chpettit19

Michael Brantley is under contract with the Houston Astros in 2022. Are the Astros cutting him and eating $16M or are the Twins trading for him and taking on $16M while also trying to sign Ray or Syndergaard, Duffy, and Grienke and, presumably, extending Buxton (don't think they'd like to start 2022 with him if he isn't under long-term control)?

I think this would be my Plan A if I were the FO. I don't think trading Donaldson is a net win as they'd simply have to eat too much of his contract and nobody that replaces him in the lineup will produce like him. I like Miranda, but it's unreasonable to expect him to step in and hit like Donaldson from the jump. If they can get somebody to take his whole contract for nothing in return I'd take that as that $$ could be used on a SS, pitching, and/or Buxton, but I don't see it happening. I think you have to eat at least half that deal and still don't get a real prospect back so, to me, it's better to just keep him. The prospects are the key to whether this is a 1 year fluke, a 2 year dip, or a repeat of the early 2010s. They have to hit on multiple arms or they're screwed. Keep JD and hope your pipeline is ready to flow.

I don't know that the Twins catching matches up with the Miami needs. I don't think they'd want Rortvedt or Jeffers for any of their arms as neither of them is a significant improvement on Jorge Alfaro, and I don't think Garver fits their timeline. Also not sure they're looking to move any pitching that would really help the Twins. They just brought Jesus Luzardo in via trade this season. You could argue that was them building a surplus from which to trade for offense, but I think their plan is to build an elite, young rotation with Rogers, Sanchez, Alcantara, and Luzardo and go from there. Definitely worth a call to see if you can pry one of those dudes away, but I don't think Miami is really looking at their pitching as a surplus to move pieces from, I think their plan is to build through pitching like Cleveland.

I don't think the Twins have a major league SS in their system right now. I think it's the biggest failure of this FO. There are guys I think will hit at the ML level and guys who can field at the major league level, but nobody who can do both. I think the Twins should make a legit push for one of the big name guys on a 5 or 6 year deal. I think Baez or Story could be had for less than the other superstar shortstops. I don't know if they'd be interested in coming here (Baez may want to stay with his friend Lindor in NY and run that back next year), but I think the Twins should make a run at those big name guys. Donaldson has 2 expensive years left, but the Twins don't really have other big price tag guys around for multiple years. Extend Buxton and bring in one of these SSs to pair with Polanco in the middle for the next few years. I know the Twins need pitching, but that needs to come from the prospect pipeline. I hope they go after some big name guys and maybe sign 1 of them this offseason, but for the sustained success they want to have they need to produce arms internally. With the youth movement happening now and so many guys on pre-arb and arb deals for the next handful of years I think they can afford both a Buxton extension and a big time SS. Lock up the middle of the field with Buxton, Polanco, and a FA SS. They have plenty of young guys to handle the corners.

Garver will be 31 next year and has had injury problems so it'd be interesting to see what teams would give up for him. I don't see catcher as a position of depth for the Twins. I don't expect Astudillo to be on the roster next year and that means the Twins have 3 ML-ish quality catchers. I don't think a Jeffers/Rortvedt tandem is a full season answer. I think having Garver be able to switch between C/1B/DH next year would be ideal to keep him in the lineup regularly, but not have such an injury risk as being the primary catcher. The Twins obviously need pitching help, but I don't think the offense is in a place to trade away major league talent to acquire the pitching they need and still have a competitive offense. At this point the offense for 2022 is more names than productions. I trust Polanco, Donaldson, and Arraez to produce. I believe Kepler will do his typical thing, but he's best used in the 6-9 holes of an order. Same with Sano. Buxton is a stud if he's healthy, but how could you trust him to be healthy? Jeffers and Rortvedt are 9 hole hitters. Who knows what happens with SS next year. Kirilloff I believe in, but wrist injuries are tricky and can be a problem for a long time so he's more hype than anything right now. I just don't see trading ML offensive pieces for ML pitching pieces as really improving the W-L record next year. Internal improvement and FA pitcher signings are the only way I see the team performance truly improving next year. If 2023 is the goal then let Garver get off to a hot start and trade him mid-season instead of coming off an injury riddled season.

I don't disagree. But if he's going to be an even worse hitter as a DH I'm not really sure what you do with him. And it hurts his trade value that he's publicly stated he needs to field to stay locked into the game and hit better. It'd be a real bold move for another team to give up anything of use for him to take on his deal (which I don't think is a completely outrageous deal) and play him as a DH if he's going to have an OPS in the 700s. I wouldn't be broken up about it if they move on from him, but I don't think it'd be smart to have him lined up as a DH only like Cruz. I'd want him as part of a DH rotation with guys like Arraez and Donaldson to keep them fresh.

Don't understand this response. Are you suggesting Garlick is drastically better than those guys? Are you suggesting any of them are Rule 5 eligible players? Are you suggesting cutting guys in their early to mid 20s for a 30 year old career minor leaguer/journey man waiver pick up who can't hit righties and only plays corner outfield, and doesn't play the corners all that well? Not sure what you're getting at.

Tanking in baseball is more complicated than tanking in other sports because of the minor leagues and prospects. Chicago and Houston tanked their way to championships, but it wasn't only about draft position, it was also about trading veterans for young players and prospects. I also differentiate between pre-season tanking and in-season tanking. I think they're very different. This season for example, I think it would've been the wrong move to hold onto Cruz once the season was lost. Look to the future with a veteran on a 1 year deal. Berrios is a little more interesting of a situation, but can't really blame them for that move either. But pulling what Baltimore is currently doing is a different situation. They're pre-season tanking by refusing to even attempt to field a competitive team. I'm not on board with that (in any sport) at all. I really don't get why they hold onto someone like Trey Mancini at all when they're clearly not trying to win and he'll be 30 on the last year of arb next year, but that's a discussion about how good they are at tanking. So, overall, I think leagues need to find a way to have every team approach every offseason in an attempt to compete the next season and stop actively refusing to employ real major league talent. But in-season tanking like the Twins sort of did (never went full tank by just playing prospects) by trading expiring deals for future assets is alright with me. Especially when they're assets on the doorstep of the majors like the prospects they got back for Cruz and Berrios.

Sano has been pretty open about having no desire to be a DH. How seriously teams take that will play a role in his value. I think the Twins keep him, and I don't think it's a terrible idea. He only makes 9.25M next year with a 2.75M buyout the year after that, so he has 12M left (I don't see them picking up his 14M option for 2023). That's not terribly high for a guy who can carry a team for stretches of a season. He's not even close to perfect, but if he's hitting 6th or lower in the order he's incredibly useful. If this season taught us anything it's that there's never enough depth. It's not like the Twins have 9 guys who are locked into everyday jobs. Kirilloff's wrist is concerning to me. If he stays healthy he appears to be a cornerstone bat at 1B for the next 8 years, but wrist injuries can be killer. Donaldson isn't getting younger, and while Miranda crushed AA and AAA this year he's still not the asset Sano is until he does it at the ML level. There's a lot of talk on these forums about the Twins having an abundance of offensive depth and I don't really see it. With the number of guys who go down throughout the year, and the number of guys who aren't really everyday bats backing them up, I just don't see this incredible depth. Is Larnach ready to contribute for a whole year next year? I'm not banking on it. Is Kirilloff? Martin? Miranda? Garlick? Rooker? Gordon? Lewis? Can Donaldson and Buxton stay healthy? Can Kirilloff? Arraez? Garver? Are Polanco's ankle concerns gone? What kind of bat will Kepler bring next year? Can Sano change his offseason ramp up and get off to a better start? Can Jeffers or Rortvedt handle a full season in the bigs? I don't see nearly the depth many do and I'd keep Sano. If he gets off to a great start and the team is struggling you can trade him mid-season for just as much as you could this offseason. It's not like you're getting anything great back for him now. Keep him and hope he increases his value to something useful or he helps the team succeed to some extent. If not you decline his option and move on. But I don't see him, or anyone on this team really, as the luxury others seem to see him as.

Thanks for looking that up! I think you're probably right about things for those players. If they don't really plan to contend in 2022 I would hope they see Garlick as expendable if it comes down to him or a solid rule 5 prospect. I don't blame the FO for the Baddoo situation, but losing another player like that for a 30 year old platoon corner outfielder (short side of the platoon for that matter) in a season you aren't trying to contend would be a bad move in my opinion. I don't see 30 as a magic age where players fall apart, but Garlick seems to be who he is and a RH platoon corner OFer is incredibly replaceable. I assume TD will have someone write up a pretty detailed look at the 40 man situation after the season and there should be some good discussion on here about what choices we'd all make.

I don't think you'd find a single Twins fan who would be against having Brantley in the lineup. He's one of the best pure hitters in baseball over the last 10 years. The questions are did they have a legit chance of signing him and would the $ needed to sign him have been better used elsewhere. I think the answers to those questions are an emphatic no and an emphatic yes. Why would he leave the Astros for the Twins right after the Astros beat the Twins in the playoffs? He signed with them for 2 years $32 million dollars. How much more would the Twins have had to pay to get him to leave? $4M more to take him to $20M/year? Let's say he really, really, really wanted to be here and would've signed for only $15M had the Twins simply asked nicely. Where are you getting that $15M from in the budget? Who are you cutting or not signing? As others have said, pitching was the problem, not hitting (not to say the offense doesn't have room for improvement, but it didn't tank the season). Bringing Brantley in wouldn't have helped with what ruined the season, and likely would have made it worse as the upgrade his bat provided wouldn't have made up for the even worse pitching they'd likely have had (not to mention the negative defense behind that pitching with him in the OF) as most of the free agent money went to the arms this year. Brantley has had a great career and is still a more than serviceable bat that we'd all love in the lineup. But he wasn't a realistic signing and wouldn't solve the Twins problems. Not to mention he should be a DH only now with his knees, age, and lack of speed (he's 23% for sprint speed and 11% for outfielder jump) and the Twins already had a pretty good DH for less money. Brantley would have been an improvement at the plate for LF and RF, but a downgrade in the field. Not sure how CF, 3B or 1B really play into this discussion at all as they aren't positions he'd play and the guys we have there wouldn't be covering the positions he does play so there isn't really a shuffling of players to be done that would make sense for those 3 spots with him on board.

I think having an option left is big for him. I'd bet he stays on the 40-man and is with the Twins org next year. I'm not a big fan, and don't think he'll have enough contact to be the Sano type player that appears to be his ceiling. But you don't just get rid of former 1st round picks with his minor league production for nothing. I'd take a Gil for Cave trade in reverse. Or have him as part of a package for someone closer to the majors than a Gil for Cave type flier deal. But I don't like the DFA idea and just lose him for nothing in order to save a prospect on the 40-man who likely doesn't have the minor league track record of Rooker, let alone the flashes at the major league level. I don't know the option situations (too lazy to look it up right now) for Refsnyder or Garlick, but if they don't have options left (and I'd guess they don't, but not sure) I'd keep Rooker and his option over them. I'm a believer in Martin and think he'll be up next year at some point and he's a better Refsnyder type utility guy. Garlick plays better defense than Rooker (most of us on these forums probably play better defense than Rooker), but I'd take Rooker's bat and option over Garlick. Garlick is a AAAA player and without an option I'm definitely not risking a prospect to the Rule 5 for him. Offer Refsnyder and Garlick minor league deals and if Rooker falls apart next year DFA him and give one of them his 40-man spot then. I don't think Rooker is a long-term piece as I don't think he'll ever hit enough to be a pure DH and he has negative defensive value, but there aren't enough guys who need 40-man spots who have done what he has in the minors so DFAing him for one of them is saying you're expecting them to improve their performance at the major league level compared to what they did in the minors. Bold bet and I'd rather take 1 more year of Rooker with an option left before making that bet.

My understanding is that the Twins were using a great deal of in-game data to determine when to pull the plug on Ober, and likely Ryan, starts this year. Tracking velo, spin rates, extension on release, etc. to see if there's any noticeable changes throughout the game to show they may be fatiguing then base their decisions off that. I'd assume that'd be the same approach next season while trying to push him a little more, but nothing crazy. I'd also assume seeing the numbers go the wrong way in game meant he was close to the end, but not immediately pulled as they would want to help build more strength by pushing him and having his body respond by getting stronger. I think 150ish innings next year is a good goal in a semi-competitive year for the team.

The guys lost in the rule 5 and the trades they were wrong about were guys in the very low minors, not guys like Gordon. Not sure those are great comparisons. They've seen far, far, far, far, far more of Gordon in the minors than any of the guys they lost in trade or rule 5. None of those guys were even in the high minors. It's certainly not a good look that they don't have those players anymore, but those are very different evaluations than the Gordon evaluation. I don't see anyone saying the Twins shouldn't/couldn't have played Gordon at SS more, and sooner, but the suggestion that they needed to play him at the major league level to see what they have or comparing his evaluation to rule 5 and traded players aren't fair in my mind. They know what Gordon can do, and he's not a 155 game SS at the major league level for a competitive team. He's showing what I'd guess was their exact evaluation of him (and what pretty much every scouting report publicly available evaluated him as), a utility guy who can cover SS in a pinch, but you don't want as your everyday guy if you're trying to win a division.

No, it doesn't take them 16 years to wash out, but that isn't the point. If you're going to use WAR accumulation as a variable you have to take the 16 years, or 6 years, into account. You're mixing and matching "reach MLB" and "accumulate MLB WAR." The Twins have seen drafted players reach the majors within those timelines you're providing, with even more who would've if it weren't for a combination of a global pandemic and injuries. My disagreement is in that you then turn around and compare them to the Fangraphs WAR totals which isn't a realistic measure for guys who are 4.5 years removed from being drafted at the most. At this point you can gather hard data on "reach MLB," but not "accumulate MLB WAR." The breakdown you're doing is much more of a prospect ranking list. You don't believe in their prospects. That's really what you're saying. You're putting their prospect list (of only their drafted players) in the 15-20 range of the league basically. I think that's a far more useful exercise at this point than attempting to grade their drafts. You don't like their strategy and don't believe in their drafted prospects. That's fair. I disagree with a number of your projection grades as I just think it's far too early to be calling some of those guys busts, but that's why we come on TD. But your draft grades right now are really just you giving your personal projections on what you think of these guys. Useful exercise and I've appreciated your takes. But, to me, that's not how a draft should be graded, and this is way too early to grade any of their drafts. Although 2017 and 2018 drafts do need to show some MLB results next year (they've already started to) and Cavaco needs to step up next year.

I already said the FO misevaluated Happ and Shoemaker which certainly hurt things. So with those mistakes and Maeda pitching the entire season hurt (I know he didn't have surgery til late, but it's been widely reported he was hurt all year and trying to pitch through a number of things), Pineda being hurt at different times, and all of the top arms that would have stepped in for spot starts being down as well, yes I do see the fortunes being different. Not 100 wins, world series champs different, but not the absolute travesty we saw. It all starts with totally missing on Happ and Shoemaker, and Colome taking a month and a half to get his ***t together. Not arguing that at all. FO deserves criticism for Happ and Shoemaker, and Colome earned the angst of the fans, but my comments on depth stand. I was responding to the idea that the FO also failed to accumulate enough depth to make up for the Happ and Shoemaker moves and I'm saying they had the same type of depth that essentially every other major league organization has. The FO deserves heat, no doubt. But not for everything they're getting it for. They had depth in place. The Happ and Shoemaker moves, and thinking their top 5 rotation arms (Maeda, Berrios, Pineda, Happ, Shoemaker) were good enough, is the mistake they deserve heat for. Not everyone getting hurt.

Again, you're ignoring the timeline. Players from 2000 had 16 years(!) to make it to the majors and accumulate WAR in that study. Larnach has had 3, with one of those being a pandemic cancelled minor league season. That article isn't even bold enough to try to grade drafts 4 or fewer years removed. They waited a minimum of 6 to start looking at things. That's the point. I can appreciate you not liking the Twins draft strategy, and agree that they have boxed themselves in with guys like Sabato and Rooker who are bat only (I never liked the Rooker pick), but giving the FO F's on Cavaco and Sabato especially is outlandish to me. Sabato is putting up Sano type lines now. If he has a Sano type career that's a win for the FO. Your post was meant to grade the FO for their drafts, but you just can't do that at this point. I mean you've written Larnach off after his first taste of the bigs when he was called up before he was ready. I can't even imagine how badly you'd shred the Giants for the Joey Bart pick at #2 in 2018. Or Alec Bohm at #3. The league found a hole in Larnach's swing and beat it to death. That's the game. Now he needs to close it and come back next year having made an adjustment. His college and minor league performances suggest he'll make an adjustment and come back at some point next year and have made an adjustment. We'll see. To me, there simply isn't enough data to provide the grades you are. It's ignoring the reality of the baseball draft and prospect development. It's really just you saying you don't agree with their "get possible difference making bats early" strategy. And that's totally cool. But it's nothing more than that. And that's totally cool, too. I appreciate the work that went into pulling this all together, and the back and forth on it, but this exercise is super premature. You simply can't judge these things this quickly.

Which teams have guys in the minors or pen to start the year that aren't their top prospects that are designed to provide depth? The Dodgers had about 7 or 8 guys for their opening day rotation and put Price in the pen because of it, but beyond them who has proven ML guys waiting in the minors for their chance? Prospects, or over the hill (Hamels, King Felix, etc.) veteran types are basically every team's plan for depth. Nobody is signing 15 ML starters and convincing 10 of them to take AAA or pen jobs. Now the FO picked the wrong guys, and the jury is out on if they've built the needed prospect talent, but that is every team's plan for depth. When deGrom went down the Mets didn't call up some 27 year old proven MLB pitcher. And there aren't many teams who can lose the majority of their top 10 prospect arms and survive.

Ok, give Larnach 0.2 WAR. He's still outdone what 93% of that entire class will do for their entire careers. How does that earn him a C? In the schools I went to being in the top 93% was an A. That's my problem. You're not using historical data and are crushing, or at least downgrading, picks that have either done better than you're giving them credit for or haven't had nearly enough time to make any kind of reasonable assessment of. Your expectations just aren't in line with MLB draft reality. Moral of this story is 4 years isn't enough time to grade a draft pick, let alone less than a season.

I think the disconnect here is that you provided data on how many players make MLB, not "succeed" (however you define that). So in the context of the data you provided those guys are "legit" in that they've made MLB and have fulfilled the criteria you provided.

So here's my concern. You mention it isn't uncommon for college players to reach MLB in 3-4 years, and I agree. You've used stats in the comments to show the percent of players who make it to MLB at all based on round drafted (and I'll add that it's 17.6% of all drafted players ever make the bigs). I provided data that only 83 out of the usual 1200ish players drafted in any single year (7%) ever reach at least 0.1 WAR. In their entire career, not within 3-4 years. You seem to be mixing "making it to MLB" with "establishing/doing well in MLB." If the mark is simply making it that's one thing, if it's doing well that's another. And I get that it plays into your grade of "C," but the tone of the original post and your comments following is more that the Twins are failing or that "C" isn't actually good enough. The FO has 2 draft classes that are 3-4 years removed from their draft year. Here are the results of their classes as far as who's reached MLB already and their bWAR: 2017: Lewis, Enlow Rooker (-0.2) Barnes (-0.4) Ober (0.9) 2018: Sands, WInder Larnach (0.9) Jeffers (1.1) So they've had 5 college guys reach MLB within 3-4 years (Jeffers 2, Rooker and Larnach 3, Barnes and Ober 4) with a pandemic year sandwiched in the middle of their development. They've had 3 guys already reach more than 0.1 WAR. 2 of those did it within 2 or 3 years of being drafted. Arguments could be made that Lewis, Enlow, Sands, Winder, and Canterino would've debuted this year were it not for injuries which would give them 10 guys to have debuted in MLB between 2 and 4 years (including 2 HS picks) of being drafted with a pandemic ruined season mixed in. I just think it's far too early to judge their drafting, or drafting and developing, beyond comparisons to things like MLB.com, etc. rankings that teams couldn't care less about as they're based on far less data than their internal rankings. I appreciate the the dialogue, though. Fun to have some back and forth about this stuff. I just disagree with labeling any 20 year old with less than a season's worth of ABs a near bust already, or even a college kid just wrapping up his first season. Bust is too strong of a word for me. Appreciate the effort that went into doing all this, though!

Do 2/3, 1/2, 1/3 make it within 3 years of being drafted and with a missed year of minor league baseball? Because that's what you're judging Larnach by right now. My guess would be those numbers refer to their entire careers and simply making an MLB roster at some point. I mean Drew Maggi technically made it to the majors as a 15th round pick now. This just feels like you're missing a lot of context. What number of players from the 2017, 18, 19, 20, 21 drafts have made it to the majors, how many games have they played, and how are they performing? That's what you need to compare these guys to. According to a baseball america article from 2019 only about 83 guys from each draft ever accumulate even 0.1 WAR. Trevor Larnach is already at 0.5 and Jeffers is at 1.1. So with a completely lost season of development and within 3 years of being drafted those 2 are already within the top 83 players of what that entire draft class will produce on average and have basically filled the Twins quota for the 2018 draft. According to fangraphs the chances of a top 5 pick never accumulating 1.5 WAR in their career is 60%. 6-10 is 65%, 11-15 71%, 16-20 85%, 21-25 76%, and 26-30 84%. It's more likely than not that anyone drafted, even at the top of the draft will never get even 1.5 WAR. Odds of finding someone who produces over 2.5 WAR for picks 1-5 is 11%, 6-10 is 15%, 11-15 11%, 16-20 5%, 21-25 11%, 26-30 5%. Anyone picked after pick 15 has about a 5% chance of accumulating even 2.5 WAR for their entire career. I think we need to lower the expectations for what Falvey draftees should have produced by now. I mean Jeffers has already out performed his draft position within 3 years and in the middle of a pandemic, and as stated above they've already met their quota for players who reach 0.1 WAR for the 2018 draft. What more do you want?

I guess for me it comes down to what your expectations are. You say you're almost ready to label Cavaco and Sabato busts despite them having 1 year of professional ball under their belt. That seems incredibly aggressive to me. Cavaco has 332 total minor league ABs in 88 total games (according to MLB.com). Sabato has 361 in 107. That's less than 1 season of play and you're saying they're already likely busts? That's some tough grading right there. I haven't been overly impressed with their drafts (I did like the Lewis, Larnach, and Petty picks), but I don't think they've been awful (Cavaco has the athleticism that creates the type of ceiling you want with a 1st round pick and Sabato absolutely crushed some of the best college baseball talent during his 2 years in NC). If Lewis had reached the majors last year or this year as was predicted before a pandemic and freak knee injury ruined both those plans I think things look a lot different. In a season ticket holder Q and A Levine spoke a little to their draft strategy. They feel the data shows that getting high end, elite bats later in the draft is much harder than finding impact pitching. They feel that your best chance to get game changing hitters is to get them early and that's what they were attempting to do with the bats they took. Their approach is to go after guys with elite tools (Lewis and Cavaco) or guys who dominated college baseball (Larnach, Sabato, Rooker, Wallner, Soularie) and look like they could have game changing bats. They believe they can turn pitchers with an already elite pitch into more complete pitchers and can get those guys later. That's their approach to pitching in general, actually. Find a guy with a pitch they can already put in their back pocket (Ryan fb, Petty fb, Wisler slider, Maeda split, Pineda slider, Duran fb, etc) and then use their technology based coaching to develop more pitches (Balazovic, really good article on the athletic today about his new splitter), add velo (Ober), or improve control (hopefully improve everyone's). Now you can certainly debate if that's the correct strategy (I know it's pretty universally accepted that you take a bat over an arm if they're closely ranked as bats are more likely to turn out) or if they've executed their vision well. But I think it's important to at least take their strategy and goals into consideration. I also think expectations on baseball draft prospects need to be tempered to a great degree. As Dman pointed out, the success rate is miniscule. To truly evaluate any FO and their ability to draft and develop you need to compare them to every other drafted and developed player. Like is Larnach really that far behind his 2018 draft class peers? I'd argue no. There aren't a bunch of them taking the league by storm already. He's among the handful that have made it to the bigs, and none of them are world beaters yet. I wouldn't say he's the best of the bunch by any means, but he's not getting drastically outdone by the players taken after him or anything. To me it's too early to judge these drafts, or their draft and development ability at all. It's a total incomplete grade to me.

Define "says anything about it." I think you drastically overestimate his role with the pitching staff. Besides being part of the decision making process on who starts and who relieves and when, he is not giving much, if any, real instruction on pitching. He is not out in the bullpen telling guys to change their grip, extend more, keep their front side closed longer, or anything else like that. He simply isn't. It's not his role. Does he know those basics about pitching? Absolutely. But he's not coaching pitchers. There's a reason it's the pitching coach who goes out for mound visits that don't involve removing the pitcher and not the manager. He's not coaching pitchers. He isn't. Not at all.

As someone who was literally coached by Tom Kelly in college I can tell you first hand that Tom Kelly knew very little about how to coach pitching (relatively speaking of course). Teams have pitching coaches for a reason. TK was great at infield help and game strategy, but, at least in my experience, was not someone who could pull a pitcher aside and fix their mechanics, grips, etc.