chpettit19

I'm assuming a play that he ended up being out on when he used, as you say, the most direct path to the plate would also end with him being out when using a less efficient path, yes. I'm not talking about when he left third, I'm talking about when he decided to slide and where he decided to slide. He doesn't have to be able to see the ball coming to know Sanchez is in the process of catching it. He can look at Sanchez and know he's catching the ball. At that point he admits to making a conscious decision to slide directly into Sanchez because he hoped the rule would give him an automatic safe call. "It's just a matter of whether or not they call it" in describing why he chose to slide how he did sounds an awful lot like a guy saying he was putting his faith in that call, not his ability to reach the plate before being tagged, no? It worked in the end and I have no problem with him making that decision as it was his best chance to help his team. My point is that that rule is hardly ever enforced. And he knows it's hardly ever enforced. So deciding to slide how he did for the reasons he admits he made that decision doesn't sound like someone who thought they were going to be safe when they started their slide. He knew the ball was arriving before he slid. He watched Sanchez shift into position, raise his glove, and prepare to catch the ball. He's an excellent athlete who has had multiple plays like this in his lifetime. He doesn't need to be tracking the ball itself to know whether or not it's going to beat him. He did the calculations in his head and decided a rule that is hardly ever enforced actually being enforced was his best chance of being safe. I think that pretty clearly shows he knew he was out if not for being bailed out by the judgement call of the people in NY. And on a side note, if taking an indirect slide makes that rule likely disappear they need to make the rule disappear. Or a whole bunch of guys should automatically be safe at second on steals because the MI has their foot in front of the bag and the player has to indirectly slide to the outside corner.

Perhaps I'm just reading too much into his comments and the fact that he made no attempt whatsoever to avoid being tagged out. I find it hard to believe that a player as smart, and experienced, as him would put all of his eggs in the basket of having that call be overturned by a rule that is hardly ever applied if he felt he had any chance of being safe without that overturn. If this were a call that were enforced on a regular basis and Merrifield had more reason to believe he'd be called safe because of it I'd buy more into him not knowing he was toast. “I know what the rule is. It was just a matter of whether they were going to call it or not" doesn't sound like a guy who was super confident that he was going to get that call and I find it hard to believe he would've gone with the "directly into him" slide if he thought he had any other chance of being safe.

Sanchez not being a quick tagger doesn't mean the throw wasn't there in time for the out. That's what I've been speaking against. Fans complaining that Beckham double clutched before the throw, thus making it a bad play by him. Merrifield was out at the plate and the throw was as good as anyone can reasonably ask for. I haven't been debating the rule at all. I don't think this was an example of what they meant by "clearly" beating the runner either, but I don't think he's blocking the plate and not allowing a lane for Merrifield. If Merrifield wanted to he could've slid to the outside of the plate and reached it like Gordon did the game before. I think the rule is poorly written so it's almost impossible to use it universally as it's a judgement call on what constitutes a lane to the plate. All that said, my comments stand as I don't think the double clutch not happening would've gotten the ball there sooner to the point that they would've said he "clearly" had it soon enough either. My comments are purely about fans needing to find something to complain about even when the Twins got the out on the play until a quite controversial judgement call on replay.

Merrifield openly admitted he knew he was going to be out so he purposefully slid into Sanchez. So, no, I don't think he'd have taken a different slide path. He knew his slide path didn't matter cuz he was going to be out so he just hoped to get the call on that rule and it's why he immediately started complaining to the ump. That was his strategy cuz he knew the ball beat him and he was toast. I mean, unless you don't believe Merrifield when he says " So, I tried to just slide in to him straight in as best I could." He had no intention of trying to reach the plate, he was just hoping to get the call on that rule which is clearly far too vague to be effective or called universally.

Unless you think that ball is moving slower than Merrifield the ball most definitely beat the runner. Maybe it could've been a foot lower and that would've been perfect? Sanchez had the ball before Merrifield got to the plate. So, no, I don't see it at all as akin to a throw to first that pulls the first baseman since they'd be safe while Merrifield was out.

He threw the guy out at the plate. I don't see how that in any way equals a bad play. So anytime Correa doesn't hit the 1B directly in the chest in 1 smooth motion with no extra movement in fielding or throwing the ball when he gets an out at first it's a bad play? Cuz that's the argument you're making. The runner was out at home. The fielder got the ball to the catcher before the runner got there and the catcher tagged the runner out. That's not a bad play. It may have been imperfect execution with the extra step, but arguing it is a bad play is beyond controversial, it's flat out wrong. Thus it's unnecessarily negative. If the standard for a play not being bad is that a player never makes any extra movements during a play then there have been very, very few non-bad plays in the history of baseball.

Nobody called anyone a "bad fan" so let's not go putting those words in my mouth/keyboard, Chief. And nobody has "observed" playing an infielder in the outfield contributed to the play, they've "observed" that despite having made the play he should've made it better. He didn't make a bad play! Did he double clutch or crow hop twice because he didn't know if Merrifield was going to go? Or is it possible he didn't have a good grip on the ball so he had to regather himself because he's, you know, human? Throwing a guy out a home isn't "bad defense." Everyone's allowed to be a fan in their own way and I haven't told anyone on any of these boards they shouldn't be allowed to say anything they want to say. And I'm allowed to disagree with those "laments" when it's about something I don't think should be "lamented" about. No, you can't expect better than throwing someone out at the plate. He literally did what you want him to do so I will point out that it's an unnecessarily negative take to wish he threw a guy out at the plate better than he threw him out at the plate.

So the infielder playing OF took an extra step to make sure his throw was on target and we're upset? Come on now. I know they're professional athletes and we all want them to be perfect while doing the things we can't, but an extra split second to gather himself while making a throw he's likely never made in a professional game seems like something that maybe doesn't need to be complained about. He's played 95 professional OF innings. The throw was perfect and beat the runner but we still need to complain it wasn't perfecter?

Tim Beckham is not an outfielder and came up with a perfect throw that beat the runner and the runner was out. We're reaching way too far for complaints when a throw right on the plate that beats a runner and results in an out is now being criticized for not being better. You realize that Gordon's deep grounder wouldn't have been a deep grounder with Kepler on 3rd because the infield likely would've been in, correct? And while I think Kepler needed to go back to tag, I don't know that he beats the throw to 3rd from the left center gap. That's certainly not a given.

Gordon has really stepped up of late. Great to see. Wonderful utility guy to have around and I'd expect him to play that key role for years to come. Can't say I expected this of him this year, but he really has been a savior as everyone around him gets hurt and he just steps in where needed.

Moran is the only one with an argument for being a better option than Pagan. And I'd actually take Moran over Pagan right now. But "better of late" in AAA does not equal better option than Pagan. He'd likely be quite good in AAA. "Can't throw strikes, but throws hard so could be good" is Pagan. Not sure why we think an inconsistent, can't throw strikes pitcher in AAA would jump to the bigs and be good.

I still say there's a 0% chance he opts into the 35M next year barring a catastrophic injury. Why opt into that even if he continues to struggle offensively? All it does is take away any chance of finding out what he could get on the market. It only takes 1 team in a full offseason to offer him a huge deal. Nobody thought Jayson Werth was worth much except for the Nats, but that's all he needed as they gave him a huge deal. I don't think Boras is shortsighted enough to take away all market possibilities for 1 year and 35M. What would Correa have to do next year to make taking away his bargaining power this year worth it? His career OPS+ is 127. He was at 131 last year. He's at 124 this year. He's having a pretty typical offensive year for him. His being 6'4" and the risks that come with that as a SS isn't new news to teams. Corey Seager had even more risk at SS since he's never been the fielder Correa is and he got paid last year (for reference Seager career OPS+ 130 and is 126 this year). I don't see any way Correa doesn't opt out of his deal and see what his market looks like again in a normal offseason without a lockout right in the middle of it with his new super agent leading negotiations now. No reason to limit their options.

Well thank you. I appreciate the kind words and appreciate what you bring to these forums as well!

I'm with @Dman, the offense is in a good place with Celestino, Lewis, Kirilloff, Miranda, Arraez, Jeffers, Larnach, Gordon, Buxton, Polanco, Kepler all under 30 years old and under team control for 2 or, in most cases, more years at super cheap rates unless any of the real young guys blow up and get big arb numbers coming their way. That's 10 guys who've shown they have big league abilities in same way, shape or form. That's a really great place to be when building a team as their cheap deals mean the FO should be able to splurge in FA to fill specific holes with top quality talent knowing they have a base of competitive position players in place already. Health is a concern with a few guys and that's where the minor league system needs to kick out solid players here and there, but you're not in dire need of the system producing superstars in the next couple years because of those 10 guys being so cheap. Having someone like Brooks Lee bust out this year and next to possibly become a star would just put them in that much better of a position. The pitching is the concern still. Next year you have Mahle, Gray, Ryan, and Maeda as a pretty decent 4 pieces of a rotation, and, again, with them having extra money due to the young position players they could go out and spend a bunch on a guy to front those 4 in the rotation. Don't know that I'd bet on them doing that, but it's financially feasible at least. The pen is always difficult to assess as they're such volatile pitchers, but Duran and Lopez hopefully can form a really, really good 1-2 punch at the back end for 2 more years with Duran being around for 3 more on top of that even. Hopefully Alcala comes back and is a really nice middle inning guy and Jax can continue to be solid in that role. If you can have those 4 fill those roles for the next 2 years on arb or pre-arb deals you're again in good shape to splurge on the other 4 spots in the pen. They're in a good spot to supplement their holes going into 2023 due to the cheapness of the majority of the roster, but they still need to figure out some #1-3 pitchers from the system. Ryan could be a 2/3, but looks like he's probably best served as your 3/4 guy. The other top arms in the system have really taken steps back this year which is a real bummer. Maybe Prielipp comes in looking like his old self and cruises through the system in 2 years and can front the rotation, but the more likely situation is they're going to have to finally pay for some pitching. If they can keep churning out position players in the Miranda, Kirilloff, Larnach, Lewis talent range they can afford to pay for pitching, but I think we'd all prefer they start producing some top end pitching of their own. Or at least fill the pen with young shutdown arms (I'd move Canterino to a pen role now and see what he can do in the minors to be ready for 2023 as a pen weapon in Minneapolis).

It was definitely a fun time, but today is not a productive workday for me. Boss can't actually expect me to work EVERY weekday, right?

The scoreboard at Target Field called the bomb an 89 MPH splitter if that makes you feel any better...

I definitely had a friend or 2 turn down the chance to go to the game because it was a Thursday, which is a bummer. And I'm quite jealous of your work situation right now. My cube isn't as comfortable as I'd like it to be for days like this. And multiple meetings this afternoon means I can't even take a "long lunch" and not come back. Adulting is hard sometimes.

I'm not a big country music fan, but I stuck around for the concert and it was a cool addition to the game. Wish they'd do that kind of stuff on Friday or Saturday so work wasn't so tough today, though. I suppose I could also have chosen to indulge in one or two fewer Trulys, but then I'd have to partly blame myself for how I'm feeling this morning and that'd make me feel bad about myself so I'll just blame it all on Pagan and Duffey.

Agreed.

I'll start by saying I think they need to DFA Pagan, but to be fair to him for last night he did follow up Correa's error with another groundout that Miranda threw low and Arraez couldn't pick. Back to back errors that lead to a run can't be put on the pitcher.

Other than Arraez, there's no hitter in the Twins lineup I'd rather have up when the team needs a big hit right now than Miranda. Kid looks to be figuring it out and setting himself up for a very nice career.

We have 2 office areas in our building and 1 is empty but there's been serious talk about making me sit over there by myself so I quit discussing the Twins, and baseball in general. Feels like workplace discrimination to me.

Oh, you don't have to worry about me sharing my opinions. I'll continue sharing them. Even the bad ones. Cuz what else should I be doing with my time? Actually working at work? Seems like a ridiculous idea!

Actually, the OP asked "How would you rank the names listed above? Does a different prospect make your top-5 list?" And my original comment responsed to the first question. Then another poster and I had a conversation that included more detail. It was quite cordial and productive. You then asked me a question so I answered it. That's generally how conversations on forums go. I apologize if I put too much thought into my answer to your question and will refrain from doing so in the future.

Tier 1 would be anyone with all star upside. I think those 2 are the only ones like that currently. After tier 1 I'd split up pitchers and hitters and there'd be tiers within those groupings. Example being likely relievers would have their own grouping and then it'd be tiered on back end, middle, mop up, non-major leaguer. Starters would be mid-rotation, back of rotation tiers. Hitters I'd break into position groups and it'd be tiered in those groups by major league regular, backup/utility guy, non-major leaguer. Something like that. I just don't think there's much value in saying "mid to back end of a rotation pitcher A should be ranked 6th in the system, but mid to back end of the rotation pitcher B should be 9th behind major league regular corner outfielder C and utility man D." Pitchers A and B are basically the same guy and you're just hoping 1 makes it so they should be grouped together while the 2 bats would fill different needs on the team so shouldn't really be compared to each other or the pitchers on a ranking list. People love to know what rank a prospect was in a team's system when they get traded. Receiving the 9th ranked prospect doesn't sound as good as receiving the 6th ranked prospect even though their spectrum of outcome possibilities are likely very, very similar. So to me what is important is what their spectrum looks like and not some arbitrary ranking they're given. I think grouping and tiers is more effective in representing spectrums and what a system really looks like instead of splitting hairs and comparing apples to oranges in an overall list.