ALessKosherScott

http://www.billjamesonline.com/where_are_the_great_catchers_/ Actually…that’s not exactly true. Joe Mauer is currently a few decimals ahead of Johnny Bench (5.74 to 5.62), but his career is still going along. Let’s stick with Johnny Bench for a moment. I suppose all of you know about Johnny Bench. He was a terrific hitter: he had one year when he hit 45 homers, knocked in 148 RBI’s. He was twenty-two years old that year. A few years later he hit 40 homers, 128 RBI. These seasons happened when pitching had recently dominated baseball, and people were flabbergasted by it. Bench was a great hitter. He was also a brilliant defensive player: he had a cannon for an arm. He was a central cog on one of the greatest teams in baseball history. There’s no knock to Bench’s career: he was an absolutely dominant offensive player, and a terrific defensive player. His teams won lots of games; his individual accomplishments seemed to have a direct correlation to his team’s success. He was the perfect catcher. Here are the players, by position, that Johnny Bench most compares to: Pos. Name WAR/162 Rank in Position C Johnny Bench 5.6 1st 1B Dick Allen 5.7 8th 2B Charlie Gehringer 5.5 9th SS Joe Cronin 5.1 5th 3B Scott Rolen 5.6 6th RF Larry Walker 5.6 5th CF Larry Doby 5.1 6th LF Rickey Henderson 5.7 6th This is not an impressive list. It’s certainly a good list….Rickey Henderson was one of the smartest baseball players of all-time, and all of the others are worthy Hall-of-Famers. But none of them are serious contenders as the best players at their respective positions. Dick Allen wasn’t close to Gehrig or Foxx or Pujols. Larry Walker is ranked 5th among right-fielders, but he’s not close to Ruth or Aaron. Even Rickey doesn’t quite approach the likes of Ted Williams, Barry Bonds, or Stan Musial. This seems strange to me. Even if you don’t think Bench is the #1 catcher of all-time…even if you’re partial to Yogi Berra or Josh Gibson…you’d concede that it’s not irrational for other people to believe that Bench is the greatest catcher ever. Is it rational, then, that a strong candidate for the title of greatest catcher of all-time has a per-162 game rate that’s so far below the best players at every other position on the diamond? Is it rational to believe that there have been no really great catchers in major league history? Or is something wrong with WAR?

Johan Santana had a five-year run where he was the best pitcher in baseball. There is no god if Torii Hunter gets put in the Hall-of-Fame before him.

I don't mind it. May ceilings out as a pretty good starter, or a potentially elite reliever.

Green is a great pickup for the Gophers. But at the same time, the rumor is Oregon saw him as more of a long-term project than Terry Wilson and were looking to push Green to receiver. I wouldn't expect him to be ready at QB for a couple of years.

My flaw with it isn't so much drafting college relievers. It's drafting college relievers under the guise of making them starters. College pitching coaches have made them relievers for reasons (usually mechanical ones).

For me, the problem with Benson was never really swing mechanics as opposed to approach. The forerunning prospect to Benson was Mike Restovich and the end ceiling for both of them was some kind of version of Tom Brunansky. Neither one was going to hit .300, but their power would make them useful if they could be .250 hitters with good defense in a corner. To get there, both needed to be a little more patient, especially against right-handed pitching, and work themselves into better counts where right-handed pitchers had to respond with fastballs. Neither one could ever do that though, and they didn't walk enough or play defense well enough to justify a roster spot. You could almost say that ABW is the current version of Benson in the system, although he doesn't have the usual kills lefty/struggles against righties splits you'd expect. Let's hope Benson can figure things out this time around though.

Buxton v. Hicks is in a ways this years' Santana v. Escobar. Hicks is never going to be a superstar, but he looks set to be on a run as a Mike Cameron-esq center fielder for a couple of years. But playing right would also lower his value. Buxton, on the other hand, could be a superstar, but he's not quite there yet. If you could have Hicks ready to make a good trade haul as a centerfielder and Buxton ready to be a star by next July, that would be the dream scenario.

I don't care if a guy throws 88 or 168 miles per hour as long as they get strikeouts. Greg Maddux didn't throw hard, but three other really good pitches and a change up that defined a generation. That's the definition in shelling this as a debate of stuff vs. velocity. You're never going to get a guy like Pelfrey to get strikeouts though unless you can go back in time and teach him a second and third pitch, even though he throws hard. He simply doesn't have great stuff.

I think among viable options for the season, these two strike me as the most likely. 1. The Twins stand pat, take advantage of the unbalanced schedule with more games against dreck-like teams than the rest of the AL, win a Wild Card birth and either lose there or in a series against KC. 2. The Twins make a move, fill a hole or two, win the Wild Card and lose either there or in a series against KC. It's hard to come up with a trade scenario that gives them enough offense or pitching to win it all this year.

Sign him. Send him to Cedar Rapids. Put him on a strict pitch count. See what happens. If he's dominating and you're still in contention, move him to the pen and see what happens. If he's simply doing pretty good, well, it's not worth a lot of discussion.

Date is wrong in the video. It's from 5/2/15

The Baseball America scouting report that Bob quoted earlier disagrees. "He ranked second in the nation in ERA and was overpowering hitters with a 92-96 mph fastball from a quick-armed, high-energy delivery with a long stride and deception. The video shows its more Shooter Hunt bad than Adam Johnson bad. He has an inconsistent landing point and his arm is quicker than his legs. There's also a slight recoil as he releases. The stuff and command are their to start. But the question is will the deliver hold up to 180 innings, and what happens to his command as they tone him down.

I'm not a fan of this pick either. Any time the Twins take a pitcher with any kind of effort in his delivery it never ends well (Mills, Johnson, Wimmers, Hunt). But to be fair to Jay, he's more Perkins than Duensing.

The irony being when I was reviewing my past shadow drafts last night, I was pondering if my biggest whiff was on an 8th rounder (Dozier). But IMO, there's two ways to look at it. I'm pretty sure the White Sox don't regret going over slot for Rodon. On the transitive side of things, I don't think the Astros regret the way things ended with Aiken either, since whomever they end up with at #2 will be a pretty good consolation prize. The way compensation picks work in this day in age, you have to take the best player on your board in round one and either A) find a way to make it work or cut bait and take the pick next year. If Cameron is the highest player left on the Twins board at 6, you go for it. Bonus demands and agent be damned. There's not a lot of risk in losing a #6 pick in this day and age, especially in a thin draft.

Tucker has the kind of swing that I like to dub the "Restovich." There's a big hitch in how he loads the bat and really good pitchers are going to exploit it if he doesn't change things up, especially if they throw left-handed. Cameron and Whitley are much quicker to the ball. I buy them more for hit.

I don't know about that. Cameron has a much better swing than Tucker does. And while Tucker probably has more raw power, I never like the thought of paying someone millions of dollars to completely rework their game. If you believe in Tucker, he might be Sano with better outfield defense. But he's going to strike out a lot and probably have problems hitting for average. Cameron isn't going to hit for as much power, but there are fewer holes in his game and he's more likely to stay in center field. You're not going to have to completely rebuild him in the minors as a hitter like you will Tucker either. And if Boras starts to strong arm you, well the seventh pick in a deeper draft next year isn't a bad consolation prize. I've got Cameron at four on my board, Tucker somewhere in the teens, and Whitley somewhere in between. He strikes me as a safer prospect than Tucker by a mile though.

Fine. Pettition the league so Arcia, Hunter and Vargas can all DH then.

Petition the league so Arcia, Hunter and Mauer can all DH?

So instead of erecting a Torii Hunter statue at Target Field, we decided to bring back the statue that is Torii Hunter back to solve our outfield defense problems?

Anderson is my favorite on the list because he's the kind of pitcher the Twins have had the most success with. The MO of the organization has been working with guys with good command and turning it into great command. That his strikeout rate is pretty good for an extreme groundballer is the bonus and what makes him the most Hughes like. He hasn't been healthy, but that's what lets you sign him to a one-year, make good deal on the cheap. The upside if he gets healthy and figures things out is something of a Cliff Lee-lite. If he doesn't, it costs you $6 or $7 million for one year and that's not that big of risk. I don't mind Masterson, because Target Field can help correct his biggest flaw to an extent (that left handed pitchers tee off on him because he's such an extreme sinker/slider pitcher). But at thirty, he's not going to suddenly figure out a change up and solve his lefty issues when we play in Chicago . And the Fangraphs crowd sourced contract had him as more expensive and more likely to get a multi-year deal than Anderson. Throw in that he's turning 30 and it seems to me like there's more risk and less upside to him than Anderson. Billingsley? Josh Johnson? Morrow? If you can get any of them for a one year, $3 million deal, why not take a risk. The upside for one year is better than signing another Mike Pelfrey.

Pelfrey, no, he never struck out enough people. Nolasco, maybe. Though his bounce back ceiling is more #3 starter than #2. The question seems to be more how do you find someone who could potentially top the rotation with Hughes if everything breaks right.

Brett Anderson would be a great choice if Rick Anderson were still the pitching coach. He has that Hughesian trait of having good but not great command and decent stuff. But since Rick isn't the pitching coach, I'm not quite sure how it will play out. It will be interesting to see what the new philosophy on pitching the organization takes. Depending on the price tag, I'd take a shot at any of them though. In a worst case scenario, any of them could be a cromulent reliever even if the starting thing doesn't work out.

To me, the question of moving to Santana to shortstop opens up the question of "What do you do with Escobar?" He's older, and not as sexy of a long-term prospect as Santana. But he's having a good season and his power spike and solid-to-good defense at short gives him value, something the Twins have rarely had at the position. I don't have any qualms about leaving Santana in centerfield for that reason, to see what he can do long-term against major league pitching.

I think the problem for using WAR with a player like Gagne is that the play-by-play data to create an acurate UZR didn't exist until 2002. Since so much of Gagne's value is in his glove and that's where his WAR value lies. But it 's an interesting read and the point is clear that developing a good shortstop is hard to do.