Article: Trevor Plouffe's Glovely Season At Third

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I was always high on Dozier and disliked the Plouffe drafting right away.  He has turned out good, and I'm happy about that and am a backer of his, but for a first round pick, he took a long time.  Again, I think this would have come sooner if the evalaution of his abilities was better in the farm system.

You can count me in the camp of "bullish on Dozier" and "bearish on Plouffe". I didn't see Plouffe coming at all.

[TheLeviathan]

It's also possible Tom Bernard was just speaking out of his backside and hasn't "eyed" anything about Plouffe.

 

I would probably put those odds at more than just "possible" and much closer to "certain"....

[jimmer]

 

Yeah, in that regard, they're extremely similar.

 

It's an interesting development because even some of the front office's staunchest defenders had to question their player development system a few years ago when things got really bad. Now that some unlikely players have emerged as very good players, it appears that maybe things weren't as bad as they seemed, we just needed to give the organization more time to get everyone pointed in the same direction.

 

Another good reminder that baseball moves at a glacial pace compared to other sports.

Have you noticed how often people credit his offensive improvements to Bruno and his defensive improvements to Molitor.  While good coaching is always a good thing, the player has to do the work, be receptive to the suggestions, and then implement the suggestions (which may often conflict with differing suggestion he may have received from previous coaches).  It's mostly about what the player does when it comes to his performance.  Thing is, Plouffe was a whipping boy for so long (and still is for some) that some are reluctant to give him the actual credit for becoming a pretty good ballplayer.  

 

BTW, I'm not saying you're doing this, just an overall observation.

[twinsnorth49]

You can count me in the camp of "bullish on Dozier" and "bearish on Plouffe". I didn't see Plouffe coming at all.

Not many, if any did. If I recall correctly, at the beginning of last year the general consensus was it would be great if he flashed that June 2013 power for a bit and played halfway competent 3rd base long enough to up his trade value to " hopefully something".

[TheLeviathan]

If you want to liken the Plouffe emergence to anyone on this roster - Perkins is the best comp.  Two guys the organization and the fan base had all but drummed out of town that totally changed their own career arc with some changes in their approach.

 

Think where we'd be today without them and breathe a sigh of relief they pulled themselves up and made themselves into true contributors.

[kab21]

Is it worth mentioning that the Twins frequently have infielders playing all over the place as they come up in the minors?  Plouffe played 25 games at 3B in 2006 and 43 games at 3B in 2008.  He was always primarily a SS but he did actually play other positions like many infielders do in the Twins system.

 

It's stange that Plouffe's biggest problem at SS seems to have fixed itself.  He wasn't rangy but neither was JJ Hardy.  Plouffe's biggest problem was that he couldn't hit the 1Bman consistently.  He was all over the place.  Perhaps 3B is perfect since range is less important and he gets the ball sooner with a little more time and doesn't need to rush his throws.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Have you noticed how often people credit his offensive improvements to Bruno and his defensive improvements to Molitor.  While good coaching is always a good thing, the player has to do the work, be receptive to the suggestions, and then implement the suggestions (which may often conflict with differing suggestion he may have received from previous coaches).  It's mostly about what the player does when it comes to his performance.  Thing is, Plouffe was a whipping boy for so long (and still is for some) that some are reluctant to give him the actual credit for becoming a pretty good ballplayer.  

 

BTW, I'm not saying you're doing this, just an overall observation.

Absolutely. I give Bruno quite a bit of credit for Dozier because the difference was night and day. One day, he was a subpar hitter. The next, he was an above average hitter. The difference was amazing.

 

But you're right that ultimately, it comes down to the player acknowledging that changes need to be made and making those adjustments. Dozier not only listened to Bruno about his swing but he also applied a lot of hard work to defense and baserunning, ultimately becoming the most well-rounded player on the team because of it.

[jimmer]

 

Absolutely. I give Bruno quite a bit of credit for Dozier because the difference was night and day. One day, he was a subpar hitter. The next, he was an above average hitter. The difference was amazing.

 

But you're right that ultimately, it comes down to the player acknowledging that changes need to be made and making those adjustments. Dozier not only listened to Bruno about his swing but he also applied a lot of hard work to defense and baserunning, ultimately becoming the most well-rounded player on the team because of it.

Forgive my not so clear post. I was talking about the treatment Plouffe has been given by what seems to be a good chunk of the fanbase.

 

I know when you credited Bruno it was in regards to Dozier and not Plouffe and I can see how one might come to the conclusion Bruno deserves a lot of credit. It also could have been Dozier adjusted to the majors and started feeling more comfortable and the results came with hard work. What I like to call, the adjustment period most prospects need.

Edited May 21, 2015 by jimmer

[Brock Beauchamp]

Completely misunderstood your post. Whoops.

[jimmer]

 

Completely misunderstood your post. Whoops.

totally my fault.