Alex

Feel bad for the pitching. They have no wiggle room. Varland singles weren't terribly well hit and Devers hit could have been an out. But with this offense, mostly need to pitch a shutout.

I think it will be good to revisit this thread as Santana is their biggest offseason signing (no fault of the front office that they didn't have more options to choose from). We're now at the end of May and our first baseman has a 655 OPS and an 89 OPS+. The only reason that he isn't a bigger drag on the offense is because we are getting insane offensive production from a sometimes catcher/DH and a SS, two of the normally weakest hitting positions in a lineup. It's significantly worse against RHP. He should definitely be only starting against LHP at this point.

He's starting with his conclusion, which is that the Twins are cheap and then trying to use that to fit this. It's doubly wrong though because Lewis gets MLB time and a MLB salary during his recovery and rehab when he is injured during a major league game. So, they're actually "losing" money/time on him for every day he is on a rehab assignment.

I'm pretty sure that's incorrect again (both stats, btw). Edit: Looked at OAA Steven Kwan was 9 OAA from what I could tell, which translated to 8 runs according to statcast. While I have used UZR, it does look like OAA is more reliable year to year. EDIT 2: Daulton Varshow currently leads the MLB with 5 OAA = 5 runs. Twins have lost 2 runs based on OAA. I'd agree that LF especially are going to usually be able to make up more runs with their bat than they might lose in defense, but the Twins LF are not hitting recently, so it's a low bar. But, I'll say that implying it's likely Keirsey, or anyone, would give up a full out per game would be impossible. Twins LF, positionally, have only reached base 56 times (38 hits and 18 walks). A full out extra per game means he would never reach base. That's ridiculous. I'm not saying he for sure wouldn't be bad, but please try to keep it within the realm of reason or understand what we are talking about here. If he is 200 points lower than his AAA OPS, he'd be an average major league hitter with +defense. Not great for LF but right where the Twins are for the season with better defense. So, up to this point in a season that player might be worth 3-4 saved runs. More if he hit better.

Sometimes the best we got just shouldn't be used because it's meaningless. Those numbers do not indicate range. Here's what Gleeman wrote about him: "He’s one of the fastest players in the organization, with MLB-caliber range in center field and an average of 47 steals per 150 games in the high minors, and the left-handed bat that once held him back is now a potential asset as well." Gleeman usually uses a combination of stats and information he gets from scouts. I'm guessing he's leaning on the latter here because of the uselessness of the stats above. Take a look at Buxton. Even he had seasons where it was what Keirsey has (and some worse). Keirsey had a 2.73 in CF last year.

That is absolutely NOT two chances per game. It's two chances per game converted into outs. There are fly balls hit to the OF that are not caught that end up as singles and doubles (and less likely triples). A player with better range can actually make a play on more of those balls and convert w. (That's why ZR is used in the majors, but unfortunately we don't see that in the minors that I could find). The other flaw in your logic assumes that LF has a player that is hitting and that Keirsey wouldn't. We know that no one playing LF is hitting and that they are pretty bad defensively. So, if Keirsey just comes up and hits the equivalent, he's going to add value. If he actually hits, even around average, he's a significant upgrade. LF field is currently the worst defensive position on the team by UZR. https://www.fangraphs.com/teams/twins/stats#leaders-fielding Wallner is actually the only one who isn't a negative.

As you probably already know, it is not. It's really about chances and assumes everyone gets an equal number of opportunities (and that those opportunities are also all equal).

I wish they could find room to give him a shot. He's an upgrade in LF for pretty much everyone overall, even if he hits below average simply due to defense. I think he's at least earned a look. That said, I don't think he'll get one unless there is an injury. The tough part is finding that spot. He's not a replacement for Margot. Not just because Margot is right-handed, but you don't want to call Keirsey up just to face lefties, setting him up for failure. Nope, Margot's replacement is Austin Martin. And, Castro is a better option in LF against LHP anyway. While he could replace Kirilloff in the lineup if you want to send him down, that's not great for the roster since Kirilloff should primarily be playing 1B or DH against RHP. I don't know who a good option to replace Kirilloff is in general. It would just mean more ABs for an equal disappointing and struggling Santana at 1B or moving Miranda over there against RHP. Again, though, not really an option for Keirsey. Kirilloff is getting way too many starts in LF, due to Larnach's turf toe, but I still don't think Keirsey is the right player to replace Kirilloff if that's the case. Keirsey's best path to the majors is if Larnach continues to struggle or is sent on the IL (and maybe he should be at this point). I think the latter is the more likely callup as it looks like in both the case of Larnach and Kirilloff, the FO is giving them a decent leash and seems reluctant to send them down for performance reasons right now. That would make him a regular option in LF against RHP with him giving rest to Buxton in CF once a week. Castro would maintain a super utility role giving players rest and playing different positions.

I posted this is the Game Thread from yesterday but I think it merits its own discussion: If MLB Gameday is right at identifying pitches, Duran's gotta be hurt or something is off. His fastballs today in order were: 99.1, 99.2, 100.7, 100, 99.9, 97.5, 97.3, 98.1, 99.8, 98.2, 98.9 People in the thread were saying he was 99-101 on the broadcast, but those numbers look rounded up. I didn't list them but his spliiter/splinker was below 96 the couple of times he threw it. Assuming these pitches were correctly identified and he's not throwing them differently on purpose, there definitely seems to be more wrong than just losing a couple MPH due to being a year older. Specifically, this was on two days' rest, he topped 100 just twice and then velocity jumped all over after that (3.5 mph difference), including pitches that were 97MPH, getting it over 99 just once in his last six fastballs. The 97 MPH came on his 7th pitch, so it's not like he had thrown a ton of pitches (or was like a starter that had gone multiple innings). His overall fastball is down to 100.3, but it won't be there long if his outings like this continue. Obviously, we'd love all of our relievers to average that, but it's the inconsistency within the outing after two days of rest that seems a bit worrisome.

If MLB Gameday is right at identifying pitches, Duran's gotta be hurt or something is off. His fastballs today were: 98.9, 98.2, 99.8, 98.1, 97.3, 97.5, 99.9, 100, 100.7, 99.2, 99.1. That's in reverse order. His 101 was rounded up (unless I missed a pitch) and he only actually beat 100 twice. I don't think I'd be concerned if the rest were like 99+, but he had two below 98. I think that there is some cause for concern and wonder due to the gap (if those pitches are identified correctly). Of note, his splinker/splitter was down in speed as well, unless he's throwing it differently, in the low-mid 90s.

Again, if you called those pitches close enough to swing at, you won't often be seeing a hitter take a pitch with 2 strikes.

The pitches they took were balls, and they weren't even that close. If you expect hitters to protect the plate on those pitches, then you're advocating for hitters to pretty much swing at everything with two strikes.

Don't know if are watching but he had three strikes to Ramirez but the count was 2-1. This game could legit be 3-2 Twins if not for some bad calls.

I would love an emojii or reaction that reminds people not to get too worked up about 1 game. Not sure what that would be, though!

As I said, it's been great he's doing well this month and I hope it continues. You keep mentioning "yesterday's" (Sunday's) game. He didn't "definitely" win that game, btw. Kepler hit a 2-RBI double in that one as well that would have been enough to win it, too. It's hard to pick a specific game a position player "loses" for them because that's just not how baseball works, but having a 1B that is hitting that poorly is the worst drag you can have on a lineup (His April WPA explains this and goes to your argument of timing). Here are a couple more stats (two of which relate to the "timing" issue we are talking about). He ranks 11th among hitters in WPA despite this month and is still a net negative (-.31 as mentioned above). This is a pretty good indicator of just how important a player is to getting big hits, but he's still been a net negative. Jeffers leads the team at 1.73, but I think it's pretty telling that Santana is 11th. For the season, he's behind players like Austin Martin and Jose Miranda. This is because he was a -1.17 WPA during the 7-13 start, this is the worst mark on the Twins during that time and is almost double what the next worst, Kyle Farmer, was. In fact, he was third worst in the majors during that time. That's just awful and it's really hard for me to imagine someone arguing that he didn't cost the Twins something during the start of the season. If you're argument is that he didn't cost them a game during this time, then no position player will ever cost a team a game by that logic. Fangraphs clutch rating is similar in that he's -.12 (again, net negative). Buxton leads the team with a .82. Santana is behind KYLE FARMER in this category though they're only separated by .01 points. Despite being third on the team in Games played with 37, he's 9th in WAR with .3 (Fangraphs). If you sort by just first basemen, he's well below average for hitting categories, Now, if we sort for the start of the win streak, he's 2nd on the team in WPA during that time (behind Kepler) and 1st in clutch (Satana is a .4 and there are a bunch of hitters in the .3-.4 range). So, Rocco's absolutely correct that during the streak, he's been much better and one of the keys to the success. But that goes to show just how much of a drag he was for the team during the 7-13 start if he's still on the bottom of team numbers at this point. An average 1B hitter in place of him would have benefitted the team a bit more up to this point. Like I said, hopefully he continues playing the way he has this month. That would be a huge boon for the lineup.

It's fine if you want to give him credit for yesterday and even his hot run during the winning streak. But as hot as he's been he was even colder during the 7-13 opening to the point where he hasn't yet managed to level out his WPA (-0.31 still) or bring his OPS to average. I very much hope he does since a +bat an +glove would be great at 1B, but it's disingenuous to give him credit for some recent wins without also pointing out that his bat was as bad as a pitcher's and cost them games, early, too.

The "pipeline" is an arbitrary term that can be fun for discussion for some and a moving goalpost for others who are seemingly just looking for criticism of the front office. We seem to have gone from, "we need better starting pitching" to "we don't have enough pitching depth" to "well, we need to have a pitching pipeline." I think it's pretty clear that the front office has prioritized pitching and they've used every avenue to improve the rotation. They've missed on some, but I think that's why they make these moves in quantity. It's hard to argue that they aren't developing pitchers that they get, at whatever stage. Every single starter they have this season who has pitched is outperforming expectations upon arrival in the organization. Even Varland, who has had a horrible start this season, should be viewed as a success story, as at worst it looks like he'll end up being a hard throwing reliever after throwing in the low 90s in college and a 15th round pick. I think it's a pretty positive sign that we started this season with our projected 5th starter not pitching an inning, our 7th starter on the depth chart filling in admirably so far after the 6th struggled and people are asking what about our 8th or 9th. I don't think we'll know until we need them, and maybe our 6th (Varland) gets back on track before then.

(I feel like they essentially did #3) That's fine that you would have done something different, but I think letting a player go for money without getting anything in return is a really tough thing, especially for an organization in the Twins position (especially in the last year of his contract). Or, even keeping him when you did have a lot of other, cheaper options, is a tough case to make. I don't disagree on the connection between him and Farmer, but I also put more blame on the front office in reducing payroll in a season they should have at least maintained if not tried to add.

If you think they should have just dumped his salary, then I think it's not hard to make a logical conclusion as to why he was traded. I think they got more than they could have gotten with just 10.5M, especially when you consider you can't buy prospects. I agree on Santana, as I mentioned above, but hopefully that turns around.

OPS+ of 105 and 110 are above average players. They got a lot of at bats because of where the injuries were and their flexibility. They weren't two of the three or four best hitters on the team, they just got a lot of ABs. I'm not clear who they should have prioritized over these guys, especially as they were initially the backups and it was the rookies, Lewis, and Jeffers that were better hitters on the team last year. Solano and Castro were 26/27th players on the roster. If you don't think getting above average value out of those positions is a win, then I'm not sure what we're talking about here. It's early and I don't disagree that the roster construction this year hasn't looked good. If things stay as they are, the money for Farmer and Santana could clearly have been better spent and Castro should have been a last option. I agree that sometimes I wish they would trust prospects more, but I won't re-litigate trades that attempted to (and did) shore up weaknesses that we'd otherwise be complaining about. In fact, people were posting things like "we should trade Brooks Lee for another starter!" even this year. The Mahle trade was unfortunate but it's in hindsight. It was the cost of doing business for starting pitching and it was at a position that the organization still has a lot of depth (just not to the point of being tradeable).

Solano was a 110 OPS + hitter last year and Castro was a 105 OPS+ hitter while playing a lot positions and adding value by running. They're not more valuable or better than Steer would be but they ended up as important players and depth on the roster all while having pretty good seasons. It's early and they could easily outperform much of our roster, sadly. However, it was easy to see why Polanco was traded when he was and I really think people who are still bringing up Arraez as if rationale GM would undo that trade at this point, especially for him as infield depth. And if we had kept him, we'd be complaining about the starting pitching. My comment was rather flippant because if they were on the roster today, there might be arguments that they should have been traded before the season in order to get value back for them. The only reason this is being dredged up is because of a horrific sequence of injuries that lead to the left side of the infield being decimated and "the depth" performing pretty badly. No team is going to have solid depth when looking at their starting 3B, SS (especially when they are the two best players on the team), and their top replacement going down and be able to easily cover that depth.

Maybe, but they’ve prioritized depth, and as mentioned, those players besides Gallo all had good seasons last year for the roles they played. For example, they added Margot this year as well, despite having a top outfield prospect who looks pretty ready (among other options in the minors).

Because the discussion was about the “infield logjam.” My first response was in reply to someone who was implying they shouldn’t have traded Arráez and Polanco. I think they would have traded Polanco anyway (and you don’t have to go far to read most annalysis that says Dedclafani was at the bottom of the priority in that trade) and their return on Arráez is hard to argue.

I agree but that’s why I said a lot of the analysis is hindsight.

It’s fair that I might be wrong. My point was I was trying to say I don’t know that he would have gotten that chance here. It took them a long time to promote Wallner, cut Gallo, and they still would have prioritized Salano and Castro, both of whom had good seasons.