chpettit19

The stat is showing that teams who score via routes other than HRs win less. Teams who hit fewer HRs than their opponents have to score more non-HR runs to win the game. So the stat is showing that teams that are forced to score more non-HR runs win 14.5% of the time. That's why I'm not focusing on that as a strategy.

If they think he's better than Montgomery or Snell that'd be a reason to trade for Castillo. If Montgomery or Snell are going to get bigger and/or longer deals that'd be a reason to trade for Castillo. If Montgomery or Snell don't want to come to MN but Castillo would accept a trade here that'd be a reason to trade for Castillo. I think it's unlikely they trade for Castillo, but I think it's an option.

You added a whole bunch to this comment while/after I replied. They didn't change their approach against Gausman. Chasing splitters out of the strike zone was never part of their strategy. Getting good pitches to drive (like fastballs in the zone) is their strategy. If they don't get those good pitches then they don't swing. That's the strategy. You realize that the opposite side of out homering your opponent is to be the team that had to score in other ways, right? I hit 3 home runs and you hit 1. The only way for you to win that game is for you to either have hit a grand slam to my 3 solo home runs, or to have scored more runs doing things a different way. And, in the playoffs, the teams that have to score runs without hitting as many home runs win the game 14.5% of the time. If you want it to be the reason the Twins got bounced, cool. It was the reason the Rangers won the World Series so you can take that however you want. Yes, getting on base is another important part. Nobody has said it isn't. What you guys have complained about is the strike outs vs the home runs. The home runs are more important as is easily proven by looking at the stats. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be concerned about their extreme K rates last year. It doesn't mean that taking walks or getting singles or anything else simply doesn't matter. It means that home runs are more important than any of those other stats. All the best offenses have the same strategy as the Twins. Know what pitches you handle well and look for them. If you get them look to do maximum damage. The question comes down to who's able to execute on those maximum damage attempts the most. Which comes down to talent. If I can only do damage on fastballs middle middle, but you can do damage on multiple types of pitches in multiple locations because you're more talented than me it's likely you're going to do much better than me at being able to do maximum damage. Doesn't seem like too crazy of an idea.

I don't understand the argument here. The obvious idea behind that stat is that hitting for power is the best way to score runs. The teams that didn't hit as many home runs (the teams that win 14.5% of the time) were scoring their runs (or failing to score any runs) in a different manner. You first sentence is literally agreeing with the idea that hitting for power should be their strategy since you're equating hitting more home runs to scoring more runs. Really confused by what you're trying to spin this into.

They aren't "solely chasing home runs." They're chasing hard contact by being selective on what pitches they swing at so they can maximize damage on their swings while raising pitch counts for opposing pitchers. Home runs are not the strategy for every hitter that steps to the plate for the Twins. Certainly wasn't for Arraez while he was here. MAT wasn't going to be a successful hitter by choking up and just trying to slap the ball around either. That's a big part of this. People want to equate cutting down swings to obvious improvement in success. That's not how it works. You still have to be able to square the ball up with authority to be successful. The league wide batting line with 2 strikes in 2023 was .172/.249/.273/.523. Hoping for some sort of dramatic increase in run scoring by choking up and not striking out with 2 strikes is ignoring the reality of major league hitter's success rates with 2 strikes. Thinking MLB hitters can simply flip a switch with 2 strikes and suddenly hit like Luis Arraez simply isn't realistic. If they can't build that roster they're doomed to a below average offense. You can produce sluggers through your system. They don't all have to be high priced players. Royce Lewis provided some power and he wasn't making $10M last year. MAT produced power and wasn't making $10M. Julien. Wallner. The Twins can't build any kind of team through having to pay market rates for a bunch of guys on their roster.

Well they won 87 games. But part of why they lost was because they struck out too much, yes. As I said in the last comment. But that was a symptom of bad talent, not bad strategy. Even with all the Ks they were still top 10 in runs. Washington and Cleveland had the lowest K% in the league. They won 71 and 76 games. If striking out is such a key why only 71 and 76 wins? They were 21st and 27th in runs scored. 29th and 30th in home runs. So the worst K team in history was 3rd in HRs, 10th in runs, and won 87 games. The 2 best teams in K rates were the 29th and 30th in HRs, 21st and 27th I'm runs, and won 71 and 76 games. What works better, not striking out or hitting for power?

If you win 85% of the time doing anything that's going to be my plan, yeah. So there were far more blowouts than close games because teams bashed their way to blowouts, but you'd prefer they don't try to do that and instead focus on the outcome that happens less so they can win the close games despite them happening fewer times? Yeah, not following that logic. Should those teams that blew people out by hitting homers have not done that so the games were closer? I'm confused. Nobody said the end of that game went well. I've said in other comments that they K'd too much last year. But this idea that they have some terrible strategy is what's bad logic. You're looking at numbers that clearly show you win more by having more power and you're trying to argue that's a bad strategy. To each their own, but I'll take the plan that wins you 85% of the games.

Under. But not by much.

So that was 1 of the 17 wins for teams that K'd less than their opponent. What's the point here? Over the last 3 postseasons teams that out homer their opponents are 71-12. That's an 85.5% win rate.

There's risk in that strategy, though. He's not the only guy with pieces to move. Eventually other teams move on and you're left holding the bag you started with. He, and you, could be ok with that, but "not good enough yet" sometimes leads to a "we'll just move on then" and that's not always ideal either. The inaction to this point isn't in itself a bad thing, but it's not necessarily a good thing either.

I think the totals they ran up last year were harmful, and they need to reduce them. But I don't think the problem is strategy, it's talent. Cleveland and Washington had super low K rates, and super low run totals. They couldn't impact the ball well enough to score runs. The Twins have the right strategy (get good pitches to drive and try to drive them) I just think their talent level has been too low to maximize the results. Hopefully Julien, Lewis, and the rest of the young guys can help produce better results with the same strategy by having better talent. We'll see.

Just some numbers stolen from a Do-Hyoung Park article... In the 2023 playoffs teams that out homered their opponents went 29-7. Teams that K'd less than their opponents went 17-19. So out homering lead to an 80.6 winning % while K'ing less lead to a 47.2 winning %. Do what you will with those numbers.

No, thanks.

Entirely possible. I'm just going off the idea that the reported deal that KC reportedly turned down was pretty much a 1 for 1 swap of Luzardo for Pasquantino. Maybe there were some marginal prospects thrown in somewhere, but if the deal included another big name person I think the reports would've indicated that. If the deal really was basically a 1 for 1 swap of those 2 players I think Julien and marginal players is absolutely enough. The question is whether or not that was truly the deal that was discussed, and, more importantly, the Marlins were willing to accept. It sounds like a light return for Luzardo to me, but I can also understand if the Marlins are looking for a young hitter with MLB experience, 130 OPS+ upside, and lots of control. Pasquantino and Julien both fit that mold so it may not be that far off if that's really what the Marlins are looking for. Even if I think it sounds a little light. 3 years of Luzardo vs 6 years of Julien isn't that ridiculous.

I wouldn't, and I don't think they'd want Jenkins, I think they'd want Julien. And I'd do that trade if I were the Twins.

All 3 of those players could play 1B. In fact both Julien and Arraez did play some 1B last year. They need offense and I'd think they'd be willing to move one of these guys to 1B if they felt they were the best offensive piece they could get. The Marlins had a 2B last year, too. He was their best player. They moved him to another position (CF) when they got Arraez (it actually sounded like it was his idea to move there).

The reports I've seen (including a pretty in depth article on The Athletic) report that the Royals FO people brought 2 options to their owner: 1. Trade Pasquantino to Miami for Luzardo or 2. Sign Michael Wacha. The owner decided to spend the extra money. Is that all the details from everyone involved? Of course not. But it sure sounds like a 1 for 1 swap was more or less the deal and the Royals are the ones who turned it down. That doesn't mean the Marlins view Julien, or any other Twins player, the way they view Pasquantino, but if it really was just a 1 for 1 these packages are significant overpays.

If the Twins scouts and development folks (Maki) think they know what's up with Manoah and can get him back on track they should do that first trade in a heartbeat. He has 4 more years of control left, and he could be the best pitcher on the staff if they get him back to what he was in 2022. A risk no doubt, but I'd much prefer that than trading Polanco for prospects.

I'd certainly think they could. The packages here are definitely better than straight up for Pasquantino (I actually like him a lot, but he's not a star or anything). I think Julien for Luzardo is probably the core of a deal with a low level prospect thrown in here or there. Again, assuming that it was a 1 for 1 swap that the Marlins were willing to do for Pasquantino. Weird to me that the Marlins would be willing to do that, but it certainly could open the doors for the Twins if that's all it'd take.

Aren't the reports that the Marlins were willing to trade him to KC for Pasquantino? How valuable do you think Pasquantino is? Would you trade Jeffers, Lee or Jenkins, and Varland for him?

Have any of the reports about the possible Pasquantino for Luzardo deal suggested there were any other significant pieces that would've been involved? Or are we to believe that it was basically a 1 for 1 swap with maybe a low level lottery ticket thrown in kind of like the Lopez for Arraez deal? If we go with the assumption that it was basically a 1 for 1 swap I'm wondering why the Twins would be giving up more than Julien in a basically 1 for 1 swap. Certainly wouldn't be adding a top 100 global prospect and a viable MLB starting cOF in the deal. Would anyone here trade Julien, ERod, and Kepler for Pasquantino (ignoring the division concerns and just talking talent). I'm not a believer in the BTV stuff so don't know what they rank Pasquantino as, but Julien had basically the same OPS+ and WRC+ as Pasquantino did in his rookie season in 2022. Julien has more control than Pasquantino. And if you believe he can stay at 2B has more defensive value than Pasquantino (I'd argue he's probably best served at playing 1B like Pasquantino, but that's neither here nor there). If it was a 1 for 1 swap of Pasquantino for Luzardo then I think we have a better idea of how the Marlins value Luzardo than using BTV values. What would you give up for Pasquantino? That's, theoretically, what you'd have to give up for Luzardo.

You've hurt the feelings of Jose Altuve, Xander Bogaerts, Stephen Strasburg, Elvis Andrus, Carlos Gomez, Jered Weaver, and Carlos Gonzalez by suggesting they're "trash players." They were mostly more established players than Lewis, but Boras has done early extensions for some pretty big name players in the past. I don't think he's going to do it this year unless the Twins pay significantly more than what Nick suggests here, but a pre-free agency extension isn't out of the question at some point.

Or trading for pitchers for the Marlins. Alcantara debuted with St Louis before being traded to Miami. Luzardo debuted for Oakland before being traded to Miami. Sixto Sanchez came from Philly in the Realmuto trade. AJ Puk debuted for Oakland before being traded to Miami. Pablo Lopez was with Seattle before being traded to Miami and debuting the next season.

I like this idea, but I think it'll be hard to build a package around Kirilloff with his health concerns. I just don't think his value is that high right now. I'd think they'd say no thanks to AK and ask for Julien who'd they'd then slot in at 1B themselves.

I love the idea of locking Lewis up into his FA years, but I think these numbers are too low to get it done. If he's the star everyone expects him to be his last arb year is going to be closer to 30 than 20 and this is suggesting paying him 15 because you gave him an extra 2 million in year 1. I don't think he goes for that. As a super 2 after next season he's already looking at getting that 5 mil in salary in 2025 anyways. From there he's looking at 10+ in 2026, 20 in 2027, and 30 in 2028. All of this is contingent upon him maintaining his small sample size production in full season sample sizes, but him doing that is the reason you'd want to lock him up in the first place. Over the 5 years before he hits free agency he's in line for $65 million+ if he's the star we want him to be. Soto is going to end up above 75 mil in arb payments if I'm doing my math right (8.5, 17, 23, 30ish). I don't know that Lewis would get all that, but 35 mil is a big gap. I'd think Lewis would need closer to 60 mil for his pre-FA years. But weirder things have happened. I'd definitely be talking to him and Boras about the idea if I were the Twins, though.