KirbyDome89

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.

I don't understand how you can give full credit to this FO when it comes to "completely turning around a mess of a franchise," but then not hold them primarily responsible when the team flames out in the postseason. If this team is their creation, and we laud them for the division titles and regular season win percentage, why don't they share an equivalent level of blame for the postseason failures?

Every statement huh? In '19 KC and Detroit lost over 100 games while the Sox lost 89. The Twins didn't benefit? Kyle Gibson and Martin Perez soaked up starts that entire year. Guys like Matt Magill and Blake Parker were getting innings in the bullpen. That's depth? The Pressly trade wasn't a bad one? I don't see the irrationality in pointing these out.

It wasn't rosy at the major league level that particular season, but the young players in the organization at that time have played a massive role in the success the club has had the last few years. Does that not seem like a fortuitous situation to inherit? IMO Cruz is probably their most impactful signing/trade and you left him off your list. I'll pick on the other names just a bit though. Odorizzi was subpar in '18, he had a really nice first half in '19 before regressing in the second, and he was pretty meh in a short season last year. Pineda missed '18 due to recovery (as expected at the time of signing) and then missed half of '19 due to injury and a suspension. He started 5 games last season and didn't throw an inning in the postseason because the Twins were swept.....again. I wouldn't add Colome to any impact list. Donaldson certainly is the biggest move the FO has made, and I supported it, but he missed over half of last season due to injuries. Maeda had a great year. I tend to agree with gunnarthor's assessment of him moving forward, but he was impressive last year, even if it was only 11 games. At least at the major league level, I'm not sure I'd say this FO is responsible for the complete turnaround. As has been pointed out, they've augmented the roster, and I think there's legitimate debate as to how well they've done that. Of course there's the modern revamping that has gone on behind the curtain so to speak, and we haven't had a chance to see most of the draft picks from '17 to present day. My push back is directed at the notion this FO inherited a roster that needed to be rebuilt.

I'm probably inclined to agree; I'd roll the dice on Paxton's injury history because of his ceiling, and I think Quintana offers the same floor as Happ with a slightly higher ceiling to boot. Ideally any of those three would take that back end spot, rather than it being a revolving door. Shoemaker has been injured and/or below average for 3+ seasons now. There's no real reason to trust Thorpe or Smeltzer, and I'm not high on Dobnak starting for any extended period of time either. I'm guessing you have Balazovic and Duran as the 6 & 7? If one or both of them could solidify a rotation spot it'd be the best case scenario, but that's a lot to ask of two guys who've thrown almost exclusively in A ball the last few years. The 5 spot is shaky, and that puts pressure on the front of the rotation that is already dealing with Berrios' trouble finishing seasons and Pineda's penchant for DL stints. Are we counting on Maeda to replicate his '20 as well? In a vacuum Shoemaker as a depth piece or ST competition is fine, but similar to what I said in the Happ thread after his signing, the issue is that these guys won't be used as such.

Berrios Maeda Pineda Happ Shoemaker/Dobnak/Smeltzer/Thorpe That back end is far from confidence inspiring.

If performance in 2020 is the determining factor for this season then you have to feel pretty good about the pitching staff. They were at or near the top of the league for the 60 game season. Do you see that continuing for 2021? I'm far more concerned about the rotation and bullpen regressing back to the mean than I am about the offense failing to do so over a full season.

Appreciate the advice. I'm officially under 5K owed for federal loans (I finished private ones a few years back) as of my last payment, which was the only reason I was considering dabbling in either stock. Similar to TheLeviathan, I'd probably only pump in a few hundred dollars but it sounds like that $$ could either be put towards better investments or running down my loan payments while I'm interest free. Maybe using the money to subscribe to the stock advisor would be a decent compromise as well. Definitely not a diamond hands guy either, at least not at the level some redditors proclaim to be. Who knows, maybe the most vocal ones aren't the guys with lots on the line, or maybe they really just don't care and the potential loss is worth the statement they're sending. Either way, my goal would be to take a little risk and make a little $$.

Honest investment question here; is it worth it to get in on AMC (GME ship has sailed?) from an earnings standpoint? The diamonds hands movement on r/wallstreetbets is incredibly entertaining. The **** RH pulled yesterday and the gaslighting from supposedly credible media sources is disgusting. I'm pulling for the so called "unwashed masses," here, but chipping away at student loans during this 0% interest period would take precedence if my investments likely would be lost.

So we're counting on: 1) Pineda being available for a full season, 2) Maeda continuing to be the pitcher we saw for 11 games last year, and not the 4 seasons prior 3) Berrios to avoid his annual late season fade 4) A revolving door at the 5th spot being productive And if all of that shakes out in favor of the Twins they'll have a rotation that "isn't that bad, could be pretty good, but isn't top tier." Yikes.

They needed this. When Buxton inevitably misses time, having Polanco, Arraez, and Kepler/Cave as the middle of your defense isn't exactly inspiring. There shouldn't be any hand wringing over Simmons' bat. He isn't being signed to provide an offensive boost. There are plenty of bats on this roster capable of making up for his average offensive output.

He's one PIneda DL stint (not unlikely) away from being a guy that needs to give the Twins at least 5 innings in a playoff game. A 38 year old, soft tossing lefty, with a track record of postseason struggles, and the expectation is 5 or more solid innings? Pass. He's only a depth piece if he's used as such, and as the current number 4 I doubt that's the case. Hopefully it changes by opening day.

I'm glad the Sox are f***ing this up. As a Twins fan why wouldn't we want them to hire La Russa over more qualified candidates? La Russa's political affiliation, or his critique of a politicized organization doesn't make him a "racist." There's no need to grasp at straws to label him as such in order to justify his dismissal. His relationship with his daughters or his marital strife is equally as irrelevant. If Chicago ownership decides to go another direction after his most recent DUI incident conveniently came to light then that's their right. It doesn't have to go any further than that. If some of you are so disgusted with La Russa's hire, watching the hometown team must be agonizing as well. The Twins roster isn't full of choir boys. Also, Cora somehow gets a pass from the morality police on his legitimacy as a managerial candidate? Smh....

Not to mention the Twins have the advantage of playing one of, if not the easiest 60 game schedules in all of baseball. Nearly 2/3 of their games are against teams that finished 10 games or more under .500, and 1/3 of them are against two of the worst teams in baseball. Maybe Cincy and the Sox rise up, but right now I'd say this shortened schedule works in favor of the Twins.

I meant leverage in getting a deal done. Of course any of the three teams could back out at any point, nobody is being held hostage in the negotiations.