If we take it as a given that the Twins want everyone to hit to all fields (and it's not clear we should take that as a given) we can't look at any one player in isolation when we discuss the merits of it as an organizational strategy.
Ideally, of course, we'd want to each player to employ the approach that would maximize that specific player's skills. The rub is that it's not so easy to know for each player what that approach is, so you may well have to try many to find it and the adjustments take time to implement. It can take a long time to find out. If you let each hitter decide on his own, you might let a hitter who'd be better served spraying hits hack away for much too long. Conversely, you may waste a lot of time trying to fit a pull hitter into a spray hitter mold.
So if you are going to err on one side or the other (pull or spray, we'll say) and the Twins choose to err on the side of spray, the question is whether or not that's a *net* gain. Which is to say, across all players, does the value you gain by having players who would not otherwise have learned to hit the other way outweigh the value you lose by failing to maximize a pure pull hitter? Does the occasional Ortiz or Hardy faceplant get offset by incremental improvements in a bunch of other players?
