Brutal. It's hard to disagree with you. Everyone could have been given an F except for Santana.

Yeah, I guess for me it was whether I could find any redeeming factors in their performances. Duffey at least had solid peripherals. Santiago was decent enough after the hideous start. 

 

With Hughes and Berrios, the only positive thing you can say is that we know both are capable of much, much better than they showed. 

 

You can call me crazy, but I'm a little bit excited about the 2017 rotation. And no, not because it couldn't be any worse, (although that is true), or because I think its going to suddenly be good.

I'm excited because I truly believe a healthy Gibson will look like his 2015 self. Because Santiago pitched better down the stretch when they quit messing with him. Because now that he got his feet wet, I want to see what Berrios will do. Because I like May in the rotation. Because I'm curious to see if and when Hughes can make it back. Because if Dozier is traded I want to see the SP candidate(s) they bring in.

The grades here are sound and fair. But I'm really excited to see what changes for 2017. And the truth is...it really couldn't be any worse.

How can you not be optimistic?  With the poor defense but excellent pitch framing abilities of our new catcher......I think you can realistically bump up each of these pitchers scores by at least two full letter grades!  (yup...tongue in cheek.)

While one could nitpick and contend the offensive grading was about a letter to generous in comparison to the SP grades, one cannot deny that this staff was almost comical in its ineptitude. And not all of it was strictly the fault of the players. Hopefully the new regime gets away from trying to change players into something they are not.

Thanks for the reviews Nick! Very honest and fair assessments of this year. I'd lean A- Santana and C- Santiago or C+ if you look at his whole year and not 3 games towards the end taking bad advice from the new coaches.

 

I think I find these grades more tolerable when I look them only as assessments of what was done with no context for expectations or anything else. 

Not only was the 2007 team a losing team but we were losing our Cy Young and our all star centerfielder and people asked how the Twins could possibly avoid losing lots more games in 2008 and the answer was for more guys to play better with respect to their abilities.    Guys with low grades in 2007 whether due to injuries, mechanics or whatever were Mauer, Punto, Blackburn, Slowey and Baker that turned it around in 2008 with significant results in the record.    The equivalent on this roster are Buxton, Escobar, Rosario, Gibson, Santiago, and May.    Of course they have farther to go but guys simply playing up to their abilities or even having good seasons with respect to their abilities shouldn't be unexpected.    Look at the grades!   I don't think Nick was grading them with respect to a higher standard.    If Gibson, Duffey, or Santiago had 3.5 ERA's they probably get A's.   If they have 4.00 ERA's they get strong B's.   They got D- and F's!     They are capable of better.    

I agree in thinking that these grades are pretty accurate. I think it's proper for grades to be based strictly on performance. It's too subjective to try to account for extenuating circumstances such as Hughes's health and Berrios' inexperience.

 

I do admire Hughes for toughing it out and taking the ball while his body betrayed him. It's just a shame that the coaching staff didn't take the decision out of his hands sooner, amidst the obvious reality that his bum shoulder was preventing him from being able to compete.

I don't agree with this at all. If he was hurting & ineffective he should have been modest enough to admit that there was a problem & seek help. Trying to "play through the pain" is just stupid & shows an ego problem.

 

I don't agree with this at all. If he was hurting & ineffective he should have been modest enough to admit that there was a problem & seek help. Trying to "play through the pain" is just stupid & shows an ego problem.

 

It might be stupid, but how does this show an ego problem? For most injuries it just isn't that black and white.

 

It might be stupid, but how does this show an ego problem? For most injuries it just isn't that black and white.

If a pitcher thinks he's superior to others & can be effective when injured it shows that this individual thinks he is superior to others.

 

If a pitcher thinks he's superior to others & can be effective when injured it shows that this individual thinks he is superior to others.

 

But is it clear he knew he was injured? I think the mentality is always play if you can. It's not up to him to decide that he is superior to others.

 

Injuries are rarely black and white, they are often more gradual deteriorations. Athletes can't consider that if they want to perform at the highest level.