Sam Morley

F Shelton. Just throw us a GD bone and hire Punto.

Why? his power separates him from them, but they are similar a handful of other ways. They are all pretty much one tool players. Wallner is power; Julien and Miranda are hit. They’re all pretty clunky defenders.

Good points. I didn’t realize he went 0-12. Of course, 12 abs isn’t statistically significant. I just also remember thinking he was overmatched, not just unlucky with his contact. But I should back up; I do think he is an asset. His strengths make him a worthy trade candidate, and his flaws make a parting less painful. while tork has gone through failure, he’s also had success (30+ hr season), his tool grades give reasonable reason to hope that his high ceiling is still attainable, he would fill a positional need, and isn’t a challenge for the budget. it wouldn’t bother me to lose Wallner for a chance at tork’s ceiling.

Hahaha. Man, I hesitated when I added Wallner to that list. I’ve been out of the mix at TD for a few years, but I had a hunch this was probably a Wallner crowd. I get why guys like him. Massive power and really nice ops. But isn’t his ops buoyed by being platooned? I’d guess he also feasts on league avg and worse pitching but isn’t doing much against anything quality. I mean he pretty much crumbled in his playoff showing in 2023.

I think if the twins could get torkelson for one of Julien, Miranda, or walner it would be a steal. We’ve seen real power from torkelson at the big league level, and though he hasn’t hit for avg yet, his hit tool grade is pretty good. Get him out of that park and a fresh start. There are types of trades I understand not wanting to do within the division, but I don’t see what the objection to this one would be.

I’ve been thinking abou Spencer torkelson as a trade target. Detroit is moving Keith to first and are trying to move Tork. Rumors about the Mets being interested. Wonder who Detroit would want in return.

"To suggest that Duffey is solely responsible for the two losses he's been tagged with is not quite fair." I think in disagreeing with this line, I am agreeing with the overall thesis of the article. Something Bill Buckner-esque aside, I don't see how a single player can be more solely responsible for a loss than this. It is truly as bad as it gets. The losses themselves are very significant, but it has the potential to be so demoralizing. I think it might also have the potential to be galvanizing or some other antonym of demoralizing, depending on how the manager responds. We all saw how pumped Buck was after he hit that go-ahead homer in the eighth inning. He wants to lead this team with his performance and with his energy. My guess is that after Duffey blew the game, Buxton was more pissed than deflated. I think if Duffey sticks around and keeps getting meaningful opportunities, then the situation is confirmed demoralizing. I think if Duffey is benched, relegated to garbage time, or best of all, outright cut, then the anger is validated. I can't see any risk in cutting him. Bullpen: next man up.

Does anyone think the rotation as is can get us to the trade deadline in contention?

This idea of “there are no starters or relievers, only pitchers” is flawed, and I think the flaw is basically a semantic one. Here’s what I’m thinking: 1. some pitchers are better than others, meaning they are better at getting hitters out than other pitchers. 2. the number of pitchers on a team is finite. 3. those pitchers have to pitch all the innings of the season. 4. the pitchers who are better than the others will have to pitch most of the innings of the season. Further, the larger the portion of “most of the innings” that the better pitchers pitch, the more success the group of pitchers as a whole will have at getting hitters out. 5. whether the better pitchers start or finish games seems statistically unimportant to me so long as they are pitching most of the innings, and the more the better (up to some point of diminishing return). (While it may be statistically unimportant in a vacuum, it might be very important to the humans who are the better pitchers, and to the fans of the game for aesthetic reasons). 6. So I say it’s semantic because we call the better pitchers starters and the others relievers. 7. the idea of using a bunch of failing starters (Velazquez, Tomlin, etc) in the bullpen isn’t creative, innovative, or forward thinking. It’s just every bullpen ever. 8. the only way to have more pitchers each pitch fewer of the same amount of innings is to expand the roster. If the roster size is expanded, the same strategy will be available to all of the teams, the talent will be diluted, and the teams with the most better pitchers will still win the most games.

https://youtu.be/929Wk-EWQ0s so after this, the tigers immediately sent burrows back to triple a, and now they’ve apparently cut him outright.

99% of major league hitting is about being able to turn on an inner third fastball. Major league pitching is working against that, luring hitters further and further toward and off the outer third. Every once in a while someone squeaks through the system to the show who fits into a 1% that looks for the ball on the outer third and tries to spray it away. There's room for success doing it because pitchers aren't prepared for it or just don't care. If you only have to face a guy like that once in a while, why would you waste time preparing for it? It's the same reason that there can always be one or two knuckle ball pitchers. I think pitchers probably will be able to adjust to Arraez. If they can beat him with fastballs on the inner third, he's done. If can show that he can turn on those from time to time and make them think twice, he'll be okay. His 2019 spray chart shows four home runs all to right field, so that seems like a good sign. Not sure what pitches they were off of though... Ten minutes later: Okay, there are four and I found the videos for all of them on MLB.com. 1 fb 93 center away, 1 curve 84 center, 1 fb 92 center in, 1 curve 83 down in. So there is one fastball edging close to the inner third and he really crushes it. Nice.

The "hit tool" is weird. The other tools are all pretty much natural physical attributes. Hitting mostly is a learned skill that is impacted by a bunch of natural physical attributes that aren't counted as tools: vision, quickness, hand eye coordination, intellect. There are some people who pick up the mechanics pretty quickly from a young age, and I suppose they get some due credit for being natural hitters. Most have to learn it though and reinforce with a lot of repetition and constant refinement. I would say that in either of these cases, the results are a player who can hit a fastball. That's the foundation of the "hit tool"... I think. My question is, how much does a hitter's ability to hit off-speed (or lay off it) influence the qualification of his "hit tool"? If a guy has the other tools, and the 'sub-tools', and has the proper hitting mechanics, looks great in BP, and crushes fastballs when he knows they're coming, then I think he has a good chance of learning/adjusting to off-speed. Hopefully that is the case with Keoni. If it's not, he's going to be a bust, and someone(s) in the FO made a poor selection. Being a great athlete is icing on the cake. Nobody wants a cake without the icing, but the f'ing cake is hitting fastballs. A .171 BA, with his speed, is a bad sign. Since we're doing comparisons... Byron Buxton was a raw, athletic HS 1st round pick. He murdered fastballs and his off-speed game didn't get exposed until he debuted in MLB. The Mike Trout comps don't make sense.

But it kind of reminds me of the days where pitchers like Johnson and Clemens were averaging 97 on their fastballs. eh? eh?

That isn't something that would be included in a medical report, is it? I don't understand the conflation of his medical history with his projection as a starter vs reliever. Is Boston saying that there is something in his medical history that predicts he will be a reliever? If so, what is it? Lots of starters have had TJ. Lots of starters have had shoulder impingement. Is Graterol himself saying he doesn't want to start anymore? This whole starter/reliever projection bit is nonsense. Boston could whine about him not projecting as a starter to devalue him/get another piece in the trade and then use him as a starter anyway.

How do you estimate how many times a healthy person can throw a baseball before they get injured? How can a person's physical condition be such that it is unsafe for them to throw 100 pitches in a game once a week but safe for them to throw 20 pitches in a game every other night? If there is something wrong with their body that prevents them from doing the former, wouldn't the same thing prevent them also from doing the latter? Starting pitchers turn into relief pitchers for one reason: they aren't good enough at pitching to be starters. They are saying Graterol can only handle a work load of 150-170 innings in a season. What does that mean? Does he get too tired to be effective after that? Is he getting too tired at that point in the season because of how hard he throws? That would make sense. That would jive with starters who convert to relievers and add 3-4 mph to their fastball. Presumably, most starting pitchers are not working near the top of their max range. They give up some heat in favor of stamina, and they have to become better at pitching to make up for the lost mph. My interpretation of Graterol being forecast as a reliever is that they don't think he's good enough at pitching to lose the mph. But I don't see what is stopping him from becoming better.