Trov

I would add that I am very impressed with his approach at the plate. He seems to have a plan up there and look for specific pitches that he is expecting. Sometimes it leads to him looking foolish, like last night against Wacha where he was up 3-1 on count and took to called strikes because he guessed wrong, but he is clearly having thoughts in his head of what he is expecting. An at-bat later on he pulled a ball deep and foul, then next pitch he smoked a liner the other way, for an out, but it showed he was expecting that pitch and was ready for it. I fully expect he will have good seasons as a hitter, now I just hope he can work on his glove work, where ever he settles in.

I would not say he is underrated. He is hitting overall well, but so are many of the other rookies on the list that are offensive, and all of them play better defense. I bet if Twins were offered most of the other offensive guys on that list, except for maybe Kwan and Donovan, straight up for Miranda they make that move. Not taking anything away from him, and I like him, but he is mostly just bat.

Whether you like his style or not, I do not think he is going anywhere, unless the team completely falls off. We are above .500 and unless we crash the last month of the season we should finish above .500. That would be 3 out of 4 above .500, and we have a good chance to still make playoffs depending on how last month goes. Our star CF has been injured or playing hurt most of this season. We are on our like 5th LF, and used a like 10 starters, and 20 pen pitchers it seems, not sure exact numbers. I am not defending his style, but Rocco has been winning overall, we have no clue if anyone else would have done any better, and I would doubt they would. Also, Rocco is managing how I believe the FO wants, following analytics.

Balazovic concerns me the most because clearly something is off with him. My hopes is he figures it out during off season and he can bounce back. Lucky we were never slotting him in to be in the rotation and have huge depth for next year as well. Martin is disappointing he did not take steps and may have regressed, but he also has been injured part of the year, and you never know how much of a nagging injury he had. He will never be a big power hitter, but hopefully he can be more of a line drive guy that hits the gaps for extra base hits. Canterino is not surprising as he came from Rice who love to burn their college arms out. Hopefully after the recovery of TJ he will give us something.

The thing you need to remember about SS is that it is generally not a position that offers both good defense and good offense, and most of the time you get one or the other. Correa last year was the best defender and was above average on offense. You are just looking at offense numbers, which is a poor way to evaluate SS. That being said Correa has regressed a little on defense too. On average in FA WAR cost about 8 to 9 mil per WAR. Correa has been good for 3.7 right now, so he should be getting paid about 30 to 35 mil. So per WAR he is getting paid just about right for what a FA cost. All the other guys you list, outside of Tatis because of not playing, everyone is making about what WAR to cost in FA are on par with getting what they paid for. You can argue they should be paid less, but when you look at what the cost in FA for WAR they are not overpaid, any of them. Are they on path for HOF, maybe not, but you need to compare to the rest of the league at the time and how they compare.

I am of the opinion that on TV the play by play guy servers very little role, other than to grab the viewers attention that something happened, unlike on radio where they need to paint a picture for you. On TV the color commentator(s) job is to explain to the viewer why things were done a certain way, or what a viewer should be looking for. Not every viewer will have the same experience, and some producers have the view that they will make sure if this is the first game someone has seen, or know nothing about the game, they will understand it. Now, in terms of the two commentators, personally I like the debating they do because Perk is an analytic guy and Justin is not. So they debate the two, but I like debate. I can see why some would not like it because it is not adding much to the game and more like a sports debate show. Also, I have never heard anyone refer to Vin Scully as Vince. His given name was Vincent, but he was always known as Vin as an announcer, but I never heard anyone call him Vince.

It was a lefty pitcher Garlick hit against, not a righty. Game cast must have had that wrong.

I expect he breaks at AA next year. As long as he can field a position he will be making his MLB quickly, unless there is a huge regression next year.

I fully agree this is a huge risk Mariners. I find it to be little risk for J-Rod. I say that being even if he could have earned more over the lifetime of his career he will still make plenty of money over his career now. I mean sure maybe by the first few years of FA the contracts would be 5 to 10 mil more for an elite player, assuming he gets there, but really he will not be begging for money ever in his life now. It is the exact opposite of Soto, who turned down similar money over similar length because he wanted to be the highest or near highest per season and did not care about the overall total. I think he also did not want to be tied to Nationals because of unknown ownership, but it is crazy to turn down over $400 mil because injuries can derail a career very quickly.

He offers very little other than an emergency injury replacement should we need it. He has no offense and can run and play defense, but we need guys that can get actual hits. Imagine him and Leon in the same line up, why not just say we have to auto outs. I mean unless you are asking for a bunt I would tell them to never even swing the bat, their chances of getting on base are higher.

Even before I read I said to myself, Joey Gallo is who he was going to say. Personally, I am not a fan of that style of hitter, unless they are hitting HR with runners on or at least hits with RISP, I do not care how many solo HR a guy hits. Sure, in some games they may win, but all too often they strike out or fail when RISP but when game is blow out one way or other they hit a solo HR so season numbers look good. I used to always point to Trevor Plouffe on this issue, This year Buxton has had a similar season where he gets HR and extra base hits when no one is on, but when runners on he strikes out too much failing to drive runs in. We get in awe of the HR and power, but forget that with 1 out and runner on third they swing through a pitch out of the zone, but love the light tower power when pitcher is just trying to get through the at bat.

Let me ask you this. If he would have hit with a launch angle that would have made it the farthest HR ever would that be news worthy to you?

First, in terms of the analytic comment, I agree that team has gone too far down that path, and forget players still play. As for blaming hitting coach, I cannot say that is for sure, many of the vets are not performing well, can we say that is because the hitting coach has taught them wrong? Look at the younger guys, Gordon and Miranda, both doing well overall and have improved after slower starts. I would suggest that has something to do with coaching and working through adjustments. I doubt the coach has much to do with vets at this point in their careers, maybe but their poor play I do not put on hitting coach. Maybe Rocco is to blame some based on moving guys around, but based on how they are asking guys to hit, I doubt that should have much to do with it. Unlike in years past where you want the leadoff guy to take pitches, Rocco does not care if the lead off guy swings at first pitch, as long as it is good pitch to swing at. So they never have to change approach no matter if they are hitting 1 or 9. Now, is that the right way to go, maybe not. Finally, to your last question, no I will not say it was a bad trade. Rogers has a negative WAR and negative WPA. Has Rodgers been better than Pagan, yes, but Rogers has not been great either. He had good and bad stretches. Paddack got hurt, but he still is under team control for 2 more years. So one, we do not know how that will play out so trade is not closed, and two we do not know how much better our record would be with Rogers on our team based on his poor performances at time too, and we would not have always used Rogers as a closer. Was it a good trade? I would say no. I would say it was a close to even trade so far and would have had little impact on the outcome of this season, but may impact future seasons in the positive.

Again, our difference is you are using being in the rankings is a good thing, which I agree, but my point is the rankings do not equal to what outcomes they will have, and the rankings will change as more data comes in. So to have a single snapshot of a ranking and say our future is bright, or dim is a poor way to look at the rankings. For example, in 2010 ranking a lot of the top 50 guys have had decent careers and teams would be happy with what they got. Several though did not perform all that well over their careers. One guy absent of the top 50 players, only could find top 50, is the best player in baseball since then. It was his first full minor league season and he was a late first round pick, but after the experts got more time to see him, in 2011 he was the number 1 rated prospect. If in 2010, we were offered Arron Hicks, who ranked 29 that year in top prospects, for Mike Trout, I bet many fans would have looked at the rankings and say why did we traded the 29th ranked guy or someone not even in the top 50. So what I am pointing out is that the rankings at any given time does not mean much, as we have seen Martin, who was 36th ranked last year, and in half a season drop to out of top 100. Guys will move up and down as more info comes in. The exact same farm system for Twins next midseason may get ranked in top 10 because they perform beyond what todays projections have them. Mike Trout, who turned out to be the best player in the minors in 2010 was not even top 50 ranked prospect, why? Because the experts had not seen enough of him, but when they did, he then was number 1, which changed how people saw the Angels minor league rankings. Did they change personal? No, people just learned what the Angels had. I am not saying Trout was some outlier, because he was just more unknown in 2010. Now, if a team continues to stay low in the rankings year after year, that will be an issue to worry about, but for all we know next year we have a few break out guys, or rebound guys, and then we jump back up the list, despite having mostly the same players.

The key you point out is the 75% success rate. The issue is, too many teams have done away with it, but not looked at if they can be successful it will help score more runs. Also, the sabermetics does not take each game situation into account, but takes all the history of the games and comes out with a historical percentage. That has, and always will be my issue with analytics is they do not look at each situation individually. For example, does it look at with 0 outs, and a sinker ball pitcher with a slow hitter, what are the odds of a double play, and compare those to the risk reward of a stolen base? I mean if say the hitter will hit into a double play, or a deep fly on say 75% of at bats, which will either get 2 outs or keep runner at 1st, how does that impact the chance of scoring a run versus say, a 70% chance you steal the base? My point is, there may be times that the 75% does not hold true in that particular situation, but only look at the difference in scoring a run from 2nd base versus 1st. Analytics has taken the individual game situations out of the picture in my opinion.

Well I guess where we may differ is what is a "significant impact" You find 8 years playing to 7.7 WAR or 10 years to a 6.0 WAR(Travis d'Arnaud) was 6th on your list, is a significant impact. Personally, I do not find that to be a significant impact, to be considered a top prospect. I would argue that a top prospect should be expected to be at least good for an average of a 2 WAR per season over their career. If they average 1 or less per season they are basically a replacement level player and are average. Number 1 on the 2013 list was Jurickson Profar, a career 6.6 WAR, of which 3.4 is this year, 9 seasons in MLB. Until this year, a huge outlier year, he has averaged below league average numbers. If you want to say below league average is good for best prospect in baseball, then you have a low bar in my opinion. Nothing wrong with average for a MLB player, but when you are considered a top guy, I would expect more. Also, we are talking about rankings, so when you compare, that for example number 53 in 2013 was Max Fried, who I would argue is better than most of the pitchers on the list ahead of him, save for Garrit Cole. most likely on par with Wheeler. However, Bundy was the number 2 overall prospect on that list. I bet Balitmore would have loved to have traded Bundy for Fried, or Cole, or Wheeler, or Tallion, or a few other guys that were rank below him. Yes, Bundy has contributed to MLB teams, 7.8 WAR over 8 years, and if your argument is being in the top prospects regardless of placement means it is a good list if you can play at the MLB level of replacement means the rankings are accurate, then I concede to your argument. However, my argument is that the rankings are meaningless in turns of actual output, because someone like Bundy was the number 2 ranked prospect in baseball, best pitching prospect, but there are several pitchers on the same list that have done better than him. Therefore, I am saying the ranking was wrong in hindsight, because several pitchers on the list have had better MLB careers. I will concede that most of the prospects on the list, make it to MLB and contribute, and in that the list is good, but to say one team has a better list of prospects and that means they will have more success in the future means nothing. A player or team ranked in top 10 does not mean it will equate to future success or more than a team that is ranked 15, all it means is they have players that many consider will contribute to MLB team.

I agree that it is a bit of a question if he will get what he is looking for when he opts out. I highly expect he will opt out, I could be wrong, but that was his plan the whole time. Now, based on the rest of the crop teams will have to decide who is getting paid. Of course TEX is out, DET is out, Mets out, and SD are out of bidding. However, Dodgers, Angels, Braves, Seattle, Red Sox, maybe Cubs maybe Yankees depending on their plans with their prospects, Point is there is 4 SS, just like this year, all looking for deals and more teams than players looking to sign them.

In terms of the stolen base, they do matter, and I doubt the Twins would tell you they do not. If a team just does not do it or does not stop stealing then it is an issue, and the Twins have addressed it some though out the year, but they are not the best at stopping the run game for sure. They also are not good at stealing themselves, in part Buck is hurt and rest of the team is ehhh at stealing. Maybe because they do not practice it much because the risk reward factor is not there most of the time. Maybe the team just does not want to do it, but as the minor league numbers point out, they are doing it down there, so might be in part our team lacks the ability right now.

I get what you are saying, and it makes sense, but the problem is there is data to back up that framing a pitch a certain way does get more strikes called by the ump. They track every pitch called, where it is called over thousands a season. They can see how some catcher routinely, no matter the pitcher, gets more percent of close calls in their favor. The stats bear it out that somewhere in the back of the umps brain it is affecting their decision. It may be as nuanced of it hit the catchers glove and he did not have to move, or he reached into the zone to catch it, versus he had to reach across the plate to catch it. I fully agree it should not matter, and we should have an electronic strike zone, but facts are facts and it is backed up by data that some catchers get a higher percentage of close calls or even pitches out of the zone called strikes versus others. You cannot refute that it happens. Even your time as an ump you may think it has no influence but it may have some very small influence that you do not even know it does.

This is just my point, that he was rated very high, and was expected to be a huge contributor at the MLB level, but for various reasons, injuries, weight, lack of adjusting, so on, he did not. So despite being high on prospect lists, he never panned out. I am not saying the list was wrong for projecting him to be good, what I am saying is ultimately he did not pan out the way people thought.

The list is not built on what a player is doing at any given level. It is built on what "experts" think the player will be down the road. You are talking about Isola, who has only played 18 games at catcher this year. My guess is he is not expected to be much of a defensive catcher in the future or even staying there. He is 24, so already older for any prospects list, not too old but he was a 29th round pick for a reason, he was never projected to be much. May he surprise us all, sure, but it is unlikely he will, that is why he is not on the list, because the experts think he will not pan out as much at the MLB level as others on the list.

I do agree that the projections are made by people with a whole lot more knowledge than me. I also agree that many front offices will rely on them, to some point, they also do their own scouting. Many things go into them, position played, age, body type, ect. I agree that we are lower in part from the guys that we traded or have graduated from the list. We still have plenty of young talent under team control, barring injuries that should help for the next few years. Also you need to always keep in mind that the rankings are based off of their peers, and they are being compared to each other. Sometimes you may be the 150th ranked prospect by these people, but you are still expected to be very good, just others are projected to be better, or on other hand you are very high on list because others are not good, and the list shifts greatly after one year. Personally, when you get outside the top few players, it is hard to really say anyone is greatly expected to do much. Take Palacios, he is 18th on the list for the Twins. Years ago he was higher, then he was off of it, until this year. He may or may not ever have much of MLB career. I will agree most at the top of the lists normally contribute to the MLB teams, but that does not mean high levels of success. My main point is that rankings in list does not mean succuss at the MLB level. It just gives some level of idea of how others view the players in the organization at any point in time. I bet 3 years ago people were not too big on Miranda, but where on Wander Javier. Miranda was 14th on our list, Javier was 4th. Arraez was 17th. We had several ahead of them that are now below or not even on top 30 lists. I would not say they are "outliers" when they show up all the time. You can go through lists each year and find guys high up that fall down the list and ones down the list that fly up it. The lists are based on what we know at the time. Yes, if teams are not high on prospects it makes it harder to make trades, which is in part why you trade for controlled players. So I am not worried because the ranking does not mean anything as to where the team will be next year, or in five years.

I find it highly unlikely he opts in. He will try to cash in again this offseason on a more normal offseason. Dodgers and Red Sox and possibly Yankees will be looking to spend on a SS. Nationals may as well, they have been known to throw money out there. It may be a little risk of him, but I would assume his plan all along was to opt out barring injury.

My biggest complaint is that the team is 100% flipped to analytics. I hated when prior FO and managers were so anti analytics, but now they are 100% all in on analytics. That being they do not work on situational hitting as much. We do not do the little things that help score runs, but care more about getting the extra base hits. The problem is when the extra base hits are not coming, for whatever reason, we are not getting runs across the plate in situations. This is not just a this year problem, and hope we really address it in the future. I am a fan of using analytics, but the problem with always doing analytic thinking is that the numbers from analytics are derived over a lifetime of situations of past results. For example, the lifetime of runners on 2 with 0 out you will score more than 1 run 30% of the time, but with runner on third and 1 out you score more than 1 run less than 20%. The difference in scoring just 1 run increases about 12% when runner gets moved over to 3rd with 1 out, however, the chance of scoring 0 runs remains about the same. So the argument is, especially early in game, is to not move the runner over because your chance of scoring 0 runs is about the same, your chance of scoring more than 1 run is decreased. The counter is that your chance of scoring 1 run is increased. However, many analytic thinkers say just scoring 1 run does not move the win probability that much, even more so early in games, so teams will not play for that 1 run early in games. That is why teams stopped bunting runners over, but even worse, is teams stopped working on hitting behind runners in hopes of moving over at minimum but getting hits still. LH hitters will do it naturally with a pull on the ground, but RH almost never do anymore. Because they never practice it. In addition, when a runner is on 3rd we hardly work on just making sure we put ball in play, but still looking to get the extra base hit. Now, I know it is easier to say than do, but I do not even see anyone try anymore, and that is most likely based on team concepts. The thought is to sacrifice single run innings to have multi run innings, because we do not expect to have as many run scoring chances. I am not saying we should always play for single run innings, but advancing guys to third, then looking to get extra base hit, but at least getting ball in play will help us win many more games than trying to always drive the run in from second.

I am not expect anyone to come up and make a difference, maybe Larnach if he can hit like he did prior to injuries, but he has been up and down his whole short career. We really need the current players to hit like they have in the past. Getting 1 hit with RISP but having a ton of chances will not get it done. We are not hitting HR right now either so runs have been hard to come by. You cannot expect your staff to get shutouts every game.