Sam Morley

Well, you've picked his best stats, and I agree that they look strong. But you ignore his WHIP, 1.4, and his BB/9, 3.7. Plus, I think that K/9 is inflated by a borderline extreme outlier in 2013, and by looking at career averages, you discount a major criticism people are making: his inconsistency. Also, why assume he will get healthy when there are possible indications that he could continue to struggle with injury? And it doesn't really sound to me like he is coming at a discount. Plus, this: And Masterson is looking for a short term deal, right?

Even if you don't count last season, his WHIP is still pretty high. Even in his strong seasons, his WHIP isn't great (1.28 in 2011 and 1.2 in 2013). It's interesting to see, in those strong seasons, the lower WHIP coupled with the higher strand rates (around 75% compared to 66% in other seasons); so he was allowing less runners on base and making sure a higher percentage of them didn't score. I guess if you're pitching better, you're pitching better. I couldn't find a stat for induced double plays. That would be interesting to see, as the high strand rates don't necessarily correspond to a higher K rate.

This is a serious problem. I know the team is trying to dig out of a hole right now, and most of the ideas and solutions that get discussed around here revolve around just getting the team back to or at least closer to competitive form, and that now is probably not the time to spend big in free agency. But spending big in free agency is pretty key for improving your team's competitive chances in the postseason. And if TR will never do that, then the Twins seriously handicap their competitive chances in the postseason. I think, where they are now, they make small (low-risk in terms of cost, high reward in terms of potential upside) acquisitions and/or roll with the young guys (if those kind of deals aren't out there). I don't like the middle of the road deals, as they seem to bring inconsistency and mediocrity (which wouldn't be so bad if it didn't also seem like the Twins tend to remain committed because of the significant financial investment). It seems like we get stuck with Nolasco, Pelfry because of the money. It would be fine signing guys like that if you were willing to cut ties when they stink.

True. In his poor seasons, his FIP and xFIP are much lower than his ERA, and even in 2013 when he was good, his FIP and xFIP were still lower than his ERA. So, in your mind, is this an amendable flaw, or is it livable? And do you disagree with the upside down W motion leads to injury theory? I've found it to be pretty convincing, and thus a glaring red flag in Masterson, especially in light of his recent injury plagued season. And have you found or considered any explanation for the jump in K% (three seasons in a row of 17.5% and then in 2013 24.3%)?

Kubecakes! KOOOOOOBS!

So I have been pretty grumpy about the prospect of Masterson coming to the Twins, but this is a pretty compelling case in his favor. The two things I found most compelling were the analysis of his sinker, and the association of his drop in velocity with a lack of back leg drive. Some of the comments have been additionally helpful in explaining that negative sinker metric, but honestly, it's still not clear for me. Maybe somebody has a link that explains it in detail? I guess what is clear about it is that it's an exceptional pitch, so I feel a little less grumpy about getting a guy with an exceptional pitch. The video comp highlighting the change in back leg drive is impressive. It's amazing that you can actually see him driving that much harder in the first clip. And that's a very straightforward and almost obvious explanation of velocity loss. And it seems reparable. As excellent as all of the analysis in this article is, I wish it were more balanced. It's clear that you're high on Masterson and want to convince readers of his value, and that's fine, but I wish you had done more to address some of his glaring flaws. I think you do a good job explaining why he was so exceptionally bad last year, and you do acknowledge his propensity to walk. But I think you downplay the walks without exploring whether or not it's likely or possible that he can/will reduce them. Additionally, it seems like maybe you overestimate his ability to get strikeouts. Discounting last season (because he was hurt, and terrible) when I look at Masterson's K/9 and BB/9 year to year, I notice a walk rate of at least 3.5, with one outlier in 2011 of 2.7. Interesting that his career best in BB/9 is paired with his career worst in K/9, 6.6, a year that also produced his best ERA 3.21. But aside from the K/9 outlier in 2013 of 9.1, he seems to hover around 7, which is fine, but hardly of note. It would be pretty nice to buddy up that 9.1 with the 2.7, but that's wishful thinking. Sure we could poo-poo the walks, but isn't there a TD t-shirt with the slogan "walks will haunt" on it? Also, reading the comments, it seems like one injury leads to another: knee, back, shoulder, oblique. Yikes. And doesn't that blatant upside down W motion make you even more nervous? I feel like that's been flagged as the number one predictor of future arm problems. And while this is true, aren't we expecting/hoping to see Santana and Sano on the left side this season, and possibly more of Vargas at first? Anyway, good article, and I suppose it's a good sign that Cleveland wanted him back for multiple years...

If this were to be the case, and the rotation is "just as bad", it would actually be worse. With a young and improving offense, there is nothing more discouraging than night after night of your starting pitching ensuring you will lose.

I think people are too high on Masterson. He was really terrible last season. I know that his knee was hurt, and that does matter. But he was really terrible, like worst SP in the league terrible. His era was almost 6 and he had a BB/9 of nearly 5. Maybe he was hurt, maybe his peripherals weren't as terrible, maybe he had a lousy d behind him. Okay, okay, okay. But the Cardinals didn't think he was hurt when they traded for him, or at least they thought he was on the mend; in fact, I believe they thought he had correctable mechanical problems vs injury problems. Perhaps they were wrong on both counts, because he pitched even worse for them than he did in Cleveland. And no doubt the Cardinals field a better d than the Indians. Plus, it's not like the Twins' D is great either; maybe described as "maturing" at best? In my opinion, if you are going to spend serious money (which apparently- and inexplicably- it will take to get Masterson) on a free agent, it needs to be as close to a guarantee as possible. Was Phil Hughes a guarantee? No, but I'd say he was about as close as the Twins have ever gotten. If they aren't going to go after somebody serious, then the best thing they can do for the rotation is to find a way to get rid of Nolasco, and Pelfry and Milone while they're at it.

Apparently, I have entered a world in which a capital letter 'b' followed directly by a right parenthesi, ) automatically morphs into a yellow circle wearing sunglasses.

What we are ultimately concerned with here is on base percentage, and whether or not we will see a regression in that and to what extent. The OBP is supported by batting average (which is tied to BABIP) plus BB%. So if Santana's BA drops along with his BABIP, can he add enough walks to make up for the lost hits and thus keep his OBP high enough to score lots of runs? I want to understand you clearly here; in your first example, you are presuming a drop in BABIP, and that in terms of OBP the extra walks will not be enough to offset that drop. That would depend on the extent to which the BABIP drops, yes? So how much are you guessing, for that example his BABIP will drop? As for your second example, Santana's OBP that season was 333, 20 points lower than his 2014 MLB OBP, so I am confused about your assessment that this would be less regression. There are two things that I keep coming back to on this topic: 1) The factors resulting in BABIP, which I think are A) a hitter's ability to make contact the type of contact the hitter makes (LD, GB, FB, Bunt) C) the hitter's speed to first base and D) luck. With Santana, his contact rate isn't especially great (I assume contact rates include foul balls though- so maybe he hits fewer foul balls, and his rate of balls put in play to pitches swung at is actually higher than his contact rate- I couldn't find that statistic though) but he hits a high % of line drives and ground balls and bunts, and his speed to first base helps him turn a high % of GBs and bunts into hits. But he also must've been really really lucky. The way I see it, the luck factor is the biggest in terms of BABIP fluctuation. We have to assume that he will not be as lucky in 2015, but do people also think Santana's ability to make contact, good contact, will get worse? This could result from pitchers' adjustments, I suppose. Maybe that is a bigger factor than I am acknowledging. A hitter being less lucky is not really regression. So the regression that I am afraid of lies in this factor of his capacity to make adjustments to the adjustments pitchers make to him. Lastly, unless he gets hurt, he's not getting slower. 2) Even slight improvement in plate discipline and increase in BB rate will help offset a drop in BA in terms of OBP. I think that even if he doesn't make an intentional adjustment in his approach toward better swing selection, it will happen naturally with experience. It would be interesting to see his O/Z swing and O/Z contact rates from his time in the minor leagues, but they aren't available on fangraphs. Looking at other major league hitters for comparison doesn't yield much of anything conclusive. Some hitters are consistent in these categories from year to year (Pablo Sandoval, Jose Reyes). Some stayed consistent in O-swing but steadily increased their Z-swing (Carlos Gomez, Dexter Fowler). Few decrease their O-swing while also increasing their Z-swing (Trevor Plouffe is an example). So, who knows, but why not, in this case, be optimistic?

Also, it seems like when talking about signing projects like Masterson, Johnson, or Brett Anderson (or really any pitcher at all), it might be good if the Twins hurried up and hired a pitching coach to consult.

And an emphatic NO on Aoki, or I will be throwing up in my mouth a little everytime I have to see that abominable running slap-swing of his. Blech. Blech. Swing the bat like a man.

The only thing resembling consistency from Masterson is his BB/9, career close to 4. Last season, he was terrible. Maybe he was pitching hurt? St. Louis thought so and apparently thought he was through it when they traded for him in July: http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/justin-masterson-could-be-quite-a-bit-better-with-cardinals/ Maybe he was still hurt? He was certainly still bad. I don't really like the whole 'it turned out with Hughes so maybe it'll turn out with Masterson too' line of thinking. I think 'roll of the dice' is more appropriate, and I don't think Hughes was really a roll of the dice. There was basically a national baseball media consensus that Hughes profiled badly at Yankee Stadium and would be a good fit in Minnesota. I don't really see any of those types of factors at play with Masterson. But if we are up for rolling dice, why not roll rather on Josh Johnson? Masterson at his best is still pretty meh. Johnson, when healthy, is always at his best and is an ace. And what's good for an elbow once has got to be even better the second time!

Oh, here's this about Danny Santana: http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/danny-santana-man-myth-or-mirage/

You don't think this idea is given attention here? I think it's one of the main themes in the piece. Will Santana improve in enough in certain facets of his game to make up for the anticipated "regression" in others? In 100 games, 70 runs scored supported by a 350 OBP is nearing elite production. The OBP is supported by a 320 BA- definitely elite production- but when the BA is supported by an astronomic BABIP 405, you wonder whether he will improve his plate discipline, which he will need to do in order to maintain a high OBP and score an elite level run total. Can he reduce his K rate? resulting in more balls in play and more on base/run scoring opportunity? Can he improve his BB rate (4.4%) enough to maintain that 350 OBP, making up for the inevitable drop in BABIP? I think the O-swing and Z-swing numbers are telling- he needs to swing at less pitches outside the zone and more pitches in the zone. Linus, I agree with you that Santana will likely get better next season, and I think his plate discipline is the facet of his game most primed for improvement. I think that this discussion and the piece focus so much on the BABIP is because of this: Let's say that Santana actually does get better in all facets of his game, that even his hit tool- his ability to make consistent good contact- actually improves. This kind of improvement might statistically show up in something like line drive % (which at 26% is already quite good). BABIP is not something a player can 'improve'- it's basically a result of the combination of a hitter's ability to hit, the type of hitter the player is, and luck. So even if he strikes out less, putting the ball in play more, and even if a higher percentage of those extra balls he puts into play are line drives, his BABIP will still probably go down- because of luck. But again, Linus, I agree with you in that I think there is a reasonable likelyhood that Santana will make improvements. I'd hoped I was clearer about that in the piece. The sophomore slump is an interesting phenomenon I didn't really talk about, made even more interesting considering Kennys Vargas as well. A sophomore slump is certainly different from a 'fluke' season. Pitching staffs make adjustments and Santana's season two success is probably tied to how he adjusts to those adjustments. Sounds like a whole new article topic to me. I will say that the heat maps from 2014 on both sides of the plate didn't seem to show much weakness, but I haven't looked at pitch specific heat maps yet either.

What have you seen that raises your concern?

Danny Santana: Projecting Regression and Estimating Value There has been occasional to frequent mention of the “fluke” seasonal performance of certain players; namely, Danny Santana and Eduardo Escobar- Brian Dozier in the not so distant past. Usually, the notion is raised within the contexts of position placement and possible trade packages. One recent thread in particular discusses, in depth, the idea of trading Santana for starting pitching help of varying degrees of quality. http://twinsdaily.com/topic/15926-mets-need-a-ss-twins-are-a-viable-trade-partner/ When a young player, or a historically average player, performs better than expected it is certainly prudent to keep our expectations for future performance tempered. But, is it mutually wise to expect significant regression? To what extent is significant regression projectable? We have the tools of metrics and scouting reports available to help in such endeavors, but is their sum enough on which serious team and organizational decisions can be based? First, within the contexts of starting lineup/player position and possible trade packaging, I think you have to acknowledge the value of the player based on his most recent season’s performance. What is the value of a SS who plays solid defense, and hits .275 with 35 doubles in 133 games? What is the value of a CF who plays solid, improving defense, runs plus, and hits .320 with 70 runs and 41extra base hits in 101 games? Obviously, the value is excellent. In combination with Brian Dozier at 2B, it might be the best up the middle value in the league (even without considering payroll). In the case of Santana, I would say that that offensive line in combination with his ability to play the two most premium defensive positions on the field, make him the most valuable player on the team. I would not trade him for any pitching prospect. In the case of Eduardo Escobar, his ability at SS, in combination with his offensive stat line, I think is good enough to stick at SS to open the season and keep Santana out of his natural position and in CF- although, this not happening would be far more palatable to me than trading Santana for a SP. Without getting into too many other factors and variables, I understand that Santana is probably the team’s SS of the future, and it would be perfectly reasonable for Molitor to want to start him at SS. After all, he can’t be a SS stop unless he plays SS. But I have veered slightly off course, become slightly carried away at the notion Escobar and Santana will continue to rake so prodigiously. I have wandered from my own warning: prudence begs temperance. .405 The BABIP of the MLB categorical leader, who is Danny Santana. Damn, that’s high. BABIP is probably the number one metric for projecting BA regression. BA rises and falls with BABIP and a BABIP this high is not realistically sustainable. Over the past three seasons, only four players have recorded a BABIP of .390 or higher, eleven at .380 and up, eighteen at .370 and up. Discounting his 24 games at AAA in 2014, Santana’s highest MiLB BABIP was .353- a high number, but not quite four hundo (there is a steady rise in both BABIP and BA from level to level for Santana). According to this logic, we can expect to see a drop in BA for Santana in 2015. But while .405 might be exceptionally high, does it mean that Santana will not be able to maintain a more reasonably high BABIP, in the vicinity of, say, .350 plus? Over the past three seasons, on the list of the top 25 players in BABIP (.340-.400) are some regular names; some are exceptional: Mike Trout, Yasiel Puig, Joe Mauer, Andrew McCutchen, Paul Goldschmidt; some are not: Dexter Fowler, Chris Johnson, Starling Marte (with the exception of Chris Johnson, all of these players have a MiLB track record of hitting for high BABIP). So, hitting for a high BABIP can be done with some measure of expected consistency. Additionally, very few of the players on the lists were outliers- without previous seasons of high BABIP (Jhonny Peralta in a shortened 2013 and Jer Saltalamachiado also in 2013 are two examples). Of course, the success of the aforementioned players bears little influence on that of Danny Santana. But there are additional batted ball statistics in support of Santana’s ability to maintain a high BABIP. The type of batted ball that results in the most hits is the line drive (this is actually an assumption, I haven’t looked it up). Santana’s LD% of 26 is excellent, 14th in baseball. His GB% of 45.9 puts him in the high middle, and his FB% of 28.1 puts him in the low middle. Fly balls that don’t result in home runs usually result in outs. Santana’s percentage of home runs to fly balls was on the low side, 8.5%, so the proportion of ground balls he hits to fly balls I think is appropriate for the type of hitter he is. I didn’t find average fly ball distances for Santana, but I think that would be helpful in projecting his future home run production- whether or not we might see more balls travel over the fence or more balls fall short for outs in 2015 (he’s listed at 5’11 160. 160 is pretty light for 5’11. It seems like he could easily put on 15 to 20 lbs without losing speed, and actually add some distance to those fly balls). The other significant stats here are his infield hit total/percentage and his bunt hit/percentage, and both are pretty good. He had 17 IFH with a percentage of 12.7 (the percent is relative to ground balls) and 9 bunt hits in 18 attempts. These, to me, seem like projectable statistics because of their relativity to a player’s speed (which is of course relative to his health). Now, if I was a little savvier, or a little more motivated, I would figure out how to put Santana’s spray charts and heat maps from both sides of the plate into this piece right here: http://www.fangraphs.com/zonegrid.aspx?playerid=10322&position=SS/OF http://www.fangraphs.com/spraycharts.aspx?playerid=10322&position=SS/OF&type=battedball The links will have to do. The spray charts illustrate his ability to hit line drives to all fields from both sides of the plate. The power is all pull, but relative to his ability to hit for high average it’s the line drives that count. The heat maps illustrate some susceptibility high in the zone, mostly as a right handed hitter, but overall, little weakness. And here, check out his highlight video: I don’t see anything mechanically to pick on. The swing is balanced and strong. There doesn’t seem to be any exploitable timing mechanism. His hands are still, save a slight movement back in the load, and they stay in to the point of contact, finishing high- evidence of that slight Ted Williams uppercut. I love to watch his feet the most. They also are quite still, starting wide in the stance and foregoing a stride but still generating power with a back leg load and forward weight transfer so smooth it’s almost unnoticeable. If you can freeze frame on the point of contact on one of his homers, it’s picture perfect. The homers are definitely not moon shots, but they’re not all wall scrapers either. My favorite of all of these are his steps out of the box. His swing finishes so balanced that he is very efficient coming out of the box. It’s almost identical whether he is hitting a GB single or a dinger- he plants his back foot and his first step is down the line toward first. I think this speaks to his infield hit totals as well as stretching singles into doubles. But he is not sacrificing any authority in the way that Nori Aoki does with that hideous running slap swing. Honestly, I got the notion to watch some film on Santana after I started writing this piece, and now that I have I’m even higher on him than I already was. Dude’s sharp; definitely more polished at the plate than I realized. Granted, I just watched the good stuff. (Well, I did find one clip of a MiLB strikeout, but it didn’t unfound any of the goodness). But it looks like homey will hit, and he has too. Because if he doesn’t, he won’t be getting on base much, as his plate discipline is not so great. To begin with, his O-swing% (% of pitches swung at outside the strike zone) is 40.3, .1% behind our other friend, Eduardo Escobar, ranking them 11 and 12 in the bigs. Unfortunately, as is the case with other hitters who have a high O-swing%, neither Santana nor Escobar have a particularly high Z-swing% (% of pitches swung at in the strike zone) 63.1 for Santana and 67.4 for Escobar. I don’t know about you guys, but I just don’t have the historical standards of these advanced metrics locked into my brain yet (like BA, OPS, SLG, etc) so I have to look at lists and charts to compare. Anyway, having a high O-swing isn’t necessarily bad if you have a high O-contact to go along with it (i.e. Pablo Sandoval, Victor Martinez) but this is not really the case for Santana- his O-contact% was 65.9 which isn’t terrible either. Both his Z-contact and overall contact% end up fairly average (the pitch f/x numbers are slightly more favorable). Optimistically, and somewhat reasonably, one would hope that as Santana gains experience, his plate discipline skills/numbers will improve and will translate to a BB% closer to league average and an even higher OBP%, which due to his BA is much higher than league average currently. I was about to suggest that with the success of some of the Twins hitters in the plate discipline department (Mauer, Dozier, and Plouffe) that some of that success might rub off on Santana. But then I considered the likes of Oswaldo Arcia and Kennys Vargas and had to laugh at the pretty dramatic (I’ll say coincidental) contrast between the approaches of our American hitters and our Latino hitters. I’m glad we have both. I wonder if/hope Brunansky is able to help individual hitters craft their own personal approach and style to be the best it can be, or if he has the tendency to force players into a single desired approach. It seems like in the past, the staff has been problematically forceful (not necessarily in temperament) with a philosophical bias toward things like patience, seeing pitches, and taking the ball the other way. I certainly think those are good things, but I also noticed that the two world series teams this season had lineups full of free swingers (although I think the team with the more balanced lineup-in these terms- won). Aside- did anybody else hear Delmon Young’s quote after hitting that bases clearing double against Detroit? They were asking him about it after the game and he said he was trying to hit a grand slam. They were surprised and said something like, “You weren’t trying to stay within yourself and just get a base hit?” and he laughed and said, “No, man, every time I come in I just try to step up and hit the foul pole.” I think that was my favorite quote from the season. I love Delmon. http://m.mlb.com/video/v36734763/delmon-young-joins-scott-braun-on-mlb-tonight Haha, okay, so finally, I would like to come back around to Danny Santana’s projected value, both on the field for the Twins and as a possible trade piece. I don’t really understand the Steamer projections (maybe somebody has a great link to a site that explains it) particularly their estimations of games played, which are always really low. For 2015, it seems like they are not very kind to Daniel. They give him about 35 more games (138) without any uptick in counting stats and that BA comes down about 50 points. Ouch. Bastards. For no legitimate reason whatsoever, let’s just split the dif between last season and the steamer projection. Let’s say he plays 150 games, mostly at SS, with steadily improving D. Let’s say he slashes 290/330/420, scores 90, drives in 60, and steals 35. What is the value of that? Let’s say he’s better the next year. What about then? In conclusion, I would like to see more research and writing done by some peeps more knowledgeable than me on this notion of the “fluke” season. What are some recent historical examples of players having “fluke” good seasons (Chris Davis?)? I probably have overlooked and/or am totally ignorant of other tools used in projecting regression, and it would be good to be educated. Although I am no authority, I do venture to assert that it is not wise to base serious team and/or organizational decisions on the estimation that a player’s recent success of significant sample size may have been a “fluke”. Further, I think that in the particular case of Danny Santana, while it makes sense to anticipate regression, it would be a terrible mistake to overestimate the amount and trade him on its account. I think that both his short and long term value is greater than 90% of starting pitchers. -All the stats I pulled are from fangraphs.com.

The gold does sound a little strange, but nothing could be worse than what the T-wolves are wearing these days.

I definitely did not even notice it when I read the article yesterday, but when I pulled it up and read it again today, I was like 'wait, what?' Nicely done. I wish it was real. Maybe one of you guys with privileges can convince Molitor start doing it next time you get an interview.

I could watch that clip of Adam Eaton all day. Hilarious. He bounces so hard. Also, Parker, were you joking about Molitor tasting dirt for bad hop clues? I just reread that sentence; you say he tastes handfuls of dirt. Have you seen him do this? Has anyone on TD ever seen Molitor tasting handfuls of dirt? I didn't know this was a thing and now I am imagining it in many different ways. I suppose it's probably some Bear Grylls kind of thing where he takes a knee, scoops up a little pinch, brings it to his nose, sniffs it, and then just sticks his tongue out to get a little taste of dirt. But now I can't help imagining Molitor plunking down on his butt out at short and just putting a whole handful of dirt in his mouth. Visiting TV broadcasters will be like "Who's that guy and what the heck is he doing?" "Oh that's just the new manager eating some dirt. He always does that." The jokes here are limitless. According to Wikipedia, the practice of eating dirt is called geophagy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophagy) and if you click on the link and scroll down to the sub heading "In the United States" you will learn that Molitor may have some ulterior motives for practicing... If the Twins stink again in 2015, I'm going to remember this article and say, "maybe Molitor isn't eating enough dirt." and "maybe he should try throwing his own feces at the wall and looking for signs in the splatter." Molly: Hey Bruno, come in here. Bruno: (covering his nose upon entering the manager's office) Oh my God, Paul, WTF? Molly: No no no, check out this corn. Do you see it? I think it means we should try Vargas in center. Personally, my main hope for a manager is that they are entertaining. Gardy was pretty entertaining, and I was doubtful Molitor could measure up. But I'd say eating dirt is a pretty good start.

This is a pretty balanced article, but it has convinced me that Escobar should be the everyday SS at the beginning of the 2015 season. The estimation that his 2014 performance was fluke-ish (as mentioned in comments, not the article) is weakly conceived (a guess without significant statistical or historic support). At age 25, entering his third major league season, a better guess is that his best performance lies ahead (a guess based on the historic trend of players having breakout seasons around the ages of 26 and 27). Steamer projections (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=6153&position=3B/SS) for 2015 do anticipate a drop in production, seemingly along with a return to a utility role, but the drop is not dramatic and would not be enough to classify 2014 as a fluke. Do you guys think it's even worth trying to guess that a player will perform worse and subsequently adjust his role with the team based on that guess? Obviously players are given opportunities to play based on hopes and/or projections of improvement in performance, but how often is the reverse attempted (aside from aging veterans)? In the case of Escobar, anyway, I think that he has earned the job. As for Santana, I think that he has earned the season opening CF job. It would be nice to put him at SS, but that job is Escobar's to lose, I think, and there really is not an alternative in CF until Buxton is ready. I like Hicks, and I would like to see him get another solid opportunity, but I think Santana's offensive emergence and ability to hold down CF eliminates Hicks. When you have one player successfully performing in a position, how can you justify replacing him with a player with a track record like Hicks' based on a hope that he will improve? (what a horribly constructed sentence- sorry). So does that push Hicks over to LF? Between Hicks and Santana, does it make a difference who plays LF and who plays CF? Hicks is obviously better in CF, but Santana is more used to CF than to LF, and if Hicks does get it together at the plate, wouldn't he be facing a move to LF with the arrival of Buxton? And then there is this notion of Mauer in LF, which horrified me the first time I heard it, but I seem to be warming to it now- maybe under the effect of repetition. I think my initial cringe was due to how poorly Mauer's bat profiles in LF, not that it profiles any better at 1B- and then I had to acknowledge I was just discussing Hicks in LF, so you can have a three time batting champ or a two time sub mendoza champ. And as others have said, Mauer should be able to handle LF. As we all know, anybody can play LF, just ask Travis Ishikawa. The last thing I wanted to respond to here, is the possibility that Sano makes the team out of spring training. In this case, I think that he should start at 3B and Plouffe should move to LF and Mauer can stay in his 1B/DH role with Vargas. This probably undermines what I've already said about ousting a successful player from his position based on hopes for another, but Sano is special, right? He warrants exception, and should get the chance to stick at third. One thing I hope to see, eventually, from Molitor, in contrast to Gardy, is an ability to figure out these roles and lineup places earlier in the season. I always felt that even in the Twins' successful seasons under Gardy, it often took him until near the all star break to settle on a consistent lineup. Obviously, with the team in rebuild mode, much experimenting lies yet ahead.

Download attachment: tony-gwynn.jpg Did anyone else read Jim Caple’s recent article on ESPN.com about Tony Gwynn and chewing tobacco? In the article he advocates for the ban of on-field use of chew in MLB, noting that it is already banned in MiLB. The topic at hand certainly evokes strong opinions; somewhere along the lines of individual freedoms vs. general health and well-being, with a whole host of other considerations on the side. I was drawn to the article because I was saddened and angered to learn that Gwynn’s passing was due to his tobacco use, but it also caused me to reflect on my own experience with chewing tobacco and baseball. Caple raises a couple of concerns in his anti-tobacco advocacy: one, ballplayers are visible to kids and are influential; and two, ballplayers influence each other and will not cease use of tobacco on their own, making a league enforced ban necessary. When I was a kid, and ballplayers were my heroes, I definitely was aware they used chewing tobacco. You could see the tin in their back pocket, and you could see wads of varying size in their mouths. I think to the extent that I really understood what it was, I thought it was pretty much gross, but definitely also thought it looked cool at the same time. To this day, (I’m 30) when I see a ball player with a huge plug, I have mixed thoughts: ‘Whoa, that’s a huge plug, sweet,’ and, ‘Man, that is gross and terrible for you, dude.’ I am a fan of the traditional elements of baseball. I like the unwritten rules, strange superstitions and classic stats. I hate replay review and manager challenges. Though chewing tobacco in baseball may fall under the banner of tradition, and though I may miss it- a very little bit- as an aesthetic component, I find myself leaning very heavily in the position Caple advocates. Tobacco was not available to me as a kid, nor did I seek it. Playing ball in high school, there was no way anyone could have chewed on the field and gotten away with it. Maybe some indiscernible amount, but that would’ve defeated the point. I remember reading about Brett Butler and his cancer diagnosis and I remember figuring that chewing tobacco use was probably on its way out in the big leagues, and in general. Then I went to college. I went to Linfield College in Oregon, home of a pretty successful D3 baseball program, which I was going out for. It seemed as if every guy on the baseball team chewed. I was totally shocked. The head coach, a life time chewer, made his no-tobacco team policy clear, assuring everyone that this season he was quitting for real. The upperclassmen giggled-- no one took it seriously. At one winter practice, we were indoors due to weather, preparing to do some conditioning sprints. Players were lined up side by side across the field house floor. A coach shouted ‘go’ and everyone took off. Two or three strides in, a tin came tumbling out the hoodie pocket of the second baseman and rolled across the floor in front of him, with him hilariously stumbling after it. I don’t remember if he got in any trouble or not. I doubt it. I’d be surprised if any of those guys’ high school experience were much different from mine. My guess is most of them started chewing when they got to the college level. I wonder, had I stuck around baseball long enough, whether I would’ve started myself. There are a lot of great baseball fans and former players who frequent this site. I’m interested to hear some other experiences/stories and opinions regarding this topic. Some commenters on the ESPN.com article page itself suggest Caple is using Gwynn’s passing to push an agenda on a touchy subject with political undertones. Others quickly pointed out that Gwynn himself was active in anti-tobacco campaigning. I think maintaining a dialogue on an issue a person cared about in his life is a fine way to honor him, posthumously. Here is the link to the ESPN.com article: http://espn.go.com/m...-tobacco-policy Click here to view the article

Download attachment: 1twin041613.jpg After reading Parker Hageman’s recent analysis1 on Oswaldo Arcia’s approach and swing, I’ve been thinking about it since, particularly as Arcia’s slump is reaching toward extreme extents. I think Parker is spot on in his critique of Arcia’s over-aggressive, indiscriminate approach at the plate. Past success swinging at first pitch fastballs has led to present adjustments by pitchers to throw off speed early, but not- so far- to any counter adjustment by Arcia. I also think the swing-out-of-your-shoes approach, in combination with poor plate discipline, is problematic. I do think these have both been recent trends and not career-long issues. A quick glance at his 2014 spray chart2 supports the aggressive, hard swinging approach observations. A heavy propensity to pull, including all four home runs, is evident. Compare this to his spray charts from 20133 which demonstrate more even distribution. Just looking at line-drives, in 2013, 10 of 33 counted line-drives went left of center. Whereas in 2014, we’re looking at 2 of 17. Add home runs: 2013, 5 of 14 to left of center; 2014, 0 of 4. The higher percentage of well-hit balls in 2013 indicate a more balanced and better disciplined approach than what we have seen in 2014, particularly over the past couple weeks. As for his swing mechanics, I’m not too concerned about the hands drop pointed out by Roy Smalley and Parker. Because he starts with his hands so high in his stance, they’re going to have to come down. If your hands are up by your ears, you can’t go straight to the POC (point of contact) or you’ll only ever hit ground balls. From the videos I watched of Arcia hitting this year4, last year5, and in minor league seasons at New Britain6 and Ft. Myers7, I could not discern a significant change in the drop of his hands during the load stage of his swing. I suppose there is logic to the notion, which Parker points out, that with a lower load point with his hands, a hitter may be more susceptible to strikes higher in the zone. The video clip of Arcia he included demonstrates this on a one swing sample size as Arcia puts what appears to be a beautiful and well-timed swing under the pitch. However, I think the statistics cited regarding Arcia’s high swing and miss at high strikes rate, are just as likely explained by his overall lack of discipline at the plate (a lot of bad guessing and not getting a good pitch to hit), rather than an issue with his swing. And, as others have pointed out in the comment boards, Ted Williams- probably the greatest student and teacher of hitting ever- loaded his hands low8 and did not struggle with high strikes9. While I didn’t notice much difference in his swing from last season to this, there was one significant difference between his swing in the minors and what it is now: the high step. In the minors, there was a toe tap and slide-stride with the knee bending only slightly as the hips cock in. Both this season and last, his stride is preceded by a high, almost Puckett-esque step. I don’t dislike the high step. It assures a full load to the back leg and a powerful weight transfer moving forward. It effects more coil in the hips and more power in their rotational ‘snap’. Many excellent hitters have utilized it without expensing balance or batting average. I think if there has been a definite exaggeration in the drop of Arcia’s hands during his load (which I couldn't see in the video I watched) it has probably come in conjunction with the high step. While I don’t think either one is problematic, I do think, in Arcia’s case, they might be indicative of something that is: wanting to hit a jack in every PA. If this is what is at the root of his recent extended slump, then it is an uncomplicated fix and will inevitably mend itself. When you go 0 for the week, you have to come back to balance, contact and a disciplined approach. I think Arcia’s track record, particularly in the minors, indicates he is a disciplined hitter. Though his low-ish walk rates and high-ish K-rates might suggest otherwise, his ability to consistently hit over .300 indicates some level of swing selection. I think he needs to relax and trust that the quality of his swin, and his strength will produce good power, and the resultant balance will yield a higher average and on-base rate. It seems as though the Twins coaching staff has for years pushed a patient, disciplined approach to batting. I think they’ve pushed the approach to a fault. While I think the philosophy is best for most hitters, I think it has been harmful to a few exceptionally talented players to come through the Twins' system- Delmon Young and Carlos Gomez in particular. Gomez, especially, I don’t think would have become the player he is if he had stayed in Minnesota, as much as I wish he would have. Fortunately, while Oz may have earned some comparisons to the aforementioned players in terms of batting approach, I do think his true self as a hitter is more in line with what the Twins seem to preach. Maybe not totally in line, but enough that I think he will eventual excel here. I hope so. He is far and away the most exciting player on the roster, a la pimping triples off the wall in a ski mask. I hope he works through his slump with the Twins. I really do not want to see him sent to back to 'Chester. Sources 1. http://twinsdaily.co...uite-There-Yet) 2. http://www.fangraphs...type=battedball 3. http://www.fangraphs...vs1=ALL&vs2=ALL 4. A. http://m.mlb.com/vid...y=oswaldo+arcia B. http://m.mlb.com/vid...y=oswaldo+arcia 5. 6. 7. 8.http://www.chrisolea...ams_C_001_C.gif 9. http://2.bp.blogspot...strike_zone.gif Click here to view the article

"You can scoff all you want at the Twins general philosophy of staying and promoting from within, but most of the track history the past 25 years indicates that they generally surround themselves with pretty smart talent." I agree, and additionally, I think the Twins 'family' organizational approach makes the team more fun to follow. I like that individuals define the Twins as much as the team colors. I think Jerry Seinfeld once joked that sports fans are cheering for cloth in reference to the high turnover in the pro arena. The Twins seem to defy this without sacrificing quality. I hope Gardy's replacement is in-house, or has some past connection to the organization. A handful of former catchers mentioned here, but no Terry Steinbach? I definitely would love to see Mientkiewitcz take over. Or maybe the broadcast teams should just switch with the coaching staff.

Now that's how you break a slump!