KirbyDome89

Crowing about versatility is meaningless without context. Astudillo is a below average defender at every position he plays. The Twins have 4 OFers and a super sub in Arraez. Each position on the team has a defensive backup that is more capable than Astudillo. His "versatility," isn't valuable given the current roster construction. Offensively he has zero plate discipline, doesn't hit for power, and despite his ability to put the ball in play it doesn't find a hole often enough to compensate for what the rest of his offensive game lacks. There are better ways to fill the 26th spot.

Garlick's awful 2020 isn't a concern though? He's also posted a K rate north of 30% in each major league stint so I'm not sure how he alleviates any perceived contact issues. Basically he doesn't seem like a viable insurance policy if you're truly worried about Kepler, Buxton, and Cave.

You're concerned about guys with proven MLB track records, but rostering Kyle Garlick provides insurance?

Garlick has had a similarly high K% in each of his major league stints. I know you're not carrying the torch for the guy, but if the right side of the LF platoon is going to be "sink or swim," I don't know why the team wouldn't just turn to Rooker. He was an advanced college bat when they drafted him, he's already hit well in the high minors, and he looked pretty good in a small sample last year. If Garlick is going to rot on the bench and we Arraez get significant time in LF then that's another story I guess.

I'd encourage you, and those liking your post to take a closer look at those MLB.com numbers and cross reference them....

The last time we saw him in that type of role he posted a .678 OPS, and despite the contact skills he's never really hit for a high average either. He plays multiple defensive positions at a below average level, he doesn't draw walks to get on base, and he doesn't hit for extra bases. If he's playing 1/3 of the time then I think it actually does do some harm.

I'm just not going to buy that he's currently so fragile that he needs to be protected from major league pitching, but 6 months ago he was alright to debut in a postseason elimination game after a year off. Also, no, the Twins didn't have to debut Kirilloff; they chose to do so. They could've rostered Wade instead of Kirilloff and even with Buxton's mid series injury Marwin could've taken over a corner OF spot with Adrianza taking over at 3B. Neither scenario is particularly appealing but if the goal was to "protect the kid," then they could've done it. It sends the same message that opting not to roster ST standouts does; ST performances don't carry much weight.

100% agree. I think he likely plays even less than that. I'm against rostering a "break glass in case of emergency," player with options remaining. I view it as a waste of a spot. Rocco has kept the catcher postion around a 50/50 or 60/40 split, I wouldn't be too worried about either Garver or Jeffers getting PT. Honestly, I think Garver needs to show that last season was a fluke before we start trying to get his bat in at 1B or DH. Arraez is a fair point. I'm unsure how hard Donaldson will press to start the season so there could be some extra games at 3B and Rocco has been good at juggling lineups to get guys in. The OF is admittedly crowded with Kirilloff; I guess I'd argue that it'd only be that way for a month and if by the end of that time both Rooker and Kirilloff have made a case to stay the Twins would have a "good problem," on their hands. For me it's simple, I think the value of Kirilloff on the roster is greater than Astudillo + a 14th pitcher. I'd much rather the Twins start a season with their best possible team. Adjustments can certainly be made. I'd be surprised if Kirilloff is back in 2 weeks, even if Rooker struggles. I think the Twins are in a nice position to protect service time so the impetus for a call up has to be pretty great.

If he struggles then he goes down and faces the subpar extended ST pitching he's already lined up to see for the next month. There isn't anything lost by giving him major league ABs right now other than starting his service clock, and if six years from now the Twins are on the fence then things likely didn't work out as we'd all hoped they would. If he's going to be at the facilities and in the clubhouse I don't see why they wouldn't just give him the roster spot at that point. Kirilloff made his MLB debut in a postseason elimination game after not playing in a real baseball game for over a year. That kind of flies in the face of protecting his psyche and making sure his timing/rhythm is perfect before exposing him to high level pitching, no? I'm not dumping on Cave, he's fine as the left side of a platoon, but he's just that; a platoon OFer. Obviously there's value there, but he's not so talented that we should bemoan the fact that he may lose some ABs to a prospect like Kirilloff. Prospects have to break in somehow, and on a good team like the Twins it'll likely be at the expense of somebody with a major league track record. If my outlook had Kirilloff as a platoon OFer I wouldn't be irritated with his demotion.

If Astudillo's primary contribution is utility, and Kirilloff fills that same role then I'd argue that they are related. While Kirilloff isn't a pitcher, there also isn't any rule that requires a team to carry 14 arms, so yes, that 14th pitcher is being given a spot over Kirilloff as well. Kepler plays 26/29 games Cruz plays 25/29 games Sano plays 25/29 games Cave & Rooker platoon 25/29 games That isn't anywhere close to an equitable outcome. If there's still angst over PT, Buxton can also take a couple games off which means Kepler or Cave can slide over to CF. I guess we'll just disagree on how much of an impact Kirilloff starting those games would have.

It wouldn't be an even split, I agree. If Kiriloff starts one out of every 7-8 games at DH and 1B that gets him 8 starts. 3 games in LF and another 3 in RF and he's playing half of the games. Sano has had trouble with injuries for a while, and Cruz started to break down the last time the Twins played a full season as well. I don't think a few extra days off early in the season is the worst thing. Kepler giving up 3 games isn't huge. The only person it really impacts is Cave, as he's the left side of the OF platoon, and if we're worried about a platoon OFer not getting enough April ABs because the top hitting prospect in the organization is on the roster....well.... IMO being in a major league clubhouse and playing 50% of the time is more valuable than participating in simulated games in extended ST. If BP is the answer to keeping him in a rhythm then he can certainly get plenty of that on the days he isn't starting for the Twins.

If he's moving between all 4 spots everybody you named will still get more than the lions share of PT. I don't see Kirilloff having much impact on Rooker, they're opposite sides of the platoon. I'm not sure what's evaluate with Cave. Personally I'm over Astudillo. The best thing he can offer is positional versatility and carrying Arraez + Kirilloff covers everything except the catcher position. He's not a good defender, and his approach at the plate isn't all that reliable either. The eighth man gets buried in bullpen at times. I don't know how often we should expect to see the 9th man. Again, I don't see the value in giving two active spots to players that we'll see sparingly, and/or only when games get out of hand. My concern is twofold. I think the scenario I laid out is more valuable to both the team on the field and Kirilloff; I'm also worried that there will now be a reluctance to call him up early in the season to avoid the service time aspect you highlighted.

You don't think there are enough ABs between LF, RF, 1B, and DH in the 30 games the Twins would play before the AAA season begins? Astudillo on the active roster is redundant, as is the bulk of relief arms. There's definitely a path to keeping Kirilloff around. He would at least have a role. I don't see the value in keeping a 2nd backup catcher or the 14th bullpen arm on the active roster to start the season.

If you slightly tweak your threshold numbers the Twins had 5 pitchers throw 49+ innings and another 7 throw 25+ innings. I think that paints a much different picture. What group in the 21' pen are you penciling in for 60+ innings? Of the guys that threw the lion's share of innings in 19', May is gone, and Rogers & Smeltzer are each coming off of a pretty bad season, albeit a shortened one. I don't see much of a comp with the 15' Royals.

And I'm not forcing to you say as much. We've already agreed all teams have flaws. I don't think the Twins had a particularly great bullpen going into the trade deadline. I know they had 3 relievers performing at levels ranging from above average to elite. IMO Rocco was cautious to a fault when it came to protecting a number of relievers, and I can't blame him for likely lacking trust in some of them. If you look at value stats like fWAR or WPA it's that trio, and then everybody else. Obviously the innings disparity plays a role in that, but I think that disparity is also an indictment on the state of the bullpen for a large chunk of the season. I wouldn't define depth as simply having bodies to fill slots. If the Twins were flush with pitching depth then they wouldn't have turned to recent minor league signings like Morin, Magill, and Harper, especially early in the season when everybody is healthy. The demotion of Harper and Parker, who finished 4th and 6th respectively in terms of innings pitched, at or short after the trade deadline doesn't strike me as a move #1 ranked bullpens make. Where they rank isn't relevant to what I've pushed back on. The disagreement was about depth, and whether they were top heavy. I'm certain I've made that clear. If it'll move things along; based on how they ended the season, and how good May, Rogers, and Duffey were all year they were likely a top 1/3 pen when September ended. I certainly don't believe that's what they were for a good amount of the season, which is part of the reason I'm not a fan of the way you're using FIP.

All information that's readily available. Spare me the facetiousness; you don't need a walkthrough on how to compare stats side by side. The beauty of baseball is that the abundance of available metrics makes this, and many future disagreements, an exercise in futility. Where they rank has nothing to do with the issue I brought up. Apparently you've chosen not to address it. Just using the innings limit you set for 2019, May, Rogers, and Duffey threw 50% of your qualified innings. I've pointed out the limited time nearly all of the players who made your FIP cut spent on the team. I've pointed to the DFA's. I've pointed to the underwhelming performances by pitchers at the back end. So again, tell me, what was that bullpen for the first 2/3 of the '19 season? There was so much depth that Blake Parker continued to be an ineffective closer for over month prior to being released? What's the explanation for the catalog of players whose performance disappointed during that time? Do you disagree that the performances of May, Rogers, and Duffey significantly buoyed that bullpen?

That fact has no bearing on the argument I've made. Do you believe FIP (a stat that treats every batted ball in play equally,) as an aggregate statistic provides an accurate measurement of how well a bullpen performs? Given the overall lack of consistency due to different usage rates, defined roles, specific batters faced, ect. there's a lot of room for variance. Aggregate stats aren't without value as a tool for comparison, but I disagree with your use in this particular instance. I'm certain my grievance was with the middle/back end of the pen and I definitely tipped my cap to the seasons May, Duffey, and Rogers had. As a reminder, what I took issue with was the notion that the Twins had pitching depth. Calling into question that depth doesn't equate to saying the Twins bullpen "wasn't very good." That must be another one of those "not too far off," things that conveniently continue to find their way into this back and forth. What was the bullpen for the first 2/3 of the season? Do you have a response for that paragraph in my last post, or is more hyperbole on the way? Set your 20 inning limit, and check individual contributions within a bullpen. You can compare pitchers up and down.

I've repeated myself ad nauseam. I think the glaring issue with clarity is the liberal application of "not too far off," to most of what I've said. I'd start there first if you think my sentiment is muddy. The aspects of the post I agreed with are the ones I challenged you on. I'll do you the favor of assuming you understand that we have license to agree with particulars without necessarily endorsing every word typed. Ignoring the problems with using an aggregate bullpen stats we'll follow the parameters you set. Romo and Stashak starting throwing innings in August. Dobnak made 4 relief appearances over the course of a few weeks in September. If you want to argue Thorpe was solid, good luck with that. Littell made consistent appearances beginning in July and was solid from that point on. Ryne Harper made your FIP cut but he was demoted in August after trending down for a month. The Twins went 2/3 of the year without 4 of the players that met your criteria. Another one was in the bullpen half the season, and the last one was sent to AAA. I'm unsure how you look at that and not think the trio of May, Rogers, and Duffey carried the pen. If you want to cling to the "they are what the numbers say they are," argument, and remove any context that's fine. We'll just disagree on objectivity regarding the application of aggregate stats.

Just aww shucks bad luck failing to win a single game in three separate playoff appearances right bud?

I said they inherited a fortuitous situation. There was a foundation in place to build around, and the contributions we've seen the last few seasons back that up. I believe I also mentioned that the outlook wasn't rosy at the major league level when the current FO took over. That isn't a "great," situation. Also the only "bad move," I've commented on is the Pressly trade. How a singular example equates to me characterizing the FO as making "mostly bad moves," is a mystery. It isn't paraphrasing if the sentiment being reworded is purposely distorted. That part in my last post where I said it's possible to criticize aspects of the FO without it being a scorching hot take on their tenure as a whole is important. I can't force you to acknowledge that though. In regards to the performance disparity between 2016 and now, it's pretty simple; young players grow. Let's be clear again; what I said was that using aggregate stats (which include high level performances from Rogers, Duffey, and May) can mask the inefficiencies in the middle/back end of the pen. If poking a hole in those aggregate bullpen stats, listing under performers who threw significant innings, or pointing out that some DFA candidates don't jive with a top tier bullpen designation complicates the argument beyond reason then I'm perfectly happy to leave this alone.

Can you point to where I said the FO was incompetent or where I said they "stink?" You're attacking arguments that I'm not making. Proficiency and flaws aren't mutually exclusive when it comes to running a team. I assumed that was apparent. Sano, Polanco, Arraez, and Garver in the IF. Rosario and Kepler in the OF, and Buxton would've started over Marwin if healthy. Duffey, Rogers, and May were hands down the best bullpen arms. Berrios got the game 1 start. Every member of that group entering game 1 of the '19 ALDS was inherited by this FO. I'll stand by my opinion that the FO didn't walk into a doom and gloom scenario. What's the statistical disagreement as to whether the core contributions for the success over the last 2 seasons has come from inherited players? Ryne Harper, Blake Parker, Matt Magill, Lewis Thorpe, Kohl Stewart, Trevor Hildenberger, Adalberto Mejia, Fernando Romero, Sean Poppen, and Sam Dyson combined to throw roughly 40% of the bullpen innings in '19. Of that group Harper easily takes the top spot, he was serviceable, and he was DFA'd in August. You can point to aggregate bullpen stats and use Duffey, May, and Rogers to mask how ineffective the middle/back end of the pen was, but I wouldn't call that an objective take. The Twins DFA'd their closer in July, and a month later DFA'd Harper, who finished the year with the most innings behind the trio previously mentioned. Is that normal for one of the best bullpens in baseball? Were the Twins so rich with pitching talent that they simply didn't need the services of either pitcher? If that was the case, why were so many innings be allocated to inferior arms throughout the season? I hope I'm not the only one who notices the disparity between what you've demanded, and what you've provided in this thread.

The winning the last few seasons is because this FO built them to do so, but getting swept in 2 games by Houston, or 3 games by NY, or getting smashed in a WC game is just bad luck? I guess you can have your cake and eat it too.

I could jump through those hoops and spend time mapping out relievers that could've been targeted, corresponding roster moves to adjust for payroll, ect, but that'd be a huge waste of my time. You've already set yourself up to dismiss anything I'd post as hindsight bias. That's the game right? Everything you disagree with is "complaining," "half-witted trash talk," or "illogical," because you're the self appointed arbiter of cogency. That's a mischaracterization in two different ways. I never used the phrase "perfect situation," and I followed up my claim that team outlook was less gloomy than was being portrayed by pointing to the young talent that's been integral to the success over the last few seasons; it wasn't a blanket statement that I left alone. Your responses to both myself and others are at best mild flame bait. Why they're being upheld in this thread is beyond me, but it's clear the intent isn't debate here.

It was one point amongst a few, so I wouldn't call it a hill I'm willing to die on. We'll just disagree whether that '19 bullpen would've been better off with an elite reliever. I have 0 interest in debating the butterfly effect regarding his injury. Alcala certainly could be a nice piece for the Twins, but again, we'll disagree on whether every good FO trades a known commodity from a position of need for a couple lottery tickets.

I provided detail, and rather than respond to it, you offered a sweeping generalization, "that's just how things are," and attacked the original post as "half-witted trash talk." Hopefully the irony there isn't lost. Yes, good teams do beat bad teams; that wasn't the point of contention. The question was to what extent the Twins benefitted from doing so. The AL central had three teams with a record in the bottom third of the league that season. Both KC and Detroit lost over 100 games.The Twins played 1/3 of their games against those three terrible teams. No team outside of Cleveland came close to matching that. Yes, even good teams carry some mediocre pitching, but again, that wasn't what was being called into question. The disagreement was over depth/upside and I specifically brought up the pitching staff. Perez and Gibson spent the entire year in the rotation and both were below league average. Parker, the opening day "closer," was DFA'd right before the trade deadline. Kohl Stewart and Matt Magill took turns being ineffective/awful. Thorpe came up later in the season and joined that party. Ryne Harper, a minor league signing, made it almost the entire season with the team, and he was one of the bright spots. None of that screams depth or upside, at least on the pitching side of things.