Sam Morley

"To suggest that Duffey is solely responsible for the two losses he's been tagged with is not quite fair." I think in disagreeing with this line, I am agreeing with the overall thesis of the article. Something Bill Buckner-esque aside, I don't see how a single player can be more solely responsible for a loss than this. It is truly as bad as it gets. The losses themselves are very significant, but it has the potential to be so demoralizing. I think it might also have the potential to be galvanizing or some other antonym of demoralizing, depending on how the manager responds. We all saw how pumped Buck was after he hit that go-ahead homer in the eighth inning. He wants to lead this team with his performance and with his energy. My guess is that after Duffey blew the game, Buxton was more pissed than deflated. I think if Duffey sticks around and keeps getting meaningful opportunities, then the situation is confirmed demoralizing. I think if Duffey is benched, relegated to garbage time, or best of all, outright cut, then the anger is validated. I can't see any risk in cutting him. Bullpen: next man up.

Does anyone think the rotation as is can get us to the trade deadline in contention?

This idea of “there are no starters or relievers, only pitchers” is flawed, and I think the flaw is basically a semantic one. Here’s what I’m thinking: 1. some pitchers are better than others, meaning they are better at getting hitters out than other pitchers. 2. the number of pitchers on a team is finite. 3. those pitchers have to pitch all the innings of the season. 4. the pitchers who are better than the others will have to pitch most of the innings of the season. Further, the larger the portion of “most of the innings” that the better pitchers pitch, the more success the group of pitchers as a whole will have at getting hitters out. 5. whether the better pitchers start or finish games seems statistically unimportant to me so long as they are pitching most of the innings, and the more the better (up to some point of diminishing return). (While it may be statistically unimportant in a vacuum, it might be very important to the humans who are the better pitchers, and to the fans of the game for aesthetic reasons). 6. So I say it’s semantic because we call the better pitchers starters and the others relievers. 7. the idea of using a bunch of failing starters (Velazquez, Tomlin, etc) in the bullpen isn’t creative, innovative, or forward thinking. It’s just every bullpen ever. 8. the only way to have more pitchers each pitch fewer of the same amount of innings is to expand the roster. If the roster size is expanded, the same strategy will be available to all of the teams, the talent will be diluted, and the teams with the most better pitchers will still win the most games.

https://youtu.be/929Wk-EWQ0s so after this, the tigers immediately sent burrows back to triple a, and now they’ve apparently cut him outright.

99% of major league hitting is about being able to turn on an inner third fastball. Major league pitching is working against that, luring hitters further and further toward and off the outer third. Every once in a while someone squeaks through the system to the show who fits into a 1% that looks for the ball on the outer third and tries to spray it away. There's room for success doing it because pitchers aren't prepared for it or just don't care. If you only have to face a guy like that once in a while, why would you waste time preparing for it? It's the same reason that there can always be one or two knuckle ball pitchers. I think pitchers probably will be able to adjust to Arraez. If they can beat him with fastballs on the inner third, he's done. If can show that he can turn on those from time to time and make them think twice, he'll be okay. His 2019 spray chart shows four home runs all to right field, so that seems like a good sign. Not sure what pitches they were off of though... Ten minutes later: Okay, there are four and I found the videos for all of them on MLB.com. 1 fb 93 center away, 1 curve 84 center, 1 fb 92 center in, 1 curve 83 down in. So there is one fastball edging close to the inner third and he really crushes it. Nice.

The "hit tool" is weird. The other tools are all pretty much natural physical attributes. Hitting mostly is a learned skill that is impacted by a bunch of natural physical attributes that aren't counted as tools: vision, quickness, hand eye coordination, intellect. There are some people who pick up the mechanics pretty quickly from a young age, and I suppose they get some due credit for being natural hitters. Most have to learn it though and reinforce with a lot of repetition and constant refinement. I would say that in either of these cases, the results are a player who can hit a fastball. That's the foundation of the "hit tool"... I think. My question is, how much does a hitter's ability to hit off-speed (or lay off it) influence the qualification of his "hit tool"? If a guy has the other tools, and the 'sub-tools', and has the proper hitting mechanics, looks great in BP, and crushes fastballs when he knows they're coming, then I think he has a good chance of learning/adjusting to off-speed. Hopefully that is the case with Keoni. If it's not, he's going to be a bust, and someone(s) in the FO made a poor selection. Being a great athlete is icing on the cake. Nobody wants a cake without the icing, but the f'ing cake is hitting fastballs. A .171 BA, with his speed, is a bad sign. Since we're doing comparisons... Byron Buxton was a raw, athletic HS 1st round pick. He murdered fastballs and his off-speed game didn't get exposed until he debuted in MLB. The Mike Trout comps don't make sense.

But it kind of reminds me of the days where pitchers like Johnson and Clemens were averaging 97 on their fastballs. eh? eh?

That isn't something that would be included in a medical report, is it? I don't understand the conflation of his medical history with his projection as a starter vs reliever. Is Boston saying that there is something in his medical history that predicts he will be a reliever? If so, what is it? Lots of starters have had TJ. Lots of starters have had shoulder impingement. Is Graterol himself saying he doesn't want to start anymore? This whole starter/reliever projection bit is nonsense. Boston could whine about him not projecting as a starter to devalue him/get another piece in the trade and then use him as a starter anyway.

How do you estimate how many times a healthy person can throw a baseball before they get injured? How can a person's physical condition be such that it is unsafe for them to throw 100 pitches in a game once a week but safe for them to throw 20 pitches in a game every other night? If there is something wrong with their body that prevents them from doing the former, wouldn't the same thing prevent them also from doing the latter? Starting pitchers turn into relief pitchers for one reason: they aren't good enough at pitching to be starters. They are saying Graterol can only handle a work load of 150-170 innings in a season. What does that mean? Does he get too tired to be effective after that? Is he getting too tired at that point in the season because of how hard he throws? That would make sense. That would jive with starters who convert to relievers and add 3-4 mph to their fastball. Presumably, most starting pitchers are not working near the top of their max range. They give up some heat in favor of stamina, and they have to become better at pitching to make up for the lost mph. My interpretation of Graterol being forecast as a reliever is that they don't think he's good enough at pitching to lose the mph. But I don't see what is stopping him from becoming better.

So, what is the scoop on Alex Verdugo? Looks like he hits for some average with low k rates, but also low walk rates and has pretty modest power. His stats remind me a bit of Rosario (with less power). I wonder who in the Twins minor league system is a good comparison. Boston got Verdugo and Graterol. Could we have ended up with Betts and Price if we had packaged a prospect similar to Verdugo with Graterol? Could we have then traded our extra corner OF (Rosario or Kepler) for Maeda and ended up with Betts, Price, and Maeda? Here's this from fangraphs on Verdugo: For all of Verdugo’s talent, concerns about his makeup have followed him since before he was drafted, with Keith Law (then of ESPN) noting questions about his level of motivation circa 2014, and the Baseball America Prospect Handbook 2018 writing, “Verdugo’s skills are undeniable, but criticism of his effort level and maturity have plagued him since his amateur days and were again prevalent in 2017,” referring, at the very least, to a dressing-down the rookie received from Rich Hill upon showing up to the ballpark late after oversleeping. In their 2019 edition, BA wrote, “Verdugo stays dialed in at the plate, but an indifferent attitude affects the rest of his game,” and noted lapses in his focus afield as well as a “slow motor” that “shows up on the bases, frustrating teammates and coaches alike,” while in their write up of the Dodgers system last year, Eric Longenhagen and Kiley McDaniel noted that “part of the reason teams have been asking for other Dodgers prospects in trades is due to some past off-field stuff.”

Yeah, and to add to this: Quality starting pitching is way harder to accomplish than quality relieving and takes more skill and ability. A quality starter has to successfully navigate their opponents lineup three times in an outing. Any marginally successful major league starting pitcher can be a quality reliever. Relievers are failed starters. Their stuff/stamina is only strong enough to get hitters out once in a game. Hitters don't often get a second chance at a reliever in the same series. If Graterol becomes a rotation ace for Boston, then this trade will sting; but this trade definitely makes the Twins better for 2020. It does not make them a post season competitor. IMO, it makes them the favorite for the division, if they weren't already. It gives them a pretty good chance of getting to the break and deadline in a competitive position where they will have the option of trading for starting pitching that can actually make a difference in the post season.

The Plouffe comp is so insulting.

I could be wrong, but I thought Larnach was pretty much a 1B/DH type that gets a pretty generous oh he can play some corner outfield, and it doesn't seem like there are very promising projections for Kiriloff's defense either. If that's about right, and the concern for Rosario is his recent poor defense ratings, which were obviously affected by his injured ankle, how could either of these guys be an adequate replacement for him? They would have to out perform him at the plate (which is very unlikely) because there defense, especially as rookies, is going to be worse.

Cheating is grey zone. It's unfair and that's on the wrong side of the spectrum. But it helps your team win, and that's on the right side of the spectrum. It's absolutely bad for the game and the people who regulate the game have a responsibility to prevent cheating and ensure fairness. Because of the greyness, and the inability of the regulators to take preventative measures, I don't think the players or coaches should be punished heavy-handedly. Fortunately, in this case, the specific form of cheating is incredibly easy and inexpensive to prevent. Rule: No screens, monitors, computers, cameras, personal tech, or communication devices of any type are allowed in the dugout or in the clubhouse. Exception: a rotodial landline to the bullpen.

Also, this was the most amazing combination of high and low tech ever to accomplish a task. They banged on a trash can with a stick. Unbelievable.

knowing what pitch is coming is a much greater advantage than the benefits of PEDs. I can't think of a bigger advantage a hitter could have. the punishments are ridiculous. the competitors should take advantage of the tools at their disposal. 'here guys, have all this tech- all these cameras, and this video, and these monitors, and these computers- use it all, but morally police yourselves on how.' get rid of video. no video for "player development". no video for in-game scouting. no video for review. no video for sign stealing. you can have post game access to the TV broadcast video that everyone else gets. you can take video in practice for development purposes. take the damn headsets of, get out of the video room, quit with the fussing and nitpicking, and play the game on the field. we've seen the game on juice- it was very interesting and also entertaining. I'm glad we saw it. I'm also glad that era is probably over. It wasn't pure human competition. now we've seen the game on tech- it's also very interesting and entertaining. at home, we probably all feel more included in the game than ever before. we get to make and discuss all this analysis- we get to feel like we know more about the game than people who have been in it at the highest level their whole lives because we can process some metrics they don't give a rip about. I'm glad for it, I've enjoyed it. I hope it's just another era of the history of the game coming to it's end. I want the game on the field, played by the best in the world, without the tech, without the over analysis, without the second guessing.

We aren't really going to know anything about the Falvey/Lavine team until the org's current top prospects come to fruition. My feeling is that the Twins have had a history of bungling the development of their most talented prospects. That paired with an inability/unwillingness to build the team in the offseason makes for a pretty impotent on field product. The team's success usually relies on a core of under the radar prospects who over achieve and establish themselves as solid big leaguers (Kepler, Polanco, Rosario, Garver, Dozier, Plouffe...) Of course, we're always wondering about regression and how long their success will last and whether we should try to trade them. If our prospects with the highest ceilings were being managed and developed to their potential, we wouldn't even be having this conversation about signing old guys in the off season. We'd be clamoring for extensions for our own stars. Berrios, Buxton, Sano- all enourmous talent/potential dramatically underachieving. Maybe Falvey and Lavine do not bear the full weight of those players' shortcomings. So, we will have to wait and see what becomes of Lewis, Kirilloff, and Graterol. I don't know what the problem is. I don't know what the answer is. I know that successful teams don't mess up their studs. My feeling in the past has been that the likes of TK, Gardy, TR, and Molitor were always trying to turn guys with buckets of talent into guys with limited talent who have to poke, and scrape, and hustle extra hard. It seems like the new guys could be a departure from that, including Baldelli, and that seems so much more important to me than what they can fanagle in the free agent market, especially given payroll restrictions.

Have to wonder how things would've turned out for Arcia under different management.

I don't understand why any team would be interested in this kind of acquisition. When you have a minor league system full of young players that you have scouted and developed, and know pretty intimately why would you sign someone who is older and about whom you have very little knowledge- and one of things you do know is that he has a fastball in the low 90s? These guys put up decent standard stats (with no analytical peripherals available) in leagues no one seems to have a bead on how to compare competitively to leagues in the States (is the Japanese league comparable to triple A or whatever the league is that the Saints play in?), and then they require a major league contract and roster spot. I don't care at all about the money. But the 20 lousy-mediocre starts it takes to find out he's at best not any better than Thorpe/Smeltzer/whoever is a huge loss for a competitive team. The Twins should be looking to sign starting pitchers/any player with the least amount of risk of not improving the team. A list pitcher types ranked starting with the least amount of risk of not improving the team: 1. Proven veteran Ace under 30 years old with immediate recent success 2. Proven veteran Ace over 30 years old with immediate recent success 3. Proven veteran Ace with relative diminished recent success 4. Solid veteran 2-3 with relative recent success 5. Unproven promising high ceiling young guy with recent Minor league/early MLB success 6. Any of the above (formerly) returning from recent injury with promising recovery expectations 7. Guy from Japan/Korean/Taiwanese/Cuban pro leagues absolutely dominating their league (ie Ohtani) 8. Solid veteran 4-5 with relative recent success and former 1-2-3 relative success 9. Minor league high ranked prospects in own system knocking on door 10. Minor league high ranked prospects in someone else's system knocking on door 11. Minor league low-non ranked prospects in own system knocking on door 12. Guy with former MLB success most recently pitching for an indy league team and dominating 13. Guy from Japan/Korean/Taiwanese/Cuban pro leagues with recent relative success 14. Guy from indy league with no MLB experience recently dominating I'd say Yamaguchi fits squarely in to #13 and should be a hard pass for any team with serious playoff aspirations in 2020. If you could sign him and put him at AA or AAA and see what happens, that seems great.

Dobs is a reliever. You can tell by his goose gossage mustache and antoine carr oakleys. Let the back-of-head hair flow long out the bottom of your cap, figure out your favorite Metallica/Megadeath song, heat up that straight-ball a few ticks, and go to your home.

Mike Moustakas is the purest Brewer since Jeremy Burnitz. I don't know how that fan base will cope if he doesn't resign in Wisconsin.

LaTroy Hawkins calling Dick Bremer "Richard" is the best thing there is in the Twins TV booth all season.

"Many times watching the Twins and MLB in general is an exercise in cognitive dissonance. I want the team to do well, but I can’t cheer for some players." Yep. Like it.

Right. The OP is pretty good too. I had to reread it to get back on track. So we like Rosario, but we are afraid arbitrators will over value him based on baseball card numbers, pricing him out of a fair extension offer, thus depriving the team of the value that he does provide and us from watching him provide it. So should we find a trade partner in anticipation of this over valuation, or should we brace ourselves for the inevitability of having to let him go because of it, and attempt to assuage our disappointment with hopes for prospect realization and tales that he isn't really that good anyway? Well, I say The money is arbitrary and its not mine, so pay the man! Twins. Get to know 'em

Right. He'd be Yelich or Trout if he was able to be a little more selective. The approach you described is the perfect approach, and if a player with Rosario's natural talent can apply, he's the best player in the league. I don't think it's fair to ask him to be the best baseball player in the world, in order for us to appropriately value his contribution to the team. Of course a batter ideally wants to be aggressive on pitches in the strike zone, and passive on pitches out of the strike zone. But a batter doesn't know whether the pitch is going to be in or out of the strike zone, and he has a tiny amount of 'time" to "recognize" its type and potential location as it's being delivered. Some batters are good at using information to guess what pitch is coming. Some batters are good at recognition and reaction in the moment. Some batters can just put the bat on the ball. Because batting is so complicated and so many different combination of things can happen in a plate appearance (in a series of plate appearances, for that matter) a strategy is often to simplify. One example of simplifying is never swinging at the first pitch. Another is to only swing at fastballs. Another is swing at just about everything. In each example, some consistency of application is necessary for the simplification to work. If you always take the first pitch, you accept that many first pitches will be called strikes, but you are prepared to capitalize on the ones that are not and enjoy the benefits of being ahead in the count. If you only swing at fastballs, many breaking balls will be thrown for called strikes, but you are playing the odds that at some point you will get a fastball and that by disregarding the breaking balls you will be more ready to damage the fastball. If your strategy is to swing at everything, you accept that many times you will look foolish swinging at pitches out of the zone, and often working from behind in the count, but you are ensuring that when a good pitch to hit is thrown you will not miss it and you are playing the odds that it happens 3-4 out of 10 times. Oversimplifying leads to exposure. Adjustment is usually needed to stick around, and then balance learned from experience. It doesn't really seem like Rosario is trying to adjust or find any balance. It seems like he is forcing his will on pitchers and continuing to produce despite what should be obvious ways to expose a batter with his approach. Which is amazing. The Twins 2019 offense was amazing, and Eddie was right in the middle of it. After decades of power impotence, the Twins finally have a lineup of crushers and the guy everyone is going gaga over is a slow running, slap hitting 2nd baseman because he has a good eye. Unbelievable. The most prolific offense in franchise history. The best record in franchise history. And no seriously helpful moves at the deadline. Put the same lineup on the field. Sign the best 2 or 3 starters on the market. Forget the bullpen- it's a roll of the dice anyway. If room needs to be made for Kiriloff, Larnach, or Lewis, maybe keep an eye on the 40 year old DH, the perpetually injured CF, or the fluky, limited 2B.