Cap'n Piranha

For sure, being not super read in to the Dodgers roster, I was going purely off their Depth Chart at MLB.com, where moving Lux off second cascaded into having an open spot in the outfield. A cursory glance at Rios' stats seems like they would much prefer to move Muncy to second and Rios to first, rather than McKinstry to short. In that sense, I would say the Dodgers, like the Twins, are one of the few teams that could absorb injuries to two of their top three shortstops, and still be ok.

The Twins history of playoff failures pre-2017 has nothing whatsoever to do with Polanco or Arraez. You can't hold Polanco accountable for 12 postseason losses he didn't appear in, or 13 in the case of Arraez. Also, not for nothing, but before 2020 Polanco was 4/15 against the Yankees with 3 walks and 1 homer, so a slash line of .267/.389/.467/.856, with no errors. Arraez, in the 2019 series against the Yankees was 5/11 with 4 doubles, so a slash line of .455/.455/.818/1.273, also with no errors. While the 18 game streak is painful for us fans, we have to remember that it started in 2006, when Polanco was 13, and Arraez was 9. It's not like the exact same core of players has made the playoffs 6 straight years, and been swept in 6 straight best of 5 series.

Chris Taylor is listed as the backup at shortstop, and as such, is not germane to this discussion, as I was discussing only who each team's third option would be. In looking at the Dodger's depth chart, I assume Gavin Lux will be the starting second baseman; currently Muncy is listed as the starter at both first and second--if Muncy plays second, Bellinger is listed as the backup at first, which means Pollock becomes the starter in center, and Taylor the starter in left. I generally avoided these kind of scenarios in my speculation, as I assume if both Seager and Taylor get hurt, the Dodgers are more likely to install McKinstry than call up an outfield prospect (according to Kiley McDaniel, the Dodgers only have 1 outfielder in their top 10 prospects--Andy Pages, who has never played above rookie ball). Their other options, according to the 40 man, are DJ Peters (0 MLB experience, OPS'd .879 as a 24 year old in AAA in 2019), Luke Raley (0 MLB experience, only 33 games above AA, OPS'd .878 as a 25 year old in those 33 AAA games in 2019), and Zach Reks (0 MLB experience, OPS'd .901 as a 25 year old in AAA in 2019). Even putting Lux at short might not be a great idea--sure he has the prospect pedigree, but in his small MLB sample size, he's been pretty bad; .655 OPS in 151 PA's, striking out 28.5% of the time, and posting a -21.4 UZR/150 in 321 innings at second base. He was definitely young (debuted at 21), and so there's certainly reason for optimism, other than that his numbers offensively were notedly worse in 2020 than in 2019. Maybe he was hurt last year, maybe he hadn't yet adjusted to the league adjusting to him, but I wouldn't feel great if I were the Dodgers about the prospect of Lux AND one of my AAAA outfielders in the lineup every day, which is what happens if Seager and Taylor are hurt.

Yes, we should definitely base our plans on a two game sample size. If that's the metric we're using, we should immediately cut every hitter not named Nelson Cruz from our roster.

The Dodgers third option (according to MLB depth charts) is Zach McKinstry, who has 7 MLB PA's. Of the infielders on LA's 40 man, only Seager and Turner have played even one inning at SS in MLB, and Turner last did it in 2015. The Yankees third option is Thairo Estrada, who has OPS'd .615 in 121 MLB PA, and only played 5 innings at short. Of the infielders on NY's 40 man, only Torres, Urshela (65 innings in 2018), LeMahieu (4 innings, none after 2014), and Tyler Wade (142 innings in 2020) have played SS in MLB. Wade has a career .575 OPS in 346 PA's, and if you play Urshela at short you have to play Andujar at third, who has OPS'd .476 over 121 PA's in 2019 and 2020, and has a career -27.7 UZR/150 at third in 1,244 innings The Met's third option is Jonathan Villar, who has a career -14.9 UZR/150 in over 3,000 innings at short (although that has been better lately). Of the infielders on NY's 40 man, only Lindor, Villar, and Luis Guillorme (57 innings in 2019/2020) have played SS in MLB. Guillorme is actually listed as the backup at shortstop, and in his 212 MLB PA's, has a .684 OPS. The Astros' third option is unlisted (there actually isn't even a backup listed). Of the infielders on Houston's 40 man, only Correa, Altuve (6 innings), Bregman (966 innings), Diaz (2,321 innings), and Gurriel (9 innings) have played SS in MLB. Gurriel would probably be the third choice behind Correa and Diaz; Gurriel will turn 37 this year, had a .658 OPS last year, and by UZR/150 is below average defensively at 1B. The Blue Jays' third option is Joe Panik, who had never played SS in MLB before last year, and has a .645 OPS over his last 1,024 PA's (2018 through 2020). Of the other infielders on Toronto's 40 man, only Bichette, Semien (6800 innings), and Espinal (156 innings) have played SS in MLB. Espinal has only 66 MLB PA's, and put up a .641 OPS. The Red Sox' third option is Jonathan Arauz (second is Marwin), who has played 21 innings at short in MLB, and has OPS'd .644 in 80 PA's. Of the other infielders on Boston's 40 man, only Bogaerts, Arroyo (93 innings, all but 11 coming in 2017), Devers (2 innings), Marwin (2,252, only 9 after 2018), and Hernandez (536 innings) have played SS in MLB. Hernandez OPS'd .680 last year, Marwin had a -30.6 UZR/150 at SS in 2018 (his last significant time at short) while OPSing .606 last year, and Arroyo has a -10.3 career UZR/150 at SS. The Phillies' third option is Scott Kingery, who has a career .677 OPS in 1,108 PA's, and a 0.6 UZR/150 in 1,000 innings at SS in MLB. Of the other infielders on Philadelphia's 40 man, only Segura, Gregorius (7,643 innings), and Miller (3,133 innings but only 44 after 2016) have played SS in MLB. This honestly seems like probably the deepest shortstop position of the teams you listed. As you can see, it's almost impossible to have a first division regular (which means a top 15-20ish shortstop overall) third on your depth chart--very few teams actually even have 2. To answer your question, I think putting Polanco at short in the event Simmons is hurt is a better situation than 20-25 other teams have at short, and being upset the Twins don't have a better fourth option (which is what we're really talking about here), is just crazy.

Please list all the teams that have a viable first-division SS currently third on their SS depth chart. I'll wait.

Last year the Twins averaged 36 plate appearances a game--over 162 games, that's 5,832 PA's. The Twins could give 12 players each an average of 486 PA's; I can only think of 11 players/platoons the Twins really need to worry about getting PA's for (Garver/Jeffers, Sano, Arraez, Polanco, Simmons, Donaldson, Kepler, Buxton, Cruz, Rooker/Cave, and Kiriloff/Larnach). As such, if there were no injuries, I think the 8 guys listed by themselves would get about 525 PA's, with the other 3 platoons resulting in 250 to 300 PA's each. Obviously, there will be injuries this year, just for Buxton, Donaldson, Simmons, Arraez, and Cruz the over/under on games missed has to be at least 150. What the Twins have managed to do is create a lineup that shouldn't have any truly weak links. If the ideal lineup is Garver, Sano, Polanco, Simmons, Donaldson, Kepler, Buxton, Arraez/Cave/Rooker, Cruz, then your bench consists of Jeffers, 2 out of Arraez/Cave/Rooker, and then either Kiriloff or Blankenhorn.

Last year, 61% of Arraez' plate appearances came out of the 6th or 7th spot--meaning he didn't have the big boppers to drive him in. As a result, he only scored 6 runs when hitting in those slots, compared to 10 runs when hitting anywhere else. He got on base 22 times in his 74 PA's from the 6 and 7 spot, leading to the breakdown below, out of 121 total PA's, 44 times reaching base, and 16 runs scored Hitting 6th or 7th--74 PA's (61%), 22 on base (50%), 6 runs scored (38%) Hitting anywhere else--47 PA's (39%), 22 on base (50%), 10 runs scored (62%). Arraez didn't score more runs for the inverse of the reason Eddie Rosario had so many RBI's--Eddie got to hit cleanup behind our best hitters (including two best OBP guys), and Arraez often had to hit lower in the order after our best hitters. Also, your assertion that hitting homers is an easier way to score runs than getting on base is quite incorrect--for it to be true, half or more of all runs scored would have to be as a result of a homerun. Over the last 5 years, there have been 97,767 runs scored and 26,380 homeruns hit. For homers to account for half of all runs scored, they would have to account for 48,884 runs, which averages out to 1.85 runs per homer. That seems low, but as solo homeruns are rising as a percentage of total homeruns (3 of the top 5 seasons in history in terms of solo homerun percentage have been in the last 5 years, with a fourth year at number 8--caveat; the article I'm referencing which is linked below is from early May 2019). This means that if we assume over the last 5 years 58% of homeruns have been solo (which is in all likelihood low, as 2016, 2017, and 2018 were all at 59%, and 2019 was at 60% when this article was written), 15,300 of the 26,380 homers hit were solo, or 11,080 were not solo. Subtracting 15,300 from the 48,884 run figure which represents 50% of runs, means the 11,080 non-solo homers would need to account for 33,587 runs, or an average of 3.03 runs per non-solo homer. By definition, that means there would have to be more grand slams hit than 2 run homers--since the highest number of grand slams ever hit in a single season is 176 in 2000, we can safely say more runs are produced without homers than with them. Scoring runs with homers is certainly more efficient (fewer batters/greater chance for multiple runs), but it is not easier. https://tht.fangraphs.com/franmil-reyes-and-the-rise-of-the-solo-shot/#:~:text=And%20if%20you%20are%20wondering,is%20eighth%20highest%20since%201920. https://www.baseball-almanac.com/hitting/higs5.shtml

In 3,900 career innings at short, Polanco has essentially the same UZR/150 (-10.9) as Araaez does in 650 career innings at 2nd (-11). Now, there's a huge swing between 2019 and 2020, so maybe that number is low and Arraez is better than this number shows. But generally speaking guys get better defensively when they go from short to second, so if Arraez is just as bad at second as Polanco is at short, it seems pretty clear Polanco will be better at second than Arraez. That being said, I'm an Arraez guy, and I would prefer to leave him at second and make Polanco the utility guy. A previous poster mentioned that Arraez could be Tony Gwynn; Luis actually has better numbers than Gwynn at the same point in their careers--Arraez walks more and has more power, but also strikes out more. However, given the relative injury proclivity of all four of our non-1B infielders, I do think it's a pretty decent chance that at least one will be on the IL at any given point. Therefore, I'm not too worried about this; if you assume 4 PA a game for each of these positions (which is probably low), that's 1,944 PA's that can be handed out, or essentially 500 per player. Add in a couple of outfield games for Arraez and some DH days (Cruz will undoubtedly have a couple of stints on the IL, or not be on the team at all), and I feel confident that even with relatively good health, all four of these guys will qualify for the batting title.

If by not "all-in" you mean the Twins haven't traded away half of their top prospects and given out $300M in free agent money, then I suppose yes, they're not all-in. However, if that's your definition of all-in, I don't think the Twins will ever be all-in unless MLB institutes a hard salary cap. This is a great deal, as it maximizes the Twins flexibility, both this year and beyond, while limiting our risk to his decline which could happen at any time. Given that next year's free agent market for shortstops is insane, the Twins could probably sign Simmons again next year if they wanted to for about the same price, if not less, even if he does have a good year.

In the minors in 2019, Arraez played 430 innings on defense--37% at 2B, 35% at 3B, 25% at SS, and 2% in LF, so it's not like he hasn't dabbled at positions other than second. In 2019, for the Twins, he actually played 35 innings at short, 130 at third, and 161 in left, which means 46% of his time actually came not at 2B. That being said, given his knee issues, I do think 2B is the best spot for him, but if Polanco is the primary 2B with Arraez the utility, and not the other way around (which is the way I would prefer it), I assume Arraez plays once a week at third, twice a week at second (giving Polanco a rest one day, with the second day when Polanco spells Simmons at short), and then we go from there. Of course, as soon as one out of Donaldson, Simmons, or Polanco gets hurt (which is very likely given particularly Donaldson and Simmons' history), Arraez becomes a full time 2B/3B again.

From what I can see on Fangraphs, the Angels were actually 2.5 out of the playoffs (the Blue Jays held the 8th spot), but with only 5 games left to play, Fangraphs had them pegged at only a 0.4% chance to make it, as they also had the Mariners between them and the Jays. In the comments on MLBTR, Angels fans (who knows if this is true) were also saying that the Angels had already informed Simmons they wouldn't be bringing him back. Given this, and the possibility of other factors that are not known (maybe someone in his immediate circle got Covid, the Angels haven't been the best-run organization so maybe he was tired of it), I don't think it's crazy that an injury-prone player would want to avoid a potential injury playing essentially meaningless games for an organization that wasn't going to be a future employer. I don't particularly like guys quitting on seasons, and I wish he hadn't, but I'm willing to accept that 2020 was a totally bizarre year, and accept that bizarre things happening was always going to be de rigeur.

You're right, we do have a lot of those guys in house already, albeit all with question marks. Now we have one more, which means you're that much less likely to have all of your options fall flat on their face. Count me as one of the people that want to see improvement, and I would not call this improvement so much as I would call it insurance against decline. That being said, the offseason is not over yet. There are still players that can be signed, and trades that can be made, so the frustration over lack of moves is at least partly attributable to impatience.

Small sample size is relevant to what happened only insomuch as it's being used to predict what will happen. For example, if you had predicted Reggie Jackson would hit homers in every at bat in the 1978 World Series, you'd be falling prey to small sample size bias.

To be clear, you're saying that in 2010 the offense scoring 7 runs across 27 innings was not an issue?

Just because it happens in the postseason doesn't make it any smaller of a sample size. It's still very few appearances, and while I probably exaggerated with the "completely flip" statement, his numbers can still dramatically change pretty quickly. Let's say he made 4 postseason starts for the Twins this year, and pitched 20 innings, at a 1.00 WHIP. His career postseason WHIP would drop to 1.51--still not great, but a 20% reduction. Any time you can alter a number by 20%, you're dealing with small samples, or outlier occurrences. For example, a pitcher who has thrown 150 innings would need 4 consecutive perfect games to lower his WHIP by 20%. Put another way, that pitcher would need 108 innings of 1 WHIP pitching to lower their WHIP by 20%. I believe you're right when you point out that the hitters are better in the playoffs. I'm sure that's a large factor in why Happ's postseason WHIP is higher. But this move isn't about finding a starter for the playoffs--it's about enduring the 162 game marathon to get there. It raises the floor, expands the depth, and allows the Twins to have a slightly stronger negotiating position, both with free agents, and potential trades. This was a good move, not a great one, but I don't see anyone calling this a great move.

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.