Cap'n Piranha

A playoff rotation is generally 3.5 pitchers, so if J. A. Happ is our number 4, he'll be asked to make only a couple of starts, and by starts, I mean pitch 4-5 innings before the bullpen takes over. It's also worth pointing out that 15 appearances and 27 innings is fairly small sample size, and it would only take one or two good performances to completely flip those numbers. At any rate, the purpose of this move is not as much to win in the playoffs, as it is to make it easier to get to the playoffs. It's very hard to win in the playoffs if you had to ride your horses hard all the way to get there, and very much harder to win in the playoffs if you don't get there at all.

Seth is absolutely right--this move is about having 4 proven MLB starters that will hopefully cover 80% of your games. It's also about improving leverage (Falvine no longer HAS to get a starter), and putting the Twins in a position where Duran and Balazovic can be brought up when ready, as opposed to when needed. John Bonnes has pointed out several times on the GATG podcast that Falvine seems to prefer setting a floor early, and then raising the ceiling late. I would very much expect that the Twins are still in the market for upgrades to the starting staff, and while I'm not saying they will for sure make one, I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

I pretty much agree with this--as I stated, I doubt Rooker will be as good as Cruz in 2021. I very much doubt that Rooker will have anywhere near the career Cruz has; I would be beyond shocked to be talking about Brent Rooker, Borderline Hall of Famer in 2035. That said, I tend to agree with the philosophy behind your Giambi reference. While Cruz would probably be somewhere around .290/.370/.550 in 2021, and Rooker more like .250/.310/.475, I wonder if the $14M you save by not having Cruz, in addition to the ability to give other players "half-days" by playing them at DH are more valuable than the 100 or so points of OPS you give up with Rooker. Particularly when taking into consideration that Rooker has very little downside, while Cruz has massive downside. To be perfectly honest, I think my ideal scenario is to sign Brantley, and go Arraez Brantley 1-2 in the lineup. You can give each of your outfielders one day completely off every week, and one day at DH every other week, thereby keeping all of them fresh through the season. Your OBP at the top of the lineup becomes great, especially if you put Donaldson third, and you can then tap into power with Sano, Kepler, and Rooker in the 4-6 spots. That puts Buxton, Polanco (or a new SS), and Garver/Jeffers at the bottom of your lineup--that's a pretty dang good bottom three, particularly if Garver is closer to his 2019 form.

In his age 24 season (2019), Rooker OPS'd .933 at AAA. In his age 24 season (2004), Cruz OPS'd .989 in A+, and .919 at AA. Based on this, Rooker would appear to be more advanced than Cruz at a similar point in their careers--why would we be so quick to assume Rooker can't possibly come close to Cruz' production? This is not to say I think he well--I am reasonably certain Nelson Cruz will put up better numbers in 2021 than Rooker. Will those numbers be far enough better to offset the extra millions Cruz will earn, and the decreased flexibility the Twins will have to endure?

I would be ok with keeping Cruz next year, or even the year after (depending on what happens this year--I'd be very surprised if Cruz gets a two year contract where the second year isn't a vesting year based on performance, or a straight up team option). That being said, I'm also good with not bringing him back--for a few reasons; There are some worrisome numbers in Cruz' profile. In his amazing 2019 season, Cruz had a hard hit rate of 52.5%--that's 10 percentage points higher than any other season in his career (other than his 2005 debut season, where he only played 8 games). In 2020, his pull rate dropped to it's lowest since 2007, and his swinging strike rate was the highest since 2009. His contact rate was also his lowest since 2009, his zone contact rate was his lowest since 2015, and his HR/FB rate was his highest ever (again by 10 percentage points).Everyone comes back to Earth eventually. Some people slowly decline, and therefore have soft landings. Others don't decline, and therefore drop like a rock. With someone who's declining, you can mitigate it by sitting them against tough same-sided pitching, or giving them more days completely off, or extra time at DH. Nelson, unfortunately is in the second category--when he falls off, it will be sharp and sudden, mostly because he hasn't declined in his late 30's like most players.Keeping Cruz at DH limits the Twins ability to be flexible. Without Cruz taking 90 to 90 percent of the DH PA's, you can give your players more rest, particularly your injury prone ones like Buxton, Donaldson, and Arraez while still keeping their bats in the lineup.

I posted the specifics in another thread, but what Arraez has done in essentially the equivalent of one year is remarkable. He is probably the best contact hitter in the league, and his numbers compare quite favorably to both Molitor and Gwynn at the same age (Molitor's numbers, specifically power, are better. Gwynn's are worse). I feel quite certain that so long as his knees don't betray him, Luis will retire in 12-15 years with a HOF-worthy career. Whether he gets in or not will likely depend on if he hits (pun intended) the 3,000 hit milestone.

Umm, just last year the Twins signed Donaldson to a $100M contract, and traded for the guy who just finished second in Cy Young voting. Exactly what makes you think this FO isn't willing to "do something"? Never mistake activity for improvement.

Here's a comparison of three players through their age 23 seasons. Player A: 543 PA, .302/.352/.379/.731, 7.7% BB rate, 6.8% K rate, 20.1% XBH rate Player B: 487 PA, .331/.390/.429/.819, 9.2% BB rate, 8.2% K rate, 23.4% XBH rate Player C: 1201 PA, .299/.341/.424/.765, 6.2% BB rate, 8.5% K rate, 26.7% XBH rate Player B is Luis Arraez, Player A is Tony Gwynn, Player C is Paul Molitor. While I agree that one dimensional hitters often have shorter careers, that doesn't hold true when that one dimension is in the 95+% percentile. Arraez is by any metric in his young career, an elite contact hitter--he legitimately could be an historically elite contact hitter. Of playes with at least 450 PA in 2019-2020, Arraez is first in total contact %, 2nd in zone contact %, 1st in out-of-zone contact %, and 1st (that is, lowest) in swinging strike %. He's also 14th (again, lowest) in soft contact %--Luis Arraez makes less soft contact than Mike Freakin' Trout. Given all of that, and the fact that he still has 4 years of team control left, and will never be all that expensive because he won't win gold gloves or hit 30 homers, if the Indians wanted Arraez in a Lindor deal, I'd tell them that's all they're getting, and they might actually need to give me something besides Lindor. I totally acknowledge this take will seem crazy to many, but a guy who compares favorably to two inner-ring Hall of Famers at the same point in their careers seems like a very valuable asset, and not one you give away for one year of a different player.

I want my HOF to be extremely inclusive. It should consist almost entirely of names that every fan of the game knows, even if only in passing. If an honest to goodness fan of the game can walk into the HOF, see a player's plaque, and go "Who?", then it's not a HOF. To that end, some players who were not just good but excellent should be left out. I would rather my HOF err on the side of exclusion rather than inclusion, to ensure that no one sneaks in as a "we had to elect someone" choice. It is not a bad thing to have a year without anyone being elected.

Count me out on Bauer, unless that price comes way, way down. Yes, he's been quite consistent, but he's only had one season (excluding 2020) above 3.3 WAR. He's only had one season (excluding 2020) below a 3.88 FIP. I'm not ready to reward that track record with a deal worth only $6M less than what Gerrit Cole makes. Gerrit Cole had 3 seasons with a WAR above 3.3, and 6 seasons with a FIP below 3.33. I also think Bauer's numbers from 2020 are likely to regress to the mean. His BABIP was .215, by far the lowest of his career, despite his hard hit % going up, and his GB rate plummeting to a career low, which suggests a fair amount of luck. This contributed to a strand rate of 90.9%, which is more than 10 percentage points above any other year in his career. His fastball velocity also decreased, which is worrisome since he threw his fastball almost 50% of the time, and is about to turn 30. None of this is to say I wouldn't be good with Bauer on the Twins, just for nowhere near $30M. I'd much rather give Odo a 3 year, $39M deal, and then take flyers on Gausman (3 years, $30M with a mutual opt-out after 2022) and Smyly (1 year $5M with a second year option for $7M). If Bauer does get $30M, those three would be cheaper than Bauer, give the Twins a better rotation foundation in 2022, and provide fantastic depth (Smeltzer, Dobnak, Thorpe, Duran, and Balazovic can all stay in the minors until needed). And not for nothing, but Gausman's FIP was only .21 worse than Bauer last year, and his xFIP was actually better.

If owners are forced to take a large cut in revenue, such as 25% or less fan capacity, there is absolutely no way they will not pass that along to the players. It is (to a degree) up to the players on what form they want that to take. The players can agree to a one-time reduction in pay, or not agree, and watch as the owners decline options and issue non-tenders while turning to prospects, all while greatly increasing the chances of a strike/lockout one year from now.

Boy, am I embarrassed to have my math corrected by an abacus user .

The Twins playoff scenarios are as below; The Twins cannot finish with the 6 or 8 seed.The Twins magic number to finish ahead of Cleveland is 1. If they do that, they cannot be the 7 seedThe Twins magic number to finish ahead of New York is 2 (perhaps 1). Both the Twins and Yankees have 23 division wins, but the Yankees play Buffalo tonight. Win that, and the Yankees get the tiebreak, and the number is 2. If Buffalo wins tonight, I'm not sure who gets the tiebreak between the Twins and Yankees, as I don't want to look at results of the last 40 games. Regardless, 2 Twins wins/Yankees losses mean the Twins can't be the 5 seed.Both Tampa and Oakland have already won more division games than the Twins, and therefore have the tiebreak. Tampa's magic number to finish ahead of the Twins (and White Sox) is 1.Oakland has 5 games left (1 against LAD, 4 against Sea). The Twins must win at least the same number of games as Oakland to finish ahead of OaklandThe Twins must win at least one more game than Chicago the rest of the way to finish ahead of ChicagoTL;DR Seeds 6 & 8 are impossible Seeds 1 & 7 are improbable Seeds 2 & 5 are possible, but unlikely Seeds 3 & 4 are the most likely If the Twins are seed 4, they will likely play the Yankees (the Yankee's magic number to finish ahead of Toronto is 1). Otherwise, if the Twins are the 3 seed, they are guaranteed to play Houston. In short, cheer for Cleveland and Oakland today, then the Twins to sweep and Oakland to at least split with Seattle. That would put the Twins on the 3 line, which is the best possible draw, imo.

I'm disappointed in Donaldson for getting himself kicked out of this one. You're playing the team you're chasing, in a game you pretty much have to have if you want the division, and it's a nailbiter. Instead of acting like the 34 year old leader he's supposed to be, Donaldson decides to throw a tantrum because he didn't like the ump's strike zone. I've got news for you--that's going to happen from time to time. It's surely happened to Donaldson before, and it will happen again. Control your emotions, and stay in the game for your team.

The Twins drafted Buxton #2 overall. The Astros took Correa at 1:1.

So when you see a guy with RBI's, you just assume he's better at dealing with mental pressure, without bothering to understand the context of the situation? I don't deny that some players are better at handling mental pressure, and there could be some extra mental pressure in RBI opportunities. However, you seem to ignore that there could also be extra mental pressure on pitchers/defenders in those situations too. Furthermore, the pitcher usually has to pitch from the stretch instead of the windup (unless it's a reliever who always pitches from the stretch). This is borne out by the fact that hitters generally perform better with RISP than bases empty (link at the bottom). If RBI opportunities create pressure which reduces performance, than why are there broad-based (meaning across all batters) increases in average and OBP in RISP situations? Given a hitter full credit for an RBI without examining context is like giving a football player full credit for a TD without examining the context. Maybe the wide receiver ran a perfect route, adjusted for the catch, and then outran two DB's to the end zone. Maybe the running back made a guy miss in the backfield, then broke 5 tackles while tip-toeing the sideline. Or maybe the fullback walked into the end zone from the 1 yard line after the O-Line pushed the D-Line 3 yards backwards at the snap. Context matters. And that's all me, or anyone else who doesn't want to use RBI as a standalone stat, are saying. https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/29288/prospectus-feature-the-risp-mystery/#:~:text=So%20I%20looked%20for%20hitters,than%20in%20other%20plate%20appearances.&text=All%20of%20this%20makes%20a,appearances%20in%20a%20season%20batted%20.

My whole point with the swing is if the inputs are the same (launch angle, exit velocity, atmospheric conditions, etc), the hits will be identical--same distance, same elevation, same landing spot. The process of the batter hitting the ball, if identical, will produce identical results. The entire point I was making about RBI's is that the process of the batter hitting the ball can be identical, and yet yield non-identical results, vis-a-vis RBI. This demonstrates that RBI's are not completely controllable by the batter, and as such, in order to truly quantify batter performance via RBI, we need additional data.

Which is why there are park factors. People who understand that concept get that 30 homers in Petco is more impressive than 30 homers in Yankee stadium, and will value those players accordingly. What I'm saying is there needs to be a "park factor" for RBI, to help us understand if the RBI came from a solo home run, or the fast runner on third scoring on a routine grounder. Those are vastly different processes to get to the same outcome, and unlike homeruns, I'm not aware of a readily available stat that can speak to that.

But not to the degree that RBI's are. With the bases empty, you cannot get an RBI unless you hit a HR. RBI's are way more contextually driven than almost anything else, because that context comes within the game from other players. If you have two identically hit balls in the same stadium, if one is a homer, so is the other. That's not true of the situation I outlined. Stealing bases off Astudillo is different than Molina, but everyone in that game gets to steal off the same guy--the situation is constant, and therefore is not the determinant of outcome.

But putting a ball in play (barring the very rare case of an inside the park HR) with no one on base is also, by that standard, worthless. The problem with RBI as a stat is not that it's worthless--it's that it's completely devoid of context. Let's say Eddie Rosario hits a routine ground ball to the second baseman with less than two outs. If Byron Buxton is on third, there's a good chance Rosario gets an RBI. If Nelson Cruz is on third, it's essentially a 0% chance Rosario gets an RBI. Exact same batted ball by Rosario, diametrically opposite RBI outcomes. The reason for that is because often a large part of the run being scored has absolutely nothing to do with the batter who gets credit for the RBI. Thus, absent an accompanying, context-providing stat, RBI is at best a crude metric, and at worst, a downright misleading one.

I also did come up with a comparable white player to Rosario--CJ Cron. Last year Cron hit a homer every 20 PA's, Rosario did it every 18.4. Look at the RBI/PA rates for various scenarios below. Rosario with none on--18 RBI in 305 PA--.06 RBI/PA Cron with none on--14 RBI in 284 PA--.05 RBI/PA Rosario with men on--91 RBI in 285 PA--.32 RBI/PA Cron with men on--64 RBI in 215 PA--.30 RBI/PA Rosario with RISP--79 RBI in 173 PA--.46 RBI/PA Cron with RISP--55 RBI in 121 PA--.45 RBI/PA Cron isn't known for gunning down players on the basepaths sure, but that's not something first basemen get a chance to do much. Cron did rate out better defensively than Rosario, by a lot; of the 24 players who logged at least 500 innings in left field in 2019, Rosario was 21st in UZR/150, 18th in errors, and dead last in range (his arm was 3rd). Cron was 20th out of 29 first basemen by UZR/150, 26th in errors, and 8th in range (there's no measurement for arm for first basemen). None of us were upset when the Twins let Cron go, despite the fact that he is reasonably comparable to Rosario in Rosario's alleged strengths.

Eddie's hard hit rate is indeed the second highest of his career. That being said, his 37.5% hard hit rate is good for 106th out of 154 qualified hitters, which puts him in about the 31st percentile. He also has the highest soft contact rate of his career, at 21.9%. That puts him 13th out of those same 154 qualified hitters, which is in the 91st percentile. By any definition, Eddie does not do a good job of making solid contact. Eddie's zone rate (percent of pitches that would be called strikes) is 34%, which is second lowest in all of baseball--only Bryce Harper sees fewer pitches in the zone. Pitchers are still able to keep Rosario off the bases (as evidenced by his .311 OBP, 121st out of the 154 hitters) without having to give him pitches to hit.

Well, that's not what happened. The author said he made a stupid mistake--here's the quotation lifted directly from yesterday's game wrap. "For the second consecutive day, Eddie Rosario made a stupid base running mistake that likely cost the Twins runs early in the game" No where is he called stupid. I'll also work on naming a current white player with Rosario's stats when you name a white player with your collection of old-school platitudes. Your middle paragraph, wherein you state you don't accept anyone's argument that Rosario is a bad player, is also problematic, for a couple of reasons. Number one, it suggests you are not open to changing your mind, even if evidence suggests it; head-in-the-sand thinking is dangerous. Second, no one is saying Rosario is a bad player; the whole point of the article is that Rosario costs the team runs, and potentially wins, due to his continued overaggression, and eroding skills everywhere except homers, RBI's, and throwing. If he was inexpensive, or at a position with little depth, it's not necessarily grounds for moving on, but neither of those two conditions are true. Rosario is more expensive than the average player. He also plays at the Twins greatest position of strength, where much, if not all of his production could conceivably be replaced by players making less than 10% of what Rosario does. That money can be used to extend Berrios, re-sign Cruz/Odo, lock in a young player to a Kepler/Polanco type deal, or try and obtain additional talent on the free agent market.

I would explain 2019 by pointing out that Rosario had ONE more RBI than Cruz despite 69 more PA's. I would also point out that Rosario had 285 PA's with at least one runner on, and 173 with at least one runner in scoring position--Cruz had 248 and 135. So despite having more total PA's, PA's with runners on, and PA's with runners in scoring, Eddie only managed one more RBI--this proves Cruz is a much better hitter, which is borne out by pretty much every stat. The story is largely the same this year. Rosario again has exactly ONE more RBI than Cruz, but has 3 more PA's. Although that is small, as is the number of PA's with runners on (72 for Rosario, 68 for Cruz), the big difference is in PA's with runners in scoring position--44 for Rosario, and only 31 for Cruz. Rosario has more RBI's, both this year and last, because he not only has more opportunities to drive in runs, he has better opportunities as well. As for the clutch argument--this year, Rosario has had 14 PA's labelled high leverage by fangraphs. He is slashing .154/.214/.462/.676, with only 2 xbh, a wOBA of .279, a wRC+ of 72, with only 30.8% hard contact (that is, he's not getting hurt by at 'em balls). Cruz has had 9 high leverage PA's, and is slashing .286/.444/.286/.730 with no xbh, a wOBA of .355, a wRC+ of 123, and 66.7% hard contact. For a bigger sample size, here's high leverage stats for 2019. Rosario--49 PA's, .364/.408/.636/1.045, 8 xbh, .421 wOBA, 166 wRC+, 37.2% hard hit Cruz--42 PA's, .323/.500/.484/.984, 5 xbh, .402 wOBA, 153 wRC+, 40.9% hard hit So a little bit of an advantage to Rosario, but not hugely so, and one that has not repeated itself this year. It's also worth noting Cruz only had 53.5% strikes in high leverage, while Rosario had 62.8%. Given that Rosario only walked 8.2% of the time, whereas Cruz walked 26.2% of the time, I think we can fairly assume that Cruz was getting far fewer pitches to hit than Rosario, which can explain some differences as well. Overall, Rosario's HR and RBI numbers look great, but are largely situationally driven, and paper over the other holes in Rosario's game. You know, kinda the point Nick was trying to make.

Cool racism accusation bro! Can you name any current white Twins player with mediocre to bad stats that continues to get playing time AND praise for hustle/hard-nosed play/leaving it all on the field? If not, maybe we can accept the author's argument on it's merits, rather than conduct a search for implicit bias in an owner of a site that has been quite progressive in the current climate.