Otto von Ballpark

Not really disputing any of this. But it's not really comparing bullpen quality vs the current Royals, it's comparing bullpen plans, composition, expectations, deployment, etc. The Twins pen was good, but was really just viewed as another piece on a solid all-around team (pieces which often seemed to fail us at crunch time, sadly). The Royals have invested in their whole pen as a weapon, to explicitly carry the team. The Twins never did that. Just like the Royals also invested in contact, speed, and defense to help do the same. The Twins never did that either, at best they seemed to luck into good BABIP seasons from piranha bench players (who they then rewarded with DH assignments in the playoffs, future starting roles, etc.). Again, not saying the Twins were bad or any component of the team was bad, but the Twins plan and construction isn't particularly comparable to that of the current Royals.

They didn't have any more than 2 of those guys at once, really. Hawkins and Guardado were gone by 2004, which was the first season for Nathan and the first year where Rincon had graduated from long relief. Balfour never really did much of anything for us, outside of that one playoff game vs NY -- 4.63 ERA in 68 IP across two seasons, in neutral leverage. No doubt they were very good pens, probably league-leading some years, but they were never really a "weapon" like the recent pens the Royals have created. The Twins were seemingly always content with a solid closer and setup man, and then filling in solid but unspectacular performers around them. To say that the recent Royals pen is modeled after the old Twins one is just not true.

I addressed this upthread, but there were some sizable holes in the early 2000s Twins commitment to defense. And while the Twins pen was solid and serviceable for much of the decade, I don't recall it ever being considered a weapon for the team. It was rarely better than two-deep anyway, as far as arms you would trust in a playoff game (and even those arms blew their share of games). And while it does seem like limiting strikeouts at the plate may not be a huge deal, that (plus speed) is a definite offensive identity for the Royals. Even when they had some good hitters, the Twins never really had an offensive identity, and perhaps that showed in their lackluster postseason efforts -- having a real, thorough "piranha" game plan, rather than counting on BABIP luck, might have helped those lineups focus and produce more runs when it mattered?

In generic platitudes, maybe. Where was the emphasis on defense when we trotted out an aging Shannon Stewart to protect a late inning lead in a playoff game? Cuddyer at 2B? Cuddyer and Rondell White manning the corner OF spots? Heck, even the "piranha" stuff was more talk than action -- the Royals have actually emphasized SPEED to achieve those results, not just relied on Nick Punto's fluctuating BABIP. And while the Twins had successful bullpens during that run, they were really nothing like the Royals recent pens. Davis is a BEAST, and Herrera is becoming one too. And they still bolstered those guys with Madson last year, and Soria this year. Meanwhile, various "valued contributors" to our pen were blowing playoff leads annually, it seems, and our reinforcements were, what, Todd Jones and Matt Capps?

But it wasn't until they clearly broke from those plans (Myers trade, Cueto trade) that they actually achieved any success.

Not all "vets" are created equal. Hollins and Kelly were rental players (the kind that no longer brought aggressive trade returns anymore 10 years ago). The modern equivalent trades are Willingham, Carroll, etc., and have returned virtually nothing, and have been meaningless to the Royals most recent rebuild. That's not who the Royals traded in Greinke, although Knoblauch way back when is a fair comp. And the Royals certainly didn't pattern their Myers trade after the Twins!

Most MLB teams are built from drafting, though, no? It's not like the Twins are particularly unique in that regard, or that the Royals had to specifically emulate the Twins to achieve that. Would you say the Mets and Giants teams that the Royals recently faced in the World Series also "used the Twins model" for their rebuilds too?

Not sure if this is fully accurate. Those 3 guys you name are hardly cornerstones that the Royals success is built upon -- when they went to the World Series two years ago, Moustakas had a 75 OPS+, Hosmer 99. Gordon has been better, particularly defensively, but he's only a 109 OPS+ since they returned to relevance in 2013. Cain and Davis have arguments to be their team MVP in recent years, and both were acquired in trade. I'd argue that the Royals success owes more to a plan to exploit market inefficiencies around defense, limiting strikeouts at the plate, and dominant relief pitching, than simply waiting around for draft picks to develop. They were still mired in losing when they shipped out Greinke for Cain and Escobar, as well as when they sent out a top prospect in Myers for Davis and Shields. I'm not sure that's ever been the Twins model for rebuilding.

A.J.?

I think that was more about building the academies than any direct player development stuff.

Didn't we hear similar encouraging observations the first couple games of the season?

No. Testing with penalties didn't begin until Lawton's third year out of Minnesota (although for what it's worth, he was busted in that first year of testing).

Generating a list of shaky assertions like Ortiz failing the equivalent of a post-2004 test with penalties, or Kevin Millar's "career year" in Boston, is hardly evidence equivalent to observing the sound and gait of a species of waterfowl you are trying to determine. More like, an anonymous, unverifiable source once named it as a duck, and it once frolicked alongside another waterfowl named Kevin Millar who we don't know was a duck, but had feathers... I know I said I'd stop, but what I meant was, I will only continue the discussion in animal metaphors.

Jumping into this tangent: I think TR did have some fine accomplishments in his earlier tenure. It did take him awhile -- 6 seasons of thorough non-competitiveness -- but it was a pretty good run after that, even if the playoff outcomes left something to be desired. I think he made a mammoth mistake in choosing his successor, and his return to the GM role has been pretty spotty, especially in trying to leverage the new resources of Target Field.

So, let me get this straight: not 100% trusting a conclusion based on an unverifiable, anonymous, selective leak of a name allegedly derived from incomplete data illegally obtained 5 years earlier qualifies as a "conspiracy theory." But using Kevin Millar's 5 extra raw HR at age 31 with Boston, hit at the same rate as he did at age 29 with Florida, is totally valid evidence for supporting PED speculation? Got it. Obviously this discussion has devolved to pointless even by internet standards, so I'm done.

Man, the FSL is tough for hitters -- the league HR/9 rate would rank 17th among qualifiers in MLB this year! Less than half of the MLB overall rate.

Jay is on pace for 133 innings right now (after his best/longest start of the year so far). He threw 85 innings last year, between college and the pros. Tyler Duffey went from 70 innings to 121 a couple years ago -- he did pitch the last month or so out of the pen, but he was doing pretty poorly as a starter at the time (4.67 ERA, 6.2 K/9 in his first 9 starts at Ft Myers). If Jay is pitching well as a starter, there should be absolutely no need to move him to the pen to conserve his innings. Don't mess with what is working. If they really want to keep him under a firm 120 or 130 or whatever, they could simply skip his last start or two. Although promoting him to start in a more difficult, less pitcher friendly league in AA would probably naturally reduce his innings a bit too.

Pitch in the FSL?

In any case, I figured out how to use BB code for basic tables thanks to this post: http://twinsdaily.com/topic/22417-article-stewart-and-harrison-quieting-critics/?p=479445 Although it would be nice to add styling like borders, highlighted rows/columns, etc.

Clicking on your username, then "My Gallery", then upload. Once that is done, you have to go back to your blog entry, click "My Media", and find your uploaded image. I just thought it was a little wonky compared to the normal uploading of images on posts, where it can be done right on the same page using "More Reply Options".

I won't push this tangent too much further, but there are a whole bunch of issues with those 2003 tests. They were done anonymously, for the purpose of gauging overall PED use in the sport, and individual results were never meant to be tied to specific players. And in fact they weren't. But then in 2004 government agents investigating BALCO seized data from companies which did the 2003 tests, which they believed could link the specimens/results with individual players. Various courts and judges then determined this was quite illegal and unnecessary, and required the BALCO investigators to return the data. However, after that, someone allegedly with knowledge of the results leaked a handful of names in 2009. It doesn't take any kind of conspiracy theory to see all kinds of problems with this. Since the purpose of the test was to be anonymous, how carefully were the original records kept to link individual players to results? Even assuming the separate records of the players and samples were perfectly kept in 2003, the "person with knowledge" who leaked a handful of names in 2009 -- did they connect the dots themselves to come up with those names? If so, was there anybody who was even able to double-check they connected the dots correctly? If not, did the data and/or names go through various permutations of the "telephone game"? Here's a little blurb that illustrates that and some of the other problems with those tests: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/court-ruling-03-mlb-drug-tests-article-1.401138 Simply put, the only "fact" is that someone leaked Ortiz's name in regards to the 2003 tests. It's somewhat less of a "fact" that he actually failed a test, and much less of a "fact" that any 2003 test he may have failed was equivalent to the testing which began in 2004. If the limited 2003 test result leak is your primary piece of evidence, you have a very weak case. Especially in Ortiz's case, where you have 13 years and counting of properly administered and documented (and increasingly expansive) passed tests since then, all while he's maintained his same excellent standard of performance. Even HGH, the more "advanced" PED, has had testing in MLB since 2012, and Ortiz has not failed a test in that time and has posted a 155 OPS+, actually greater than his mark from his first 9 years in Boston (145 OPS+). Even giving the 2003 test leak perhaps more credence than it deserves, I think the worst one can conclude about Ortiz is that he perhaps used very early in his career, but it probably didn't have a material effect.

Huh? Ramirez started with Boston in 2001. Ortiz was introduced to him before his 2003 test. Continuing to playing loose with facts like this seems rather irresponsible given the severity of these accusations.

Millar had a raw HR high in Boston, but it was a function of playing time -- his HR rate was no different that year than an earlier year with Florida. Varitek's "career high" was only by 3 HR, amid a long career of pretty consistent power hitting. Nixon hit 27, 24, and 28 HR from 2001-2003 in his age 27-29 seasons -- which one of those stands out as the "career HR hitting year"? Damon's HR rate in Boston was basically the same as in Kansas City. Mark Bellhorn hit 27 HR for the Cubs in 2002 -- not sure how hitting 17 HR for Boston two years later is key evidence for PED use... PED witch hunts based on relatively minor changes in HR totals went out of fashion some years ago, I think.

Interesting to bring up Millar, though -- he had a 131 OPS+ in 2002, and an even better 2001 (and it wasn't hard to see with traditional stats either, Millar topped .300 both years with 16-20 HR), but the Marlins were trying to sell him to Japan the same winter that Ortiz was released. Both appeared to be rather undervalued assets at the time! At least in the Marlins defense, they almost certainly were selling Millar for financial reasons, as opposed to the Twins straight up release of Ortiz.

Okay, this is just factually incorrect. Millar didn't have a "career year" in Boston, in fact his career OPS+ was 127 before he ever came to Boston, and his peak with the Red Sox was 117. His is almost the perfect theoretical aging curve. Nixon and Mueller had career years there in 2003, but that's about it for "career years" from Boston regulars in those years, so I'm not sure what your "etc" means. Nixon's in particular doesn't seem that out of line considering he was only 29 years old and had other good years too. Also, there was only one guy on that team who was "caught later", Manny Ramirez in 2009: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_suspended_for_performance-enhancing_drugs#Players_who_were_on_major_league_rosters Jeremy Giambi admitted PED use in connection with BALCO, although he was barely a footnote in Red Sox history -- he didn't even last the 2003 season on the active roster. I have no doubt there were PED users in that clubhouse, particularly prior to 2004, but I have serious doubts whether it was as widespread as you claim, or whether it was particularly more egregious in that clubhouse as compared to the rest of the league. Particularly as it relates to Ortiz, who has a long history of clean tests and consistent performance.