The Uncertain Future of Twins Catching

2 hours ago, DJL44 said:

That is a very rosy take on a very inexperienced starting rotation and a mediocre bullpen. Even with that optimism you're just adding two top line starters and two top line relievers instead of my plan of adding three of each. Adding those players as free agents is still going to cost $65M in payroll.

This pitching staff is really bad, only better than the Orioles in the American League.  In 5 seasons for this front office the best free agent pitcher they have added is Michael Pineda.

Then it's probably a good thing you're not the GM. ?

The question in my mind is whether the Twins are going to be able to compete in 2022 or should they do a mini-rebuild and shoot for competing in 2023 or 2024.  If it is the former, I would shop Jeffers and see what we could get in return for a trade.  If we could get a functional major league starting pitcher, that would go a long way to being competitive next season.  I think we keep Garver and Rortvedt in this case as our two catchers.

If, on the other hand, the Twins are not looking to be competitive in 2022, maybe trading Garver makes more sense.  There would certainly be an interested team or two out there and we might be able to snag a couple of near MLB ready players that can be developed in 2022 for the majors in either 2023 or 2024. 

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

I don't know what people expect out of first year players, but I don't see how anyone doesn't think he has a ton of value. He's going to put up over 1 war this year....

When Garver was the same age as Jeffers he had a 688 OPS in Fort Myers. Jeffers is WAY ahead of Garver at the same age.

Jeffers defense is not major league level and the Twins NEED defense.

4 minutes ago, RpR said:

Jeffers defense is not major league level and the Twins NEED defense.

Are you actually watching the games Jeffers plays?

Yup.

They blame the pitcher for a wild pitch but Jeffers is the reason they get away; he chased a lot balls this season a GOOD catcher would have blocked.

The Announcers said same.

Do not trade a catcher who is ready and able to play in the major leagues. Unless you get a really good offer. And then don't do it.

Sorry to read that Ben Rortvedt is on the IL with a concussion. He is easily the best catcher and maybe he can learn to hit .225. Garver and Jeffers are better offensively but will never match Rortvedt as catchers. I'm interested in what other teams think about our catchers.

23 hours ago, RpR said:

Yup.

They blame the pitcher for a wild pitch but Jeffers is the reason they get away; he chase a lot balls this seao a GOOD catcher would have blocked.

The Announces said same.

Mucho harshness...

Have you noticed the stance the Twins have their catchers getting into?  Try that yourself and then tell me just how a catcher is supposed to block or stop a ball outside, especially to the non glove side (usually the leg that is kicked out). 

To attempt to gain an increase in called strikes, they are giving up some defensive mobility by the catchers.

On 10/2/2021 at 3:10 PM, MN_ExPat said:

Mucho harshness...

Have you noticed the stance the Twins have their catchers getting into?  Try that yourself and then tell me just how a catcher is supposed to block or stop a ball outside, especially to the non glove side (usually the leg that is kicked out). 

To attempt to gain an increase in called strikes, they are giving up some defensive mobility by the catchers.

And runs and games, so change it.

On 10/2/2021 at 3:10 PM, MN_ExPat said:

Mucho harshness...

Have you noticed the stance the Twins have their catchers getting into?  Try that yourself and then tell me just how a catcher is supposed to block or stop a ball outside, especially to the non glove side (usually the leg that is kicked out). 

To attempt to gain an increase in called strikes, they are giving up some defensive mobility by the catchers.

There's more to it than just this, and analytics should be able to give an answer, at least in theory. Does the new stance actually result in more wild pitches and passed balls? Does the new stance reduce the number of baserunners as the result of (presumably) changing the ratio of strikes to balls? Does the new stance decrease the number of pitches thrown? Does the new stance impact the catcher's ability to field his position and to throw out runners attempting stolen bases? Are catchers more likely to incur injuries as the result of the new stance?

3 hours ago, Nine of twelve said:

There's more to it than just this, and analytics should be able to give an answer, at least in theory. Does the new stance actually result in more wild pitches and passed balls? Does the new stance reduce the number of baserunners as the result of (presumably) changing the ratio of strikes to balls? Does the new stance decrease the number of pitches thrown? Does the new stance impact the catcher's ability to field his position and to throw out runners attempting stolen bases? Are catchers more likely to incur injuries as the result of the new stance?

Yes Sir, those are all very good questions, and actually that would be pretty cool to research that out.  All I've personally heard/read so far is primarily anecdotal evidence. 

I want to say that I saw either Garver or Jeffers discussing that stance briefly during an interview.  I remember (probably not accurately) them saying the stance was relatively comfortable but it greatly limited their lateral movement, especially to the side where their leg was kicked out.

Beyond that, I mostly draw from my own observations from HS, college and MLB.  When the catcher is down in a low stance such as is being discussed here, their (the catcher in question) movement does appear to be hampered.  

I add to that, when I'm down in shooting stance that requires my knees/legs to be in a similar position my ability to move laterally quickly is greatly diminished.

So, what does all that mean?  Actually, probably nothing, but it would be cool to look into more .