alexlegge

We already have a meaningful data point suggesting that this could be a slog: Royce’s comment after the game saying that it felt “basically the same.” He’s the most optimistic dude in baseball, yet he’s indicating that the crampy pain he’s experiencing after over an hour of rest is comparable to what he experienced during the high-intensity sequence of movements that triggered the injury… I’m no orthopedist, but that’s not particularly reassuring.

@Cody Christie Your expectations outlined here are pretty solid. The only other big marker for Buxton's success is avoiding any prolonged cold stretches at the plate. I'm not talking about an 0-for-18 week...more like 6 weeks of a sub-.500 OPS. That's partially on Rocco, the rest of the coaching staff, and the front office. It seems like usually those stretches signal some sort of injury concern - or at least the collective toll taken by his freakish caliber of play. Without any intervention, something like that is inevitable for him over a 162-game season. I'd much rather have him on the IL for a few weeks than dragging down the rest of the lineup while playing through pain.

One reason for optimism is that regression to the mean - in terms of health and performance - likely bodes as well for their offense as it does poorly for their pitching. If even one of Correa/Buxton/Lewis can post for 140+ games with good offensive production, that changes the equation dramatically.

Nice article. I do think that the rotation + Triple-A depth starters have slightly less injury concerns as a group this year. Even guys who have been injured in the past, like Ober, took major steps forward. Paddock is certainly a question mark. Obviously, we'd all feel more comfortable had they landed Burnes...or if there was evidence of them going after Snell or Montgomery. But there are fewer obvious problem-arms (still not sure why anyone would have penciled Mahle into a rotation last spring). It's also important to note that the the quality pitching lost by Gray doesn't necessarily translate to less team success. After all, the Twins largely squandered his excellent performance, going only only 14-18 in games started by him. And frankly, the loss of his arm probably puts more pressure on the bullpen than it does on any other starters. They've certainly built a strong, deep bullpen, which is reassuring and will help offset the need for quality starter innings.

Wow! Didn't realize this countdown was happening until now. Looking forward to reading through the other years. My initial impressions: - I can't argue with any of these years overall, except to say that the early days are probably being romanticized more than they should be. I wasn't alive for the Beatles-era Twins teams, but as a middle-aged man, I'd say that I've seen my fair share. And 2004 sure feels like a snub. - Even if we're trying to separate the '91 Twins from the '91 WS (...and I ask, is that *really* necessary?), I think for a list of the "greatest" Twins teams, you needed a championship at the top, and you got the right one. Most true talent? Maybe not. Best performance in a computer simulation? Doubtful. But 1991 was absolutely the greatest team, whatever that means (the "feel" is probably more important than the meaning in this case). Despite a slow start, they still won 95 games, had 3 different pitchers win AL pitcher of the month honors, and set the all-time franchise win streak record. Plus everything you mentioned, including winning the greatest World Series of all time. Surely, that needs to count for something. - It's funny how greatness works...if 1991 hadn't happened, 1987 would be probably #1. And that would be unfortunate and stupid, because you'd be *dramatically* overrating the postseason. Thankfully, 1991 happened. So, left with the question about what to do with 1987...a championship is damn special, but the lesser of two temporally-close championships is less special than the greatest championship ever. And that '87 team...in terms of overall "greatness" - well, I doubt anyone can say that they were a great team for more than 8 weeks, and that's being generous. To their credit, they picked the most meaningful weeks to be great. However, I think It would've been okay to lean much more into the cheapening effect that 1991 has on 1987. 2019 and 2006 were arguably the greatest two regular season Twins teams of all time. Did the '87 Twins have a nickname ala Bomba Squad or Piranhas? I think not. That kind of legendary status needs time to marinade during the regular season. For me, both of those years would be in the top 4, and 2006 would be a relatively easy selection at #2. I can count 16 Twins Hall of Famers who had prominent roles with the team that year - sixteen!! Fourteen of them were in the same prominent roles for which they were elected (omitting Gladden and Blyleven in their broadcasting roles), and seven of them were active players on the 2006 roster (each of those team HoFers guys was among their top 12 in bWAR that year). All of those numbers greatly exceed any other Twins team, and that's telling. Plus you had all the storylines...the horrendous start followed by a torrid stretch which merely moved them into contention, setting the stage for a huge divisional comeback over the final 3.5 months; Liriano's utter dominance; the #34 patches to honor Puckett..emergence of the M&M boys...and if you need another selling point for that season, here's a fun one: Gardy was ejected 8 times, his single season high.

Santana and Nathan deserved more consideration. Makes a ton of sense that Jaffe is using a hybrid form of JAWS for relievers. The notion that WAR does an accurate job of communicating their career value is absurd...having a dominant weapon at the back of the bullpen has been a critical commodity for decades and is only becoming more so. If you look at Nathan, Wagner, or other comparable relievers who are not enshrined, another important stat to consider is career ERA+. Newsflash: it's insanely high for those guys, like, higher than any predominantly-starting pitcher in the history of the game. To have that kind of long-term success, playing in ~30-40% of your team's games, using max effort during the highest leverage situation, is simply remarkable. In fact, I'd argue that long-term dominance as a reliever is harder to accomplish than as a starter. When you're using max effort or nearly max effort, there aren't too many variables in play to make reasonable adjustments when you falter. So your max effort better be damn good. Unfortunately, the biggest reason neither Nathan or Santana have garnered much discussion is that their dominance happened almost entirely for the Twins. That being said, I anticipate that Santana will be elected by a veteran's committee within the next 20 years. His peak was so remarkably dominant, having deserved three consecutive Cy Young awards and posting an excellent 7-year peak WAR. That's before even mentioning that he was woefully mismanaged on both ends of his career, which partially explains his lower counting stats, including WAR (Gardenhire was far too hesitant to move him into the rotation, using the best pitcher in the league during 2002-03 as mostly a middle-reliever...and Terry Collins tolerated far too much injury risk by letting him throw 134 pitches in his no-hitter in just his third start back from a major shoulder surgery).

Wow, thank you for offering such a refreshingly neutral and realistic take, Nick!! It's *deceptively* neutral, which can probably only be pulled off in this context of a fan base that has been conditioned to expect the worst from their injured stars. From a medical standpoint, I'll also offer another key distinction between Buxton's injury history and the injury histories of Mauer/Morneau: - Mauer and Morneau both experienced permanent declines in their performance due to brain injuries. Neural tissue can't be repaired with the same finesse as, say, a sacroiliac joint. - Buxton, in contrast, has experienced many early-career injuries. He does have a history of migraines and even experienced a concussion in the past, but I don't think there's evidence that we know of to suggest there's any relationship between those problems and his 2022-23 setbacks.

Interesting takes on your part. I like this one in particular, because your basic premise is spot on. But who's to say that Rocco *isn't* the better manager for this team in 2024 and beyond? That seems debatable. Also, while the pitching changes in Game 4 absolutely felt predetermined, I don't know if that's the most accurate word to describe them. Rocco seems to use more of an algorithmic-like approach to in-game strategy, which allows for many possible scenarios to unfold though also employs preplanned approaches for each of them. The result should always *feel* predetermined as it plays out, but in reality it's a reflection of most/all scenarios being taken into account. This is essentially the concept of 'multiple outs' used by magicians and mentalists...as well as many other forward-thinking experts in a variety of industries/settings.

I predicted 86 wins with the team missing the playoffs. One part of that turned out to be way off. Optimistic take on the postseason: they created, revived, and/or renewed championship hope for an entire generation of Twins fans. Pessimistic take on the postseason: they have yet to surpass the Johan-Santana-and-friends mark of 1 win in the ALDS (cemented in 2003 and 2004). Minimal progress made possible only by MLB's flawed postseason expansions?

I don't think "special" is necessarily what anyone is aiming for. Sure, that can be nice. But at the end of the day, I think that approximately 40-50% of MLB clubhouses have a healthy culture. It seems like the Twins clubhouses during the Rocco Baldelli era (except for the Donaldson years) have generally fit into that category. It's one of many prerequisites for postseason success. For the Twins, it also helps to have a handful of young guys who grew up alongside each other *and* are mature beyond their years. Looking at the recent collapses of the Braves and Dodgers - and how their players reacted to the playoff disappointment as it unfolded - illuminated some toxic elements in both of their clubhouses imho. The Twins, in contrast, seemed consistently more grounded, more professional, and more team-oriented. Yet the Twins weren't particularly special in any of those regards; I actually think all four of the remaining clubhouses in the postseason share these signs of basic health.

2 things to learn from the Astros and past Twins teams (they didn't get everything wrong for those 19 years): 1. Sometimes the most effective hitting instructors can come in the form of veteran bats. Michael Brantley was far more cost-efficient than George Springer for the Astros and came with a lengthy track record of above-average at-bats and an ability to get on base...sort of a poor man's Joe Mauer. Yet also the type of guy that can help younger hitters grow. Similarly, remember how Nelson Cruz helped unlock Miguel Sano's talent for 4 months in 2019? A crafty veteran presence with good-not-great production can go a long way. 2. This postseason shed some light onto a key part of playoff success - recognizing the guys that can get it done when the lights shine brightest. It seems like there are three types of players in terms of World Series potential: a) guys made for the postseason (Lewis, Correa, Lopez, Julien...and most of the Astros lineup) b) guys made for the regular season (Clayton Kershaw is probably the least controversial example) c) everybody else (most of MLB) I don't care about everybody else that much...though anyone can theoretically switch between these types over time. But the Twins need to be extra cautious with the 'a' group...and on the lookout for expendable guys in the 'b' category. We should be extra greedy with championship-caliber talent...more so than we have been in the past! Case in point: Eddie Rosario, Sir Streaky during the regular season, has consistently demonstrated a knack for coming up big in big moments. He did that on the Twins (2017 WC game, many late-game heroics) *and* the Braves. Note that Jose Abreu, a name that should sound painful right now, is a good example of both of the above points.

Did anyone else catch Jayce Tingler's interview on Foul Territory between playoff rounds? Although it's largely a bunch of pre-canned yet friendly non-answers, I thought what he said in response to Adam Jones' question (starting circa 9:30 in the video) shed some unique light onto the big-picture organizational process of integrating analytics. Seemed a little informative and very reassuring. I'm curious about what others think here...maybe I'm making too much of Tingler's enthusiasm (ultimately this might just be his means of getting a head start at managerial interviewing?).

Totally on point here. It seems so rare for pitching development to happen to this extent at the Major League level, especially considering the mix of growth we've seen from veterans and youngsters alike. And generally very strong postseason performances! Now if only some of Maki's brilliance could rub off onto the hitting instructors 🤔

Excellent overview! With all the playoff excitement, I completely forgot about Mauer's first appearance on the HOF ballot. I'm confident he'll get in either this time or next. I anticipate this one being pretty close... Which Twins do you think are 'untouchable' at present? Lewis for sure. I'd put Jenkins right up there given his offensive ceiling. Lee and Julien are super close too. Next tier for me would be Duran and Wallner - 'nearly untouchable'...which is where Luis Arraez probably was a year ago. Lopez and Correa might be 'functionally untouchable' given that they're both under multi-year contracts and have demonstrated many reasons to believe that they are important cornerstones of the franchise.

Is anyone else having fun reimagining conversations about Royce Lewis? It's a pretty entertaining exercise. Here are a couple I came up with: MID-JUNE, TWINS FRONT OFFICE: DEREK: What are we going to do about this team squandering so many tight games? THAD: As per our stats department, 600 plate appearances of Joey Gallo should generate just enough home runs for us to save face. DEREK: I like it. THAD: I do too. But here's one other thought - apparently this Lewis kid in our system is incapable of not hitting grand slams. DEREK: Isn't that a side effect of ACL recovery? THAD: Not sure, but good to be cautious about it. I'll check with the training staff. DEREK: Please do. We'll keep that as a backup plan. THAD: Good call. 9/14/23 & 9/15/23, WHITE SOX DUGOUT: GRIFOL: Okay, Charlie. Bases loaded now and this new kid up for the Twins. What does our scouting department have on him? MONTOYO: That's weird. The entire scouting report is just three words: "hits grand slams". GRIFOL: Well, shoot. Let's walk him and take our chances with the next guy. RESULT: Bases-loaded walk, RBI GAME RESULT: Twins 10, White Sox 2 24 hours later... MONTOYO: Here's that grand slam kid again, skip. GRIFOL: Well our approach didn't work very well yesterday, did it? MONTOYO: Heck no. Better pitch to him today. GRIFOL: My thoughts exactly. RESULT: Grand slam GAME RESULT: Twins 10, White Sox 2 Any others?

Also recall the front office's whirlwind of trades leading up to the Correa signing. Was it a clever orchestration of baseball resources that blocked an opponent from getting a player we wanted? Sure, I can give them credit there, they same way I'll give them credit for the Trade Deadline optics. At the end of the day, the optics don't matter. What happens on the field matters. And to be frank, the Twins would probably have done themselves a favor to have kept Donaldson and Kiner-Falefa, and forgotten about Sanchez/Urshela and Correa. Would the clubhouse have been as much fun to root for in April and May? Probably not. But for what those three collectively earned, it just seems like a big waste. At least the former FO found crummy performance insanely cheaply (in turn being good for someone, maybe a Pohlad or two).

1991 Twins on April 23rd: 4-10 2006 Twins on May 1st: 9-16 2017 Twins on August 5th: 52-56 2017 Dodgers from August 26-September 11: 1-16 Baseball is a weird sport. 8-13 feels like garbage, but let’s not rush to judgment.

Of course, but it's easy to see how there might be different incentives for players and trainers coming from a country with a different set of values and laws regarding PEDs. I know MLB is already coordinating some "education" for young Dominican players regarding the adverse effects and career risks associated with use, but clearly there are still a lot of issues. First, they probably should focus on ways to improve cultural sensitivity. I'd also be interested in finding out if there were any particular trainers or 'hubs' of trainers in the DR that tend to distribute PEDs. There might even be trainers down there who administer PEDs to players unknowingly to advance their own careers. There are several angles that could be improved, because clearly something's wrong with the system at this point.

True, but at the same time Eduardo Escobar was raking at 3B while filling in for Sano. Sure they are worse without him, but it's a smaller difference than you'd think. Adrianza is a better fielder, and Escobar is arguably a better hitter (unless you're *really* buying into Polanco's hottest 6-week stretch, with or without PEDs). They'll make it work.

I feel like this news is getting a lot of overreactions because it really stinks from a 'fan of Jorge Polanco' perspective and raises some questions about the position going forward. Realistically his ceiling this year was a 4ish-WAR player. So we're really only 'losing' max 2 wins over 80 games, and the team has enough depth to make up at least one win - so we really only lose one win, maybe even less....The bigger story to me is the continued suspensions among Dominican players especially given that many PEDs are legal there. If you were a young player and you thought you could be a lot more successful by doing something that's completely legal where you grew up, wouldn't you? MLB needs to address this better

Just that some of his regular season numbers are better than Koufax after adjustments for ballpark & league-wide offense during the era. It's a popular comparison. I personally wouldn't make that argument, but it's waaaay closer than most people think, especially based only on regular season performance. So yeah, *arguably* better in the sense that you could make a reasonable argument if you had to

Let's say, just for fun, that Johan wasn't injured at the end of 2010, and instead ended up playing 11 more years, staying relatively healthy but pitching substantially worse overall. Let's say he doubled his career innings, averaging the following stats over that stretch: 9-8 record, ERA of 4.00 and an ERA+ of 110 (approximate midpoint of Patrick Corbin's and Chris Archer's ERA+ from this year, since they both had ERAs just barely over 4). Then, overall, Santana's career numbers would look like this: 238-166 (.589), 3.60 ERA, 123 ERA+ Even if he never won a World Series, those numbers look Hall-of-Fame worthy to me. By comparison, Mike Mussina's career numbers are: 270-153 (.638), 3.68 ERA, 123 ERA+ Also: Don Drysdale's career ERA+ was 121, John Smoltz's was 125. You get the idea. ... And now compared to Jack Morris: 254-186 (.577), 3.90 ERA, 105 ERA+ 3 points to be made of all of this: 1) Johan's candidacy is in a different league than Morris. Morris is really only relying on slightly above-average pitching, win totals, and 2 great postseasons (leaving aside the crappy postseasons he had). As a Twins fan, I'd find emotional satisfaction in Morris getting elected, but he's well below the admittedly-subjective 'standards' for the hall. Let's also not forget that most of Morris' wins came before the steroid era. Santana, by comparison, could have had 11 more years of mediocrity and his career numbers would still far exceed those of Morris. 2) If Johan doesn't get elected (which he won't) and perhaps even falls off the ballot (a distinct possibility), then he will basically have been penalized for not having 11 years of middle-of-the-rotation caliber pitching. Is that really what we want the Hall of Fame to be about?? In my personal opinion, a player that has a 4-5 year stretch of awesomeness (like Johan) is just as solid of a candidate as someone who was steadily above average for a long time (like Mussina), and both of those players are very worthy selections. 3) The saddest part, I believe, is that Johan's candidacy is being reduced due to market sizes. He was arguably better than peak Sandy Koufax from 2003-2007 with the Twins, but there was slightly less national attention paid to that because it happened in Minnesota. Then he went to the biggest media market in the US and had 1 great season. Hence, the lasting image from the NYC market perspective is more focused on the guy whose Mets career sadly faded due to injuries than the guy who was a monster for 5 years in Minnesota. Unfortunately, that's the perspective of most HoF voters too

First time I've ever seen someone strike out on a pitch that almost hit him in the face. Talk about adding insult to injury.