Trov

Why not scrap the draft all together and go with a roulette type thing. Each team picks one player they would like to draft each round, no duplicates allowed. Then you put those names on a giant wheel and each team gets one spin. After each team spins you get the player you landed on, unless another team did as well. Then of course there would be a player or players not picked, so what do we do? Simple you take the duped players and non spun players onto a second wheel with again only the teams remaining to spin. You continued to do this until each team gets a player. You do this for however many rounds you want to do for drafting. How do we figure out bonus pools you ask? Greedy players and their agents always wanting to make sure they get the money they deserve. Well I have that figured out too. The first player named in each round gets that round slot bonus value. Then instead of a draft number attached the player will have slot value attached. For example, say the number one overall gets 5 million, and number two gets 4.5 million, and joe bob gets named first for the wheel, no matter what team gets job bob his value for bonus pool is 5 million, and you can sign him for whatever value you want but normal rules apply. Imagine the trades that would happen after the "wheel of fate of future ball players" event. Just a thought.

This article showed the serious problem the Twins had in drafting and why they failed for so long. When you have 2 whole draft classes with 1 MLB player in it, that is poor very poor. Yeah some years will be lean and some will be huge, but when you had picks as high as they did for years and get crap from them. Ugh hopefully those years are behind us.

I doubt you will find too many of these anymore, except for players that drop because of signing issues. Yeah, there will be a few that slip through cracks, always will be, but with high school show cases all over now players will get on radar much ealier and with so much digital video passing around less likely someone gets missed on. Think Hrbek growing up in 70's in cold Minnesota, not a hot bed for talent, despite three HOF players coming out of Twin Cities during that time, Molitor, Morris and Winfield. All three of them went to college to better show case their skills. I doubt many scouts ever saw Hrbek growing up. Not a Twin, but to me the biggest draft find of them all is Mike Piazza draft in 62 round as a favor. 1389 players picked before him.

First, as pointed out the Twins were in a very different position in 2012 than they are now. They were not on the verge of winning, but clearly the cubbord was bare, thanks to Smith win now moves. We had talent in low levels but still a couple years away, and hardly any pitching at any level. So the trades made, although not really paid off and better ones could have been made, were not all that bad under the situation. The writing was on the wall and the Twins needed to reload the system, and as pointed out Span would be wasted, so why not get value for him than let him toil away losing value, because it would have got us maybe an extra couple wins? Revere was who he was, a good defender overall, with no arm and good contact hitter but no power. He never really grew beyond that and much like Span would not have added much during those years. Now, if Twins just trade a guy because others have promise would be ill advised, I would agree. However, past trades should never affect how one makes decisions in the future. If you believe in your prospects and believe they are the better player, trade the MLB player for something of need and play the prospect. If you are not sold on them and the MLB player will add more wins to the total keep them, it is that simple. The line "The Twins should stay put with their outfield and wait for Kirilloff and/or Larnach to prove themselves at the major league level before handing them playing time." is a logical contradiction. The only way either can prove themselves at the MLB level is if you do not stay put with who you have. Unless you assume injury, but that is still not staying put. So assume no injury then only way someone gets playing time is if you do not give it to who you have now, which would mean they will never get to prove themselves because you will never give them the chance because you will be staying put until they can prove themselves, which can never be done. Ugh my mind hurts thinking the circles of arguments that drives this. However, the point to just trade someone because you believe you have an unproven replacement when you are in win now mode does hold water. However, to compare the Twins now to back in 2012 is also flawed as they were not in win now mode.

First guy that came to mind was Joey batts. He owned the Twins at Target field no matter how poorly he was hitting he always crushed Twins, and having Donaldson hitting just before or after I hated watching Toronto games. This made me think of Ellis Burks for Cleveland in early 2000's. He also would crush Twins. Specifically, he would crush Rick Reed. Thome was on those teams too and it was just as bad trip through line up as Bautista and Donaldson. For whatever reason players seem to have teams they love to play against. Right now Kepler loves hitting against Cleveland, maybe less so with no Bauer pitching against him. I remember Luis Revas, not a great career but he hit like half his HR against the Royals.

I was thinking the same thing. To me what points out to Didi is the last year he did not performed well against too many people, but still killed the Twins. Made me think of who else killed Twins but struggled against other teams.

I think Heywood is the better manager, he is forward thinking and was ready to embrace the new shift in baseball strategy. He also would think more than "what the book says" type approach. He would let Lou swing away thinking about how having him bunt would crush the middle of the order. Heywood is willing to pull of trick plays, however, he may get distracted with the duel roll of owner and manager, those two hats may be difficult to switch between. Lou on other hand makes his hitters do push ups if they hit the ball in the air. However, I much more loved the don't give a crap attitude of Lou Brown. You want to manage Cleveland this year? "Hold on, I got a guy on the other line about some white walls." How about pissing on the contract of Dorn.

I cannot speak to what sign stealing Worthington found to be cheating, but unless it involved using non-human methods, I would not find that cheating. If players can see in and see the signs and figure out what pitch is coming and can signal the hitter, to me that is not cheating. However, what the Astros, and other teams were doing went way beyond that. Using closed circuit camera feeds, a computer algorithm, and from the dug out banging on a trash can is crazy. I mean, for years catchers would use multiple signs when runner on second, sometimes even when runner was on first, but never with no one on base, until this. As long as the game has been around there has been teams trying to gain an edge, and as long as it is a skill of the person, that is not cheating. Just like in Blackjack, counting cards is not cheating, it is using a practiced skill to help gain an edge. Why do players cover their mouths with gloves when they are on the mound, fear of a lip reader on the team learning what they talking about, should anyone have that skill. That would not be cheating, but a hidden mic in the pitching rubber hearing everything would be. I personally do not even think using video of past games to try and figure out signs from 3rd base coaches is cheating, if you want to take the time to crack the code and the opposing team takes no steps to change it.

To me, not all injuries can be prevented no matter how you prepare. Buxton shoulder was not because Twins did not do their best to keep him healthy, it was because he slammed it doing what he does trying to make great catches. Sano cut his heal doing non baseball things in off season. These are not team medical problems. The fact that no pitcher had any major issues is a big thing, and if that can continue year in and year out that is something to emulate. Injuries from work load, or bad mechanics that are not corrected are a system issue. Injuries from broken bones or non baseball actives are not a system issue. So the longest injury that to me is from system issue, was Astudillo, but is it really system or player? I like Astudillo overall, most likely because I am chubby myself and imagine I could do similar things when he runs the bases, but that chubbiness will lead to longer muscle issues most likely.

Say what you want about Eddie, and maybe the numbers do not back up what I am about to say, but there is almost no one else I would want up in high leverage situation than him. He thrives on "clutch" situations. He seems to excel at them to, or maybe he just gets more chances not sure. I know teams are always willing to pitch to him, assuming they can throw anything up there and he will chase, but he seems to come through. Again, no numbers to back this up, just my perception. That being said, I would welcome bringing in Kiroloff. I expect big things from that kid. From moment they drafted him I thought he would be a great hitter. He has done nothing to make me doubt that.

I really hope our farm system starts to produce MLB pitchers like Cleveland has been. That is what was promised when we got new GM, he was the pitching guru of finding talent and setting up development. I have always be of belief having good pitching prospects are better than position players. For one, 12 and 13 man pitching staffs now lead to more of a need, and teams always seem to be seeking upgrades at pitching. Where some position players will get blocked by others, so then their value drops in possible trades. Pitching though, you never hear a team say we cannot upgrade at pitching, so every team always willing to deal for pitching, and also with pitchers facing full season injuries or more than other position players need to replace them and have quality in the wings is also very important.

Jason Tyner, I remember his HR, it was in Clevland believe made like second row. I remember every time he would come up my mom would say something like hit one out, I and would respond he never has, and she would say he is due then. Well she finally got one right haha. He was a first round pick because he was fast. The my remember guy is Jeff Reboulet. I don't know why he always comes to mind for me when I think of how the hell is he on the team. He played 5 seasons with the Twins, never topping more than 250 AB. Normally a defensive replacement, and mustache that could not be beat. He did not come up until he was 28, but played until he was 39. That is crazy. Never would a player like him make it past 32 anymore. How he conned his way onto a roster for so long I do not know. Good on him though.

It would be great to have learned how well he would have done had he never got that concussion. Would he have stayed with Twins his whole career? Would he have played late in the 30's instead of only 35? Was the concussion still affecting him at that point when he retired? If he would have stayed healthy and played late in his 30's he would be HOF talk, instead of what if. I am sure many teams have the what if this injury did not happen, but yes the Twins have 2 in recent history, Liriano and Morneau. Two seasons that if fully healthy would have been fun to see playoffs. For Morneau he was the leader of the M&M boys, the RBI producer constantly coming through with 2 outs it seemed. My favorite Morneau memory is a walk off he hit at Target field, only because I was living out of state watched the highlight and said oh crap that was my buddy that dropped his HR. Later to learn my buddy claimed to have called it, but forever he will on video dropping a walk-off HR ball.

This is the exact illustration I like point to when I hear people tout FIP all day long about real stat on how well a pitcher will do. Just as any other stat, FIP is only a piece. It points to absent fielding how good a pitcher should be, but they play defense in baseball so why would we say FIP is so great to determine how good a pitcher was, and just got lucky with good defense. FIP only measures non defense outcomes, which yes if you can strike out a lot walk few and give up very few HR you should do well, but if your defense is terrible and allows tons of hits and errors because they are all terrible, no pitcher will do well. On other hand, if pitcher can get weak contact and have great defense even if his FIP is high he will still have a good season. That all being said, that is crazy low strike out rate for any pitcher. That team had great defense though, only weak spot was Cuddy. Punto and Bartlett up the middle with the soul patrol in the outfield.

I agree with Buxton as he has yet to put together a consistent season, unless you want to say his inconsistent seasons are what he is, or his consistent time on injury list. I agree with Penida as his suspension will carry over. However, I think your own argument about Garver is why it does not matter. You state he will not reach FA until 33, that is doom enough for him. Even if he rakes it will only give a small increase to arbitration, and the Twins would be dumb giving him an extension that takes up free agent years. If Garver wants to get paid over his career he will need to have a Dondaldson or Cruz type 30's. He will need to keep hitting in his early 30's leading to free agent season. I would agree more so if he was facing a FA season and he needed this year to prove last year was not a fluke. He will have a few years to prove he can keep hitting. If anything, the lost year is more for the Twins loss of possible production and not for Garver. Even if Garver did it again this year, he still would need to prove it a few more years to get a contract at 33. Now, if he can stay at catcher and hit lefties well, there will be jobs for him in the future, just not always as a starter.

I would have Stewart trade higher. If you want to go way down the rabbit hole, the Chuck Knobloch trade led to a huge trade tree that helped a ton. Sure the first returns were not game changing, but Eric Milton to Philly for Silva and more importantly Nick Punto, who when he was going well the team did amazing. Then Buch Bucannon to Padres for Bartlett helped for couple years. So I would put the Knobloch trade up there, not because of the first returns but what it eventually led to. I personally would not put the A.J. trade too high. Yes, it was huge win compared to what Giants got, but that was Giants fault for not thinking about personalities of players being important. Yes, Nathan is career leader in saves, an overrated stat, but how many times did he falter in the playoffs? Did it help yes, but would not have it be my number 1. This exercise has made me think of some terrible trades in team history, mainly coming from Smith as GM. Sure there were others, but he had so many bad ones it is a wonder how he managed to stay GM so long. However, he did sign Sano, Polonco, Kepler all in same year, so he had done something right.

To me for one-hit-wonders, I am would think of Scott Diamond, in 2012, who had 12-9 record with 3.54 era, 2.6 war. Rest of his career was pretty much 1 full season after that where he produced negative war. After that 1 inning three years later at MLB level. That is a true one-hit-wonder. The list you put together, I would not even consider Phil Hughes as a one. If you mean for the Twins, then yes, but he had a productive career before the Twins, not to level of that one season but he was productive. Cordova, Punto, Jones, and Guzman I would not consider them one hit wonders either. Yes, they had outlier seasons that had peak value, but they still played several years in the majors. Lew Ford I would put on the list, because he pretty much came out of nowhere and returned to nowhere. Else we could put Jack Morris on Twins one hit wonder. He had 1 season with Twins and helped them win a WS, sure he was career HOF pitcher, but 1 season with Twins. Scott Diamond is my number one. Super flash in the pan to never be heard from again after he fell back to his norm. I see one-hit-wonders as coming out of no where, having big value, then nothing after that.

The poor BABIP to hard contact ratio has been the big question for Kepler and why many think he can tear it up one day. What is odd is that it has been season after season not just a single one. A single season you would think it is just bad luck and good defense, but every season, it has to be something more. I think the number one adjustment he needs to make is realize teams are scared of him, and will start to pitch like it. Work on identifying the holes and stay off those pitches. Take page from Mitch, and say if I cannot hit that pitch hard, why swing at it. If it is a strike so be it, just let it go. If Max can make the adjustment to stay off the pitches where he struggles, then he can be a beast. Easier said than done. How many times, for other players, Buxton to be specific, do I say to myself here comes the slider off the plate leave it, and there is the slider and he swings through it. Everyone knows it is coming, but in the back of your head it is, but what if this is the one time it is not and I miss the fastball. I personally, would coach players to make pitchers show they will throw you a strike more often then they won't. Why do their job for them. That is why I love Mitch and his approach. He looks middle middle and swings hard. He figures if he cannot get a hit on edge of zone pitches, why swing. Unless it is two strikes and you need to foul off close pitches, but even then if you are not good at that, just take it, let the ump do his job.

Doc, I agree with the Twins lineup for this year, if played, and most likely next they have a deep lineup and you can hardly go wrong with many different guys hitting second. Hard to pick who is the "best" as each can put up big offense. Fact that Donaldson hits more HR than Polonco does not mean he would need to hit second over Polonco or others. All I was pointing out was argument that they are taking the old number 2 guy and changing it up with old traditional number 3. Whoever that is for the Twins I do not know, guess that is good problem to have. I agree I miss the old style of stealing bases, hit and runs, ect. Personally, I think eventually there will be shifts to having some of the old style slap hitters that can steal bases, because teams will adjust to how things are being played now, then will make adjustments. Teams will see the flaws in the new defenses, new way of pitching to hitters, and adjustments will be made. As long as they do not institute rules to stop shifting, because shifting is nothing new, just being used to higher levels than before.

Although, I cannot show you the numbers, the reason behind it is the change in philosophy of the 2 hole. In the past, the 2 hole was used to be a guy that could put ball in play well, normally for hit and run purpose or was a good bunter to put lead off guy in scoring position. However, with the philosophy of not giving up outs or risking stealing with missed hit and runs, that has changed. So really, the only thing that has changed is you take the 2 hole guy and drop him further down the lineup and moved everyone else up. Even lead off has changed from OBP+speed to just OBP, because stealing bases is mostly a thing of the past. In addition, if the lead off guy gets on, since the plan is now hit extra base hits by hitting ball in the air out, why not have the former 3 hitter move up to 2 hole and just hit a double or hr to drive in lead off guy. The day of trying to manufacture a run is over. That is why I think the new spot for best hitter is 2 hole.

I know your point is that some records will not be broken because evolution in baseball. Specifically the wins record, because pitchers will never get the chance to pitch in that many games in a season or a career to pick the amount of wins. Even if you go to the modern day break those records are now not reachable, so you need the new century record book for pitching. In terms of doubles and triples, they will never get passed because parks got smaller and now they are HR's. I am sure if teams were still playing in parks like polo grounds where down the line was little league field, but gaps and center were over 450 feet, doubles and triples would go back up. That again is why people look at the modern day records, but again think they should have the new century record book to look at.

The NOC+ stat, much as the linked article says is of little help, more just for fun. I would never adjust my analysis of a player based on it. The main reason is for one it says Eddie is above average in plate discipline, so that right there discounts any and all value of the stat. The man will swing at a pitch above his head, pretty sure I have seen him do it, and get a hit doing so. That is not disciplined, that is just being able to make contact at anything thrown up there. Sano on the other hand, one of worst, will take many close pitches or try to check swing on them. I would argue he is much more disciplined at the plate than Eddie, but is willing to take much more pitches. For me the eye test says use this stat with a huge grain of salt. I personally think plate discipline is not something you can quantify in a stat. Walks and strikeouts cannot adequately do it. I would argue more walks than strikeouts would be best sign of it, but even that could just mean very few plate appearances get to a count that could result in a walk or strikeout, because early pitch was put in play. I commented on the chase rate as being a bad elevator as well, because it takes out the human umpire element. When baseball moves to electronic strike zones then I would say the chase rate is the way to do it. However, until then, when balls get called strikes and vice versa, and the chase rate stat, to my knowledge, does not value how bad of chase it was, it can be too skewed on board-line pitches. Maybe, someone will look at how bad of a chase a pitch is. However, remember when Joe Nathan got a strike out when I guy took a pitch that landed in other batter box and umpire called it a strike? If hitter swung at that it would have been a bad chase, but the umpire called it a strike so how do you evaluate the hitter discipline in not chasing that pitch? As we try to put numbers to evaluate every aspect of the game, some things can only be evaluated by your eyes, at this point.

The problem is how the hall makes decisions, and if you have noticed the vet comity is putting in more players it would seem than before. I believe Johan will get in via that route, despite being a 1 and done guy. In this day in age judging pitchers against past is so hard. Wins are such an overrated stat, but some voters still look at them like they are important. Some pitchers like Bert got knocks for longevity, but then Johan gets it for not having it. Before I even started to read the full article I look up Koufax stats because he was put in the hall because of a few seasons where he was one of the best, but so many other players get negative treatment for the exact same thing. Koufax, much like Puckett went out on top due to injury, but Johan tried to fight back. Maybe that is the image that sticks in the voters heads, maybe it was because Koufax helped win WS, Johan did not. Maybe it was because Koufax pitched in huge market of LA and in his Prime Johan was in MN. Maybe it was because Koufax was white, and Johan was not. We will never know why two pitchers with almost idenitcal careers, minus the WS titles, which is out of a single starting pitcher control. One gets into Hall of Fame on second year on ballot, if it was 5 years from last season played like it is now, and other gets voted off in one year. Was he snubbed? Hell yes he was, he should have at least got to be on it for a few years to really look it. I am not saying he should be a hall of famer, but when Kofax is first or second ballot and Johan gets essentially no consideration and they were very much almost the same career, yes it was a snub.

First, is Bobby Tewksbary, the kid of Bob Tewksbary former Twins pitcher that threw the 60 MPH curve in late 90's? Not a very common name. Second, to defend TR a little bit, he was not the only GM in baseball that stuck to "old way" of doing things. It happens time and again that a coach, or organization find something that worked and just keep trying it. He brought the team from terrible few years, making some good drafts and trades to a team that won for several years. It was really the Rays that and Joe Madden that started to turn baseball on its head and embrace doing things different. The Twins were just very slow to change. Thankfully they finally have changed. Eventually, the old way will become the new again as players start to adjust. I always got upset, and still do when you look at knocks on Royce Lewis, is the scouts saying he needs to change this before he gets to MLB or will not be successful. My response is why? Just because not many have been successful does not mean this guy cannot. Until it is not successful, why change? You know if it is not broke don't fix it kind of thing. For years, pitchers were told, keep the ball down in the zone keep it in the park ect. Then some people started to challenge that, like any good analytical thinker should. Not challenge that it was wrong, but actually test it against actual data. What was learned, that high fastballs in the zone actually is more effective at getting outs. The risk, if not high enough, may be in the sweet spot. However, as pitchers were told to keep pitches down, hitters started to only look at low pitches as well. So hitters adjusted, now pitchers adjust. Hitters were told to work the count, get pitch count up get into bullpen. Now data shows not so much pitch count but trips through order that is the big deal. Also, teams are building strong pens, so getting into the pen may not be best. So, pitchers learned they could pump first pitch fastballs into zone as players would take them more often. So what was learned, hitters started to swing at first pitches more often. So what logically should happen? More pitchers should start to throw off-speed first pitch, or try to hit corners more hoping hitter still looking to swing early. Baseball, as is all sports, is game of adjustments and trends. The best teams continue to identify areas that can be exploited and work that.

I would agree the flaw in this is the short sample size of recent players. To me, this seems more like the fan fav award over that time. As pointed out, absent the defense aspect Hrbek was right on par with offense as Puckett, but Puckett played premium defense and was more of a fan fav. Similar to Radke there was most likely single seasons of good play by other players that were better, but during that stretch Radke was the fav of the fans and he put up good enough numbers. Overall I like the concept, but I would agree if Berrios has a few seasons of decent pitching he may not have lost the title to Cruz, but when looking back Cruz just had a decent season compared to Berrios single season.