Alex

I think you're looking at a very strict version of a platoon, and you're right that with the Twins inability to find decent pitching and need three catchers it would be nearly impossible to dedicate two players to just one position and spot in the lineup. A more loose version would be setting and using your roster to have players that compliment each other based on platoon splits, maximizing ABs vs. opposite hand pitchers over the course of a season a limiting those with weaker side splits. The Twins don't seem to fall anywhere on that spectrum, as you point out. In fact, in a post above, I point out how their roster was set up to make things worse with almost no option for it at all. They don't even really alter batting order to adjust for the starter they face.

So, the transition you made from pic 1 to pic 2, what was your secret? P90x?

That's obviously the preferred method: get one player who can equally hit lefties and righties. That's the point, though, that that's not easy to do, especially where the Twins are.

Sad to hear Dick dismiss Chris Sale because of a losing record when he's sitting next to Bert, who should have made the HoF far more easier but for the lack of run support he got over his career.

Even after we have plenty of evidence that spring training performance doesn't correlate to regular season performance. If the Twins are looking at those two as options by Spring it meant it was a disappointing off season and will be another long season.

I think we need to figure who is going to start before we can come up with decent platoon ideas for next year. A key factor in that will be if the Twins think Plouffe is a 3B or not and whether Mauer moves to a much more regular 1B. Both of those items will create a massive corner crunch for Plouffe (if he's a 1B), Colabello, and Parmelee because in addition to those three you've got Willingham and Doumit who are both corner OF or DHs. In the OF, with Pressley and Arcia as what appear to be two sure things, Mastro, or another RHB, would be the best option as a fourth OF and can platoon in CF or provide days off at other times to the other corners.

I think there's a distinction here that can be made between building a roster around platooning and simply planning it during roster construction. My hope is that the Twins would use it in the planning stages as they fill out their bench. For example, realizing that every infield hitter they have is better against LHP and then go and find a infielder in the offseason who can fill in as a LHB that might play everyday and be rotated around. To me, it doesn't make a lot of sense to start the season as they did this year with the left 3/4 of your starting infield as Plouffe, Florimon, and Dozier, who are all better against LHP, and then have two players on the bench who are also better against LHP in Carroll and Escobar. It also doesn't make sense to start the season with three other positions where players have similar platoon strengths: RF (Doumit and Parmelee), 1B (Morneau, Parmelee), and C (Mauer, Doumit) Our initial plan for CF was the same as well, with Hicks, Mastro, and option 3 Ramirez as all better against LHP. Clete Thomas might have been a better option to start the season. Willingham in LF, btw, has an .823 OPS vs. RHP and a .855 OPS against LHP for his career, so he's an example of one of maybe two players (Mauer was about equal this season, but for his career he is about 100 points lower vs. LHP) that you have on the roster that you could probably assume a platoon type situation isn't going to improve production. So, with the exception of Hammer and Mauer (Morneau is roughly a .700 career OPS hitter vs. LHB, so I'd say you could platoon him) a platoon or at least a backup who hit opposite would have improved production at 7 spots in the lineup. You can't plan your roster around it but you can certainly try to take advantage of it when constructing a bench, at the very least.

One of the reasons I don't like the "we don't have enough bench spots" argument is that it's symptomatic of other issues within the organization. Inability to acquire solid pitching leads to the need for the 13th pitcher, as does inefficient roster construction (carrying three catchers).

And if a manager isn't willing to use a basic, accepted strategy to get the best out of his players, then imo, he isn't much either. Platoon splits are a fact of the game.

The short answer is that you could platoon for almost any of the Twins lineup and see an improvement (the exception is Mauer at catcher), and that's the frustration I have with the statement and why it comes off as a bit ludicrous to some of us. It's also frustrating to hear an argument that is essentially "since you can't platoon everyone...." I mean, I'm not even saying you have direct platoons, but every IF with the exception of 1B is better against RHP, so a LHB in the infield off the bench as a platoon mate rotating between positions makes a lot of sense. A couple of points to make on this. 1) I think the point was made, already and clearly, that Tom Kelly did use a very significant platoon in 1991 despite being on record as not liking them. If we're harkening back over two decades to an example of a manager who begrudgingly used them and was successful when he did, I think that's more of a point that argues for the fact that parts of this organization are in need of fresh ideas. 2) I think you need to look beyond average. If you look at OPS, almost every player you mention and some you don't (Doumit) is better 80 points or more (Plouffe is almost 200 points better -- so your stats of choice on him are especially misleading). 3) IMO, the notion of platooning is ideal when you have a team like this one and need to maximize your competitiveness in every game. However, that requires a different set of roster planning than I think the Twins have used in recent years. If they went into the offseason with a clear plan to get a couple of platoon type players they might have gotten significantly more production out of the equivalent of 3 positions. 4) The final problem with the answer is that platooning is a simple and accepted idea and we aren't just talking about this season. These are basic steps that improve the team when there aren't a lot of other options to do so.

Correct, and I agree. I should have clarified that I meant "traditional" in terms of this organization (though some others are still traditional by baseball standards as well).

It's a good point, and I think the last sentence is something any manager should try to and that, imo, is the something platooning allows.

I was posing a question, not attempting to paraphrase the article title, though I do have a bias, obviously. I can understand the Twins not platooning regularly with a shorter roster or young players. Both have some validity even if we could debate that those are symptoms of other issues that would apply to the topic (being stuck, not platooning). However, there are responses to questions here that indicate it's a larger issue than that. You've advocated for more platooning than the manager or general manager. For my part, it is more evidence that the Twins are stuck with some internal traditional ideas that are keeping them from being competitive. This is latest of which, but includes other recent discussions that have come up.

Basically, the GM nor Manager believe in platooning: Platoons not attractive to Twins - TwinCities.com

Movie line used to create tension.

He acquired one pitcher who performed above expectation but was still a below average pitcher. This could be labeled a OK if the Twins weren't still the worst rotation in the league or had just been looking for a capable fifth starter.

I did, too, but he's performed beyond anyone's imagination and that's still not even league average. Low risk/low reward.

Why do people think that when some people suggest the Twins spend more money, they are recommending they spend like the Dodgers, or that they want the Twins to spend $150M dollars on a player? There are teams on your list that I would say spent in FA that would be "overboard" by Ryan's standards. (Tigers and Rangers as the most obvious)

I agree on the starting pitching, but Buxton won't be up to start the season. Pressley may be better as a fourth outfielder and Hicks, well, doesn't looks like he deserves to be penciled in next year until he proves he's ready. Hammer looks like he'll be a DH. So, if they can get a cheap slugging OF and don't see value in SP I'd have no problem with them spending some money there.

Boy, it looks like Pinto does jump around behind and seems to reset a lot after both he and the umpire set the first time, which can't be a good thing. Watching it has gotten me distracted, but it's also making me wonder if the Twins organization is behind on the pitch framing discussion.

Totally agreed. Many were predicting Willingham to have a year similar to last, the return of Morneau, Hicks and Parmelee to be better than Revere and Span and Plouffe to be more consistently good. Most disappointing to me were Parmelee and Plouffe as I expected to see steps forward from last year.

The near future for hitting looks far more promising. As mentioned, we're missing Mauer. If Dozier can be more consistently good rather than good month/atrocious month (and he's having the latter in September). Arcia and Pinto look like above average big league hitters and they aren't even the big hopefuls for the near future. So, there's certainly light at the end of the tunnel. There's a much more gloomy outlook for pitching with only Alex Meyer looking like front of the rotation starter but he hasn't pitched above AA. It's not hard to picture a strong lineup in the very near future but the rotation is full of holes up and down the organization.

Gardy seems to be fine.

OT: This reminded me of Tobias (from Arrested Development) and his combination career...