chpettit19

If their goal is to score fewer runs, sure. The math is overwhelming, sacrifice bunts are not a good strategy in most situations. There's a reason it's such a seldom used strategy in the league as a whole. You don't have to like it, but the sacrifice bunt isn't a weapon that will be used frequently anymore. It's just not a good way to win baseball games.

I'd say they shouldn't work on it in any game situation. They should practice it during BP and that's it. Arizona (team with the most sac bunts in the entire league last year) had 36 sacrifice bunts the entire year. They had 6124 total plate appearances. They sac bunted in 0.59% of their plate appearances. That lead the league. Practicing something you're going to do .59% of the time instead of something you're going to do 99.41% of the time doesn't seem like a great use of game situation reps. Let's say they were really bad at it and they were only successful 50% of the time so they actually used 72 PAs on that skill. That jumps them to 1.2% of plate appearances. Still going to say they should spend 100% of game reps practicing the skill they use 98.8% of the time. Wonder how many sac bunts have been laid down by any team in spring training this year.

If Wallner is that good this offense can be really, really good. Of guys with 250+ PAs (he had 254) he was the 6th best OFer by wRC+. Behind guys named Judge, Acuna, Alvarez, Betts, and Soto. Ahead of guys like Tucker, Trout, Carroll and Rodriguez. If Wallner puts up those numbers for an entire season he isn't a borderline All Star, he's a top level All Star.

Really looking forward to this whole series of games. Fun idea by MLB and will be cool to get to see a bunch of the big name youngsters play each other.

That's a tough situation. They likely are platoon players (most lefties are), but they're the strong-side of a platoon so they'd be playing 75+% of the time. What's the definition of a "regular?" Feels like a situation where both things are true. They're regulars who should be platooned, especially Wallner.

You don't think Kirilloff has a "guaranteed opportunity" vs right-handed pitchers in 2024? Who's the starting 9 against righties in your mind? You honestly think the Twins are going to send Kirilloff to AAA after he OPS'd .858 against righties last year because they want to get a look at Martin? Health is the only thing that's held Kirilloff back. He hit 3rd in the lineup more than he hit in any other lineup spot last year. Followed by 4th and 2nd. He hit in the 2-4 hole in 74% of his starts last year and had an OPS+ of 117, but you think they've "moved on from him" and he'll be "relegated to AAA depth?" That'd be one of the boldest moves I've ever seen a baseball team make.

He has been very injured. I'm not smart enough to guess at the right answer for him and his health. I trust that the Twins have highly paid medical professionals who are going to provide him with information and he'll make a determination with the team on what is best for him. I don't think it's crazy at all to just put him in the pen and hope the fewer innings helps him stay healthy. I'm less risk averse than most. I want big swings even if I know they come with an increased risk. Especially when the team has built as good of a floor as the Twins appear to have. I want some shots at ceiling raisers, and Canterino as a starter can raise the ceiling way more than he could as a reliever. Certainly not telling anyone they shouldn't believe putting him in the pen is a good option. Just not what I'd do, assuming the medical pros are telling them he can throw 125 innings.

Yeah, neither of those trades have any chance of happening. But I'd love Devers, Teel, and Salas in general!

Him developing and working his way towards being a major league starter isn't "wasting" innings to me. They're not going to put him in the pen to start the year and then try to transition him to starter in the middle of the year once they decide if they want to use him in the major league pen or not. That's not a good development plan at all. He's building up to be a starter now. Asking his arm/body to build up and get used to throwing more pitches every 5th or 6th day then switching it to being able to handle throwing fewer pitches at higher effort every 2 or 3 days and then switching back to the original more pitches every 5th or 6th day isn't how you save his arm. They're only going to make that transition to the pen once during the year. And it won't be at the start of the year. They can get him 15-20 starts in the minors without being overly concerned about his inning total and still use him in the pen later in the year. If the pen is as good as advertised they may not need him anyways.

He'll still be under contract at 33 so he'll have to perform then, too!

That's what I suggested. Build him up and let him be a starter in the minors for the first half of the year and put him in the pen in the second half to limit his innings. They aren't going to drop any of their recently signed pen arms for him early in the year anyways. So build him up as a starter and test out all the pen arms to find out who's good this year and fit him in as needed later in the year.

I have no idea what they'll actually do, but him as a starter is worth significantly more than him as a reliever. I'm no Dr or trainer or anything, but neither are Rocco or Falvey. I'd hope they've hired medical professionals they trust and would look to follow their lead when making these decisions and not go off anything else. It sounds like a big jump to me, too, but the team Drs don't keep their jobs if they keep getting guys hurt and they have way more knowledge than we do on him and his situation. If they give him the all clear for 125 I'd try to get him there. Cuz that means he can do 150+ in 2025 and if he reaches his ceiling they have the co-ace they're looking for. Giving him 50 innings this year means he's still got the training wheels on in 2025 and I don't like that idea. Give him AA and AAA starts for the first half of the year and then move him to the pen if he's succeeding. If the pen is really as good as people seem to expect it to be there's no reason to banish him to the pen to start the year. They supposedly have a great pen without him so he brings the most benefit by stretching out and being a starter in the minors until it's shown he's needed in the bigs.

He said the medical people told him 125 innings so if that's what he's cleared for that's what I'd be targeting.

https://www.mlb.com/video/lewis-on-being-on-top-100-list?q=royce lewis&cp=CMS_FIRST&qt=FREETEXT&p=0 Greg Amsinger: "And defensive clarity has to help, right?...Knowing you're manning the hot corner...that has to ease your mind a bit, right?" Royce Lewis: "I still don't think it's full clarity." Maybe it's not just people posting here who think he may eventually move if that's what's best for the team. You seem to be more certain about it than he himself is. Amsinger didn't ask a question about him moving positions, he stated it as a fact like you are now that he isn't moving, and Royce volunteered the info himself that he doesn't even have full clarity yet.

That most certainly may be where he ends up, and I'd bet it's where he debuts in 2024, but he's got the most upside of any arm in their system so I think it's worth building him up as a starter to begin the season before moving him to the pen to limit his innings later in the year. They're starving for a homegrown ace, and he's the closest guy to the bigs with any sort of chance to be that.

Twins need to cut about 3% off their K rate while not losing much, if anything, in the slug and OBP categories, and they'll be sitting super pretty.

I'm going to start by saying I like Vazquez and Farmer in general, and am not mad to have them on the team. So don't get too mad at what I'm about to say. But the Twins are spending 25.5 mil on Vazquez, Farmer, Santana, and DeSclafani. That's too much to pay for a #5 starter with injury concerns, and 3 guys who should be limited to part-time roles, 2 of which should see mostly just short-side of platoon ABs. Give me Maldonado for 4.5 (he got 4.25 from the non-contender White Sox so 4.5 is probably more than it'd have cost) and 20+ mil to spend on a far superior player to any of the 4 listed while filling the rest of the roster with league minimum guys with options. Shoot, add Margot to it and you're at 24+ mil in spending money. Correa at 33 needs to perform for sure, but all these 5-12 mil limited veterans don't help their payroll situation at all either. Amed Rosario and Maldonado for the combined salary of Farmer alone. Or Maldonado and Hampson for the same 6-6.5 mil range would give them another 10 mi to spend to improve upon the roster (mostly the Santana or DeSclafani or Margot spots). Obviously a lot of other factors that play into how you could actually have constructed the roster while moving those 2, but 16+ mil for them is a lot of money on a team with limited spending power. They're both very solid veteran guys who all reports suggest are wonderful clubhouse guys. But when your spending is limited filling 4 or 5 roster spots that are going to what should be limited roles with guys making the money these guys are hurts your team building options.

Brad Keller on a minor league deal simply because he's still "young" and he's shown he's a talented kid. I don't know anything about his arm problems so that'd be another factor. Thor on a minor league deal to transition to the pen and see if they can get his velo back up in short stints. Lorenzen is intriguing as a swing man. Lorenzen vs DeSclafani is actually an interesting debate, but I'd assume he gets more than the Twins are willing to pay and they can't move DeSclafani at this point even though he's very cheap at this point with 2 other teams paying most of his deal.

I think "risking" 1 guy you're not sure can hold up to starting is enough in a season, and this year that guy is Canterino to me. I'm also not sold on a lot of the bullpen arms (just the nature of relievers) and taking Duran out of the pen at this point would put a question mark (both health and performance) in the rotation while also making the pen a giant question mark. I'm generally in for taking big swings because they're needed to win a title, but that would be too big of a swing for me. Adds question marks without really having any sure thing answer. If I knew for sure he could hold up and dominate I'd be all for it, but there's too many questions for me when it comes to him as a starter and what the pen would be like without him.

I think if you're going to make that transition you have to start it in spring training. Waiting until halfway through the year to start trying to stretch him out would be far more complicated I think. And how do you decide if it's working well enough to actually let him be a full go postseason #2 starter? The mid-season transition just feels way too complicated to pull off.

If Niko Goodrum spends any real time in Minneapolis this season things have likely gone very poorly for a number of players (either health or performance). Helman and Prato are really nice 3rd or 4th options to have stashed at AAA not on the 40-man at a number of positions. Chances are they aren't good enough to come up and play major innings without the team performance being effected, but they're really solid options to have around. Would be great to see them tear up St Paul and make teams regret not taking them in the Rule 5.

Ownership: F. Whether the payroll decrease was the right business decision or not, the messaging was terrible, and the timing was even worse. They continue to show how much they don't understand their fanbase. Front office: C. They have a Polanco sized hole in their lineup that they replaced with an injury red flag at the back of their rotation, a bunch of 30 something pen arms with very little track record of success, and a 38 year old short-side of a platoon (even though he'll start plenty against righties) 1B/DH. I think the team is basically the same talent level as the one that came up short in the playoffs so they get a C. I do like their depth, but they continue to be more focused on floor (depth) than ceiling (talent) than I'd like. Overall: D. Team got no better while they completely face planted the PR stuff. Team should be the favorites for the central, but that's not saying much, and having the rest of your division be horrible doesn't earn you a better grade. All that said, these offseason grades don't matter, and lots of wins early will make their PR mistakes go away quickly.

I have a tank I'm considering gifting you so I just want to clear up whether you're unencumbered because you don't have one or because you already have a perfect spot to park said tank.

Spring Training is not the time to bunt runners over. They need to work on their hitting far more than they need to work on sac bunting. The most sac bunts of any team in baseball last year was Arizona with 36. No other team had 30, but 6 other teams had at least 20 sac bunts. I think you're significantly overestimating the use of sacrifice bunts by any team. The best offense in baseball (Braves) had 2. There were 9 teams with fewer than 10 sacrifice bunts. That's more than teams with over 20. League average was 14 sacrifice bunts. Twins had 12.

The defensive metrics on baseball reference that you reference come from a room of poorly paid interns on computers clicking the spot they judge the fielder to have started then clicking the point where they judge the ball to have gone while also starting and stopping a clock to judge how quick the ball got there. Then those interns use the eye test to decide if it was an extraordinary play or just an ordinary play to either add a multiplier to it or not. If you want to compare player's actual ability to field the eye test is a better tool than using counting metrics based on what I described above. Those metrics aren't telling you which guy can make a certain play and which one can't. It's why they fluctuate so much season to season. Defensive metrics are still very much questionable metrics. That's no shot at the interns, either. Those people do incredible work and it's not an easy job. But the metrics shouldn't be used as debate enders.