Twodogs

Well if I had unlimited money I'd pick Carew for sure, but I had to save money somewhere. Carew actually played most of his games at 1B, that's why I took the liberty of moving Harmon over to 3B so I could get Morneau in. Plus Dozier actually won a gold glove at 2B once so that helps too. But yeah I'd much rather have Carew in my lineup over Dozier. For that matter I'd rather have Nathan over Reardon and id rather have Mauer over AJ. But I had to get it to 33 dollars. My best attempt at putting together a winner. Personally, I think it's an ok lineup

At what point do the Twins get back to total system failure and start over? I know he was supposed to be the pitching pipeline guru because of his tenure with the Guardians. But it seems that they keep producing pitchers even with Falvey gone? So I'm guessing there is someone else in that organization that is producing the pitching, maybe they are being coached better at the lower levels? Nonetheless, how long do we let these guys run this out? I mean everyone who are looking for Baldelli's head have to realize that if Falvine is left in charge that they will hire another Baldelli type and really nothing will change. Hopefully the Twins turn this around, but they will need a player to be a clubhouse leader and light a fire under this team, like Torii used to do.

C AJ 1 1B Morneau 3 2B Dozier 2 3B Killebrew 5 SS Guzman 1 LF Hunter 4 CF Puckett 5 RF Olivia 5 DH Winfield 2 SP Santana 3 RP Reardon 2

Before I pass judgement I'd like to see the whole video. Seems like there are things missing? Maybe not?

Although Lewis and Kirillof both started the year in the minors. So maybe those guys left them alone a little bit down there. I guess there is no way to prove that this is caused by a team hitting philosophy, but just like you said, some of these guys have hit differently for different teams, why does it seem like everyone has the same or similar approach at the plate? Now I'm not even going to say that the approach is always bad, for certain hitters. I think these analytic nerds only get it wrong when they try to make everyone do the same thing. I have always felt that when you do things or coach that way you make your team really predictable. When you are predictable, then other teams can employ strategy that counters that predicability. My feeling is always that you need different approaches within the same lineup. Having a Gallo or two in a lineup surrounded by a couple of Arraez types I think takes advantage of both the pure power guys and the on base guys. I mean how much more of a problem is Gallo when he comes up with guys on first and second all of the time? But when the two guys before Gallo punch out or hit a solo bomb and Gallo comes up with no one on base so frequently then pitchers don't have to be afraid of him when they pitch. I think the problem with the analytic nerds is that they think everyone needs to do the same thing all of the time in order to be good. I think when everyone does the same thing over and over again all of the time they become predictable and that's when teams can better plan on how to beat them.

It's definitely an organizational philosophy. It's really not working and everyone needs to be fired who are responsible for it, batting coaches, etc .... Everyone who is responsible for it, this team is wasting a great pitching staff overall.

It's definitely an organizational philosophy. It's really not working and everyone needs to be fired who are responsible for it, batting coaches, etc .... Everyone who is responsible for it, this team is wasting a great pitching staff overall.

To me, part of Buxton's overall value is his ability to change the game from the defensive side of the game. So I really believe the twins wouldn't have signed Buck to a long term deal as a DH only. So when Buxton was struggling at the plate, he would always provide value on defense. Now that's not happening so as a result people are looking at him as flawed. Or negatively affecting the game sometimes. Whereas in the past he could hit and when he wasn't he was still positively affecting the game. That can't happen DHing 6 times a week.

I don't think there was any intent from the Cleveland pitcher last night. Had there been intent with that pitch to Buxton then I would like to think the Twins pitchers would have defended Buxton, but I really think that one was just an accident.

Hopefully it's just a coincidence, but it seems like Pagan pitches better when the Twins are behind.

Looks like Pagan might be hurt for awhile.

Is something wrong with Buxton??

He went a long ways to get to that thing.

I'm an Angels season ticket holder, so I'm at the game right now, but it's because Houston is in the Angels' division, so there is a lot of contention there. Almost all Houston guys get booed here in Anaheim. A guy who owns the seats next to me was telling me that all Houston players should be banned. This was like a season or two after the cheating. So I asked him should Max Stassi be banned too? And he looked at me, did he play for Houston? I said yes, and he didn't know what to say after that. Kind of a funny story.

I mean Right? I guess I'm all for going crazy and swinging for the fences with no strikes or one strike but why not change the approach with 2 strikes, and in the situation of course also. I mean 1st and 3rd 1 out you kind of need a fly ball somewhere, you don't want a ground ball double play, so in the right situations they need to change their approach once in awhile. I feel as though the players themselves are always swinging for the fences because that's what gets them paid. So career moneywise a bunch of K's don't mean anything if they have 30+ homers. But a bunch of K's can negatively impact a winning season, but the agents out there get the guys paid to hit dingers. It seems to them the the winning and losing is secondary?

Kind of funny, Chapman has 27 K's in 16 innings and KC swooped him up with a 1 year like 3 million dollar contract. I mean sometimes you can take chances, had he stunk they could have released him and not paid much for the look. I guess that's what KC did?

Personally, I think the Twins need to send Jax to the mound a couple of times. Two different appearances 1 inning each and tell him he can only use his fastball. I'd like to see what happens, I bet it wouldn't be any worse than this? I mean I was sitting in the stands, last night and after 20 or so pitches 15 of them must have been the so called sweeper. He has a 96mph fastball and used it like once maybe twice. I mean I know even the fans felt like they could hit that sweeper because they knew it was coming. Set that pitch up with the fastball? Or at least set the fastball up with the sweeper. I mean sweeper after sweeper after sweeper they are going to start hitting it for sure and they are. It's maddening.

Twins need to bring up an arm here or there from the minors just to see if they can fool some people for awhile. Just get the shuttle filled up with gas.

I know this question is a little late, but what was discussed yesterday when that ball that was hit down the right field line looked foul? How come no one challenged it?

This exactly proves my point. The OP said that batting average is the worst offensive stat in baseball. Everyone who is defending that point brings up the fact that HR's are so so so much more valuable than just being a good hitter. But when I bring up a guy who hit 442 HR's everyone is saying that he sucks. He was an All Star 3 times. He got MVP votes with the Giants, Mets, Cubs and A's. All stadiums except for Wrigley are pretty bad hitter parks and he still ended up with 442 home runs, but he ain't worth nothing when I compare him to an all around hitter that hit like a total of 90 HR's in a 20 year career. So being a good hitter is way more important than hitting HR's

What would Kingman's ops have been had he hit .300? Also, I'd say the opposite, most of Kingman's career was in non homer friendly parks. San Fran I think candlestick? Oakland, not really a hitters park, I don't think shea stadium was exactly a hitters park, and even I thought Yankee stadium wasn't that friendly to right handed hitters. He also played in san Diego and for the Angels. I don't think any of those parks are hitter havens. I mean had he spent his career in Boston like David Ortiz did Kingman probably hits over 500 home runs, especially since they could have DHed him more in Boston? Just an example.

But would Rod Carew been a hall of famer had he hit .209? Or even as good as Kingman, I think he hit like .240 for his career. Would Carew have been a hall of famer then? So, I'm saying batting average means something for sure. I mean people pick on Kingman, saying he wasn't good defensively, but he played a majority of his career in the NL with no DH so he was able to get on the field at least most of the time. Kingman finished in the top 10 in HR's numerous times, he finished top 5 in HR's numerous times. I am obviously not saying he was better than Carew, but Carew was definitely no defensive gem by any means. In fact he was actually pretty sketchy also. What I'm getting at, is a guy like Kingman, most of the young people on here probably don't even know who the hell he is. However, with today's stats, if Kingman played in today's game, especially with the DH in both leagues, and the shift over the last few years, no steroids/hgh they'd probably be talking about him being a hall of famer in today's game. Back then he was basically a nobody.

So the Twins would have been better if they had Dave Kingman rather than Rod Carew?

https://www.espn.com/mlb/stats/team I mean batting average isnt a great metric if it doesn't fit our narrative. I mean I really want the Twins to be good, they are doing ok, so batting average doesn't mean anything. But if you look at the top 10 teams in batting average, they are all doing good with the exception of St Louis and Colorado. St. Louis is like the Bazaro Twins with decent hitting and terrible pitching, and I'm guessing because of where they play that Colorado will always have a decent batting average. I mean, I'm trying to look at the Twins hitting as a positive, I mean they are doing well and they can't hit, you have to think that some of the guys will heat up eventually and they will start to hit a little bit. If the pitching maintains at a decent level the Twins should only get better, right?

I see your point, if the other team is up 5 - 0 all of the time that he should see good pitches, however, in his defense, he's not doing these things in Colorado or Cincinnati or in some hitters park. Oakland by and large is considered one of the worst hitters parks in MLB, so you can add that he's also doing well even though he plays in an extreme pitchers park.