Barkley.

Dougie doesn't "put numbers on him." Players do that themselves!

Look, I really like Rosario and the thought occurred to me before signing Hunter that the Twins could have just rolled out of camp with Rosario in the OF. But have we forgotten the first season of Aaron Hicks already? The AFL is not a legitimate test, overall, for a lot of reasons. Kepler smacked AFL pitching too . . . where do you guys want him to start this year? Rosario hasn't even been good yet at AA.

Barely below the 5th guy. One reason for this is control over the lineup in the first few innings is obviously more possible. If 1st and 2nd are the two best, it makes sense that 4th and 5th are next two, and with more power. The 3rd spot being a power guy makes a lot of sense, especially given how often he will bat in the first with 2 outs and no one on base--a home run threat is a much more efficient way to score than to have Joe Mauer up with 2 outs and no one on base.

Haha. Nice. Maybe I should too. I abandoned that idea since that last "manager" was in charge. It still might be too much for Molitor though! Of course, if Santana falls significantly at all, there is no one left, in my view, but Mauer, unless Hicks starts hitting.

Did anyone actually look at the article I linked to? I still marvel at any lineup with Mauer batting third . . .

That's depressing.

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/3/17/795946/optimizing-your-lineup-by Somewhat useful. Best three overall bat 1,2, and 4. 5 and 3, in that order, are next. Power should be found mainly in your 3 and 4 guys, with 5 being more of a doubles type. Not sure how one plugs in Twins players here, other than Mauer batting second. It's just hard to think lineups right now because so many guys haven't really solidified their approaches (Santana, Vargas, Arcia, and Hicks), one is in serious decline (Hunter), one possibly in serious decline (Suzuki), and then there are Mauer, Dozier, and Plouffe.

I don't know. The Twins often wait awhile before sending players off to A ball, and then they sometimes really wait on them later, even with some fringe-ish prospects. It shouldn't be too exaggerated though. Often times in this whole "debate" both sides really exaggerate ("so slowly" or "well, Joe Mauer . . . ). On the other hand, it is good the Twins don't act like the Mets (Gomez!) or Rangers (Profar and co.).