Doomtints

Right now the decision makers in front offices are in one of two locations: - At home with their families - Vacationing somewhere warm and expensive (* most likely) I'm sure the workers in the trenches are mostly working on data for the later moves and watching who gets released for anyone interesting ... but no big decisions will come for a while. Terry Ryan liked to make a move or two before heading off to the Caribbean or wherever but most GMs don't.

Eventually some national sports journalist will write an article about why the HOF discussions around Mauer are ridiculous. This will probably be written around the time of his first vote. When we see the reaction to this we will know whether or not Joe will be voted in. Right now it looks favorable. I suspect that as time goes on, his numbers on paper will look even better. As inhuman as it sounds, retiring for "injury concerns" helps, as does his reputation as a nice guy. Personally I think he gets in, and on the first vote. Mauer is a feel-good story that is good for the sport. Personally, when I look at Joe's numbers, I see a hall of famer. But I'm no expert, I also see that in Kent Hrbek, who would be in the HOF had he played a different position....

May's 2018 sample size is too small to draw any conclusions. I see a few things to consider: - His inherited runners scored % sat at 44%. Not good. This an important stat for relievers, in my opinion. It's one of the primary reasons relievers exist. - I would like to know his first batter efficiency rate, also key to any reliever. Anyone got it? - His swinging strike % is 15%. He throws strikes 65% of the time. Most hits off of him go to the outfield. He needs a good outfield defense, which the Twins should still have next year. But what if hitters adjust and start hitting grounders off of him and the Twins pick up offense instead of defense in the infield this winter? - His lone appearance as an opener was a disaster. If the Twins are going to keep playing with openers, he's not an option. This diminishes his value IF the team continues to use openers. Using an opener in theory means using fewer relievers in later innings. - His command was much better last year, but he has a long track record of wild pitches that he has to account for. Will his command issues recur during high leverage situations? As I said, last year was a small sample size, but in spite of the nice ERA and the Ks, there are things he has to work on to be a good reliever and we still don't know how the Twins will look next year.

So for everyone who was upset that the Twins didn't win 95 games this year, here's the proof that the team performed exactly as expected.

It's interesting that I didn't know that Perkins and Mauer were childhood friends until the day Joe announced his retirement.

Jorge De La Rosa could probably be a closer and he would cost about two million. Even if the Twins don't have him close games, they should pick him up. He hits 93+.

Back to the OP ... it's nice to finally see some turnover on the prospect lists. Lots of newer names.

First inning scoring is far more pronounced in the NL. In the AL, more runs are scored in the 4th, 5th, and 6th innings (with 6th being the highest) than in the 1st. The third inning is no walk in the park either. So what's the advantage for a 1-inning opener if the 4th-6th are all brutal? All of those innings are tough. And assuming this pushes scoring back an inning (I doubt it does), what's the cost of having more scoring in the 7th just to have less scoring in the 3rd? Is it tougher for a team to come back from being behind later in the game? Furthermore, apart from the 9th, the fewest runs are scored in the 2nd. Why not keep the opener in for one more inning and bring in a fresh arm when the game starts to get interesting in the 3rd? Finally, is the first inning scoring due to the pitcher still loosening up, or is it because of the hitting? If it's because the pitcher is loosening up, what's the ramification of the "opener" having to loosen up followed by the starter having to do the same thing in a later inning? But still we're generalizing. If one particular starter is lights out in the 1st like clockwork, why would you not have him start? Or if the starter can go 7 innings regularly? Why wouldn't we tailor this for each player? Good managers know how to play the matchups, not generalize.

In the AL, the bats you really have to worry about should be 3-5 in the lineup. Assuming even a good game for the pitcher has a couple of hits go by, the pitcher is facing the meat and potatoes of the opposing lineup almost exactly in the "opener" scenario in his third inning. The NL is different and the best hitters move up a slot (2-4), but pitching has to be managed differently in the NL and an opener is a hard sell there too. "Sequencing" is a bad concept for baseball, and the opener concept is just another "perfect world" sequencing scenario. Assuming a no hitter/perfect game, what's the optimal way to get your pitcher through the opposing team's lineup? That's what the opener concept is all about, and it's nonsense. In an actual perfect game, you want your starter in there from the first out. Why not use real data? E.g., this pitcher allows 5 hits on average through the first three innings. Should *this* pitcher start the game or come in later? When? From the baseball business standpoint, the opener concept will boost the W stat for most decent pitchers. This will increase trade value, with the counterpoint being it will also make the pitchers more expensive to retain.

Bryant is going to be very expensive when he becomes a free agent, but that's not until 2022. The Cubs won't trade him now. No team would.

WAR is goofy and it hides too much important information. It only takes a couple of seconds to a couple of minutes to figure out what "sticks out" about a player, be it positive or negative. You can't do this with WAR. What makes it worse is there are different algorithms. Baseball Prospectus's WAR(P) seems like utter nonsense, and Fangraphs' WAR seems inflated 30-40% of the time. Baseball Reference's WAR is the most consistent, though it slightly understates player value in my opinion. But even then, bWAR usually the last stat I look at when I'm analyzing a player....

I am disappointed that he finished the letter with "All the best" instead of "See you in the funny papers."

It was serious enough to where building a new stadium in NC was put on the ballot. Even if you doubt the team would move, contraction was a real possibility. It was stupid, yes, but it was possible.

Note the BA article quoted is from a year ago. I think commingling the AL/NL would be pretty strange. I would also worry that the proposed regional division alignments would hurt revenue for some small teams.

What was said is quintessential Bill James. When reading his works, one has to tune out the insensitive bits. Many of his insensitive bits gained traction over time, such has how the RBI stat is trash and anyone who uses it is a moron. I don't see a big deal in what he wrote in this case, personally, but I'm used to the guy. Welcome to Bill James!

Yes. That's not his "floor" though. I would say this scenario is more probable than his "floor" which is what I mentioned. As you say, he could be an AAAA-level guy who gets called up as a short term defensive injury replacement for some team (probably not the Twins), but not if he continues his 5 OPS+ trend.

Buxton's floor is off the Twins in a year and out of baseball in two or three.

Buxton's 2018 performance would be career ending for 95% of baseball players. We have to keep that in perspective. I still believe he can be a good player, but another year like this one and he's done. Another below average year and it's time to adjust our expectations.

Boras wasn't really picking on the Twins. He did a short bit where he told similar jokes about other teams. It's not a big deal. He was just warming up the crowd by telling baseball jokes that EVERYONE in the room could understand... Yes, anyone could have told that joke.

This isn't actually out of line dollarwise. As for Boras's joke ... it wasn't so bad. Attendance at Target Field isn't good enough, and it's the Twins' fault.

The Twins have almost never had a good DH, so talking about how their DH options last year sucked isn't saying that much. The Twins, perhaps like many AL teams, don't think of the DH as a position to fill with the best bat they can find. DH is viewed as as afterthought. Until the Twins treat the DH as a legitimate position just like all the other positions, it will continue being a spot in the batting order to slot people in to "give players a bit of rest." This is, of course, the wrong approach. The Twins changing their thinking on DH would probably have more of an impact than fiddling around with openers or whatever.

Sano has time to turn things around. He really just had one bad year, and it was bad enough that if he is going to have a wake-up call, this would be it. I still say he shouldn't be playing defense. We'll see if the new skipper agrees. Buxton should be a far bigger concern. Buxton's performance last year would have been career ending for 95% of players.

Since the Twins are building up to something special, it's really not the right time for Cruz, in my opinion. If the Twins were looking to supplement because they have the other pieces settled or were bringing up a lot of rookies then I could see a place for him.

Nah. Good relievers can end up with 200+ ERA+s. They can be off the charts.

I'm just using Bill James's definition, which I think is pertinent to do as he was the first to write about it. I get it that others have different views, only seeing the #4 / #5 guys as "average" or worse. But the fact of the matter is, #1s and #2s are above average and that's it.