Trov

It would be great to have learned how well he would have done had he never got that concussion. Would he have stayed with Twins his whole career? Would he have played late in the 30's instead of only 35? Was the concussion still affecting him at that point when he retired? If he would have stayed healthy and played late in his 30's he would be HOF talk, instead of what if. I am sure many teams have the what if this injury did not happen, but yes the Twins have 2 in recent history, Liriano and Morneau. Two seasons that if fully healthy would have been fun to see playoffs. For Morneau he was the leader of the M&M boys, the RBI producer constantly coming through with 2 outs it seemed. My favorite Morneau memory is a walk off he hit at Target field, only because I was living out of state watched the highlight and said oh crap that was my buddy that dropped his HR. Later to learn my buddy claimed to have called it, but forever he will on video dropping a walk-off HR ball.

This is the exact illustration I like point to when I hear people tout FIP all day long about real stat on how well a pitcher will do. Just as any other stat, FIP is only a piece. It points to absent fielding how good a pitcher should be, but they play defense in baseball so why would we say FIP is so great to determine how good a pitcher was, and just got lucky with good defense. FIP only measures non defense outcomes, which yes if you can strike out a lot walk few and give up very few HR you should do well, but if your defense is terrible and allows tons of hits and errors because they are all terrible, no pitcher will do well. On other hand, if pitcher can get weak contact and have great defense even if his FIP is high he will still have a good season. That all being said, that is crazy low strike out rate for any pitcher. That team had great defense though, only weak spot was Cuddy. Punto and Bartlett up the middle with the soul patrol in the outfield.

I agree with Buxton as he has yet to put together a consistent season, unless you want to say his inconsistent seasons are what he is, or his consistent time on injury list. I agree with Penida as his suspension will carry over. However, I think your own argument about Garver is why it does not matter. You state he will not reach FA until 33, that is doom enough for him. Even if he rakes it will only give a small increase to arbitration, and the Twins would be dumb giving him an extension that takes up free agent years. If Garver wants to get paid over his career he will need to have a Dondaldson or Cruz type 30's. He will need to keep hitting in his early 30's leading to free agent season. I would agree more so if he was facing a FA season and he needed this year to prove last year was not a fluke. He will have a few years to prove he can keep hitting. If anything, the lost year is more for the Twins loss of possible production and not for Garver. Even if Garver did it again this year, he still would need to prove it a few more years to get a contract at 33. Now, if he can stay at catcher and hit lefties well, there will be jobs for him in the future, just not always as a starter.

I would have Stewart trade higher. If you want to go way down the rabbit hole, the Chuck Knobloch trade led to a huge trade tree that helped a ton. Sure the first returns were not game changing, but Eric Milton to Philly for Silva and more importantly Nick Punto, who when he was going well the team did amazing. Then Buch Bucannon to Padres for Bartlett helped for couple years. So I would put the Knobloch trade up there, not because of the first returns but what it eventually led to. I personally would not put the A.J. trade too high. Yes, it was huge win compared to what Giants got, but that was Giants fault for not thinking about personalities of players being important. Yes, Nathan is career leader in saves, an overrated stat, but how many times did he falter in the playoffs? Did it help yes, but would not have it be my number 1. This exercise has made me think of some terrible trades in team history, mainly coming from Smith as GM. Sure there were others, but he had so many bad ones it is a wonder how he managed to stay GM so long. However, he did sign Sano, Polonco, Kepler all in same year, so he had done something right.

To me for one-hit-wonders, I am would think of Scott Diamond, in 2012, who had 12-9 record with 3.54 era, 2.6 war. Rest of his career was pretty much 1 full season after that where he produced negative war. After that 1 inning three years later at MLB level. That is a true one-hit-wonder. The list you put together, I would not even consider Phil Hughes as a one. If you mean for the Twins, then yes, but he had a productive career before the Twins, not to level of that one season but he was productive. Cordova, Punto, Jones, and Guzman I would not consider them one hit wonders either. Yes, they had outlier seasons that had peak value, but they still played several years in the majors. Lew Ford I would put on the list, because he pretty much came out of nowhere and returned to nowhere. Else we could put Jack Morris on Twins one hit wonder. He had 1 season with Twins and helped them win a WS, sure he was career HOF pitcher, but 1 season with Twins. Scott Diamond is my number one. Super flash in the pan to never be heard from again after he fell back to his norm. I see one-hit-wonders as coming out of no where, having big value, then nothing after that.

The poor BABIP to hard contact ratio has been the big question for Kepler and why many think he can tear it up one day. What is odd is that it has been season after season not just a single one. A single season you would think it is just bad luck and good defense, but every season, it has to be something more. I think the number one adjustment he needs to make is realize teams are scared of him, and will start to pitch like it. Work on identifying the holes and stay off those pitches. Take page from Mitch, and say if I cannot hit that pitch hard, why swing at it. If it is a strike so be it, just let it go. If Max can make the adjustment to stay off the pitches where he struggles, then he can be a beast. Easier said than done. How many times, for other players, Buxton to be specific, do I say to myself here comes the slider off the plate leave it, and there is the slider and he swings through it. Everyone knows it is coming, but in the back of your head it is, but what if this is the one time it is not and I miss the fastball. I personally, would coach players to make pitchers show they will throw you a strike more often then they won't. Why do their job for them. That is why I love Mitch and his approach. He looks middle middle and swings hard. He figures if he cannot get a hit on edge of zone pitches, why swing. Unless it is two strikes and you need to foul off close pitches, but even then if you are not good at that, just take it, let the ump do his job.

Doc, I agree with the Twins lineup for this year, if played, and most likely next they have a deep lineup and you can hardly go wrong with many different guys hitting second. Hard to pick who is the "best" as each can put up big offense. Fact that Donaldson hits more HR than Polonco does not mean he would need to hit second over Polonco or others. All I was pointing out was argument that they are taking the old number 2 guy and changing it up with old traditional number 3. Whoever that is for the Twins I do not know, guess that is good problem to have. I agree I miss the old style of stealing bases, hit and runs, ect. Personally, I think eventually there will be shifts to having some of the old style slap hitters that can steal bases, because teams will adjust to how things are being played now, then will make adjustments. Teams will see the flaws in the new defenses, new way of pitching to hitters, and adjustments will be made. As long as they do not institute rules to stop shifting, because shifting is nothing new, just being used to higher levels than before.

Although, I cannot show you the numbers, the reason behind it is the change in philosophy of the 2 hole. In the past, the 2 hole was used to be a guy that could put ball in play well, normally for hit and run purpose or was a good bunter to put lead off guy in scoring position. However, with the philosophy of not giving up outs or risking stealing with missed hit and runs, that has changed. So really, the only thing that has changed is you take the 2 hole guy and drop him further down the lineup and moved everyone else up. Even lead off has changed from OBP+speed to just OBP, because stealing bases is mostly a thing of the past. In addition, if the lead off guy gets on, since the plan is now hit extra base hits by hitting ball in the air out, why not have the former 3 hitter move up to 2 hole and just hit a double or hr to drive in lead off guy. The day of trying to manufacture a run is over. That is why I think the new spot for best hitter is 2 hole.

I know your point is that some records will not be broken because evolution in baseball. Specifically the wins record, because pitchers will never get the chance to pitch in that many games in a season or a career to pick the amount of wins. Even if you go to the modern day break those records are now not reachable, so you need the new century record book for pitching. In terms of doubles and triples, they will never get passed because parks got smaller and now they are HR's. I am sure if teams were still playing in parks like polo grounds where down the line was little league field, but gaps and center were over 450 feet, doubles and triples would go back up. That again is why people look at the modern day records, but again think they should have the new century record book to look at.

The NOC+ stat, much as the linked article says is of little help, more just for fun. I would never adjust my analysis of a player based on it. The main reason is for one it says Eddie is above average in plate discipline, so that right there discounts any and all value of the stat. The man will swing at a pitch above his head, pretty sure I have seen him do it, and get a hit doing so. That is not disciplined, that is just being able to make contact at anything thrown up there. Sano on the other hand, one of worst, will take many close pitches or try to check swing on them. I would argue he is much more disciplined at the plate than Eddie, but is willing to take much more pitches. For me the eye test says use this stat with a huge grain of salt. I personally think plate discipline is not something you can quantify in a stat. Walks and strikeouts cannot adequately do it. I would argue more walks than strikeouts would be best sign of it, but even that could just mean very few plate appearances get to a count that could result in a walk or strikeout, because early pitch was put in play. I commented on the chase rate as being a bad elevator as well, because it takes out the human umpire element. When baseball moves to electronic strike zones then I would say the chase rate is the way to do it. However, until then, when balls get called strikes and vice versa, and the chase rate stat, to my knowledge, does not value how bad of chase it was, it can be too skewed on board-line pitches. Maybe, someone will look at how bad of a chase a pitch is. However, remember when Joe Nathan got a strike out when I guy took a pitch that landed in other batter box and umpire called it a strike? If hitter swung at that it would have been a bad chase, but the umpire called it a strike so how do you evaluate the hitter discipline in not chasing that pitch? As we try to put numbers to evaluate every aspect of the game, some things can only be evaluated by your eyes, at this point.

The problem is how the hall makes decisions, and if you have noticed the vet comity is putting in more players it would seem than before. I believe Johan will get in via that route, despite being a 1 and done guy. In this day in age judging pitchers against past is so hard. Wins are such an overrated stat, but some voters still look at them like they are important. Some pitchers like Bert got knocks for longevity, but then Johan gets it for not having it. Before I even started to read the full article I look up Koufax stats because he was put in the hall because of a few seasons where he was one of the best, but so many other players get negative treatment for the exact same thing. Koufax, much like Puckett went out on top due to injury, but Johan tried to fight back. Maybe that is the image that sticks in the voters heads, maybe it was because Koufax helped win WS, Johan did not. Maybe it was because Koufax pitched in huge market of LA and in his Prime Johan was in MN. Maybe it was because Koufax was white, and Johan was not. We will never know why two pitchers with almost idenitcal careers, minus the WS titles, which is out of a single starting pitcher control. One gets into Hall of Fame on second year on ballot, if it was 5 years from last season played like it is now, and other gets voted off in one year. Was he snubbed? Hell yes he was, he should have at least got to be on it for a few years to really look it. I am not saying he should be a hall of famer, but when Kofax is first or second ballot and Johan gets essentially no consideration and they were very much almost the same career, yes it was a snub.

First, is Bobby Tewksbary, the kid of Bob Tewksbary former Twins pitcher that threw the 60 MPH curve in late 90's? Not a very common name. Second, to defend TR a little bit, he was not the only GM in baseball that stuck to "old way" of doing things. It happens time and again that a coach, or organization find something that worked and just keep trying it. He brought the team from terrible few years, making some good drafts and trades to a team that won for several years. It was really the Rays that and Joe Madden that started to turn baseball on its head and embrace doing things different. The Twins were just very slow to change. Thankfully they finally have changed. Eventually, the old way will become the new again as players start to adjust. I always got upset, and still do when you look at knocks on Royce Lewis, is the scouts saying he needs to change this before he gets to MLB or will not be successful. My response is why? Just because not many have been successful does not mean this guy cannot. Until it is not successful, why change? You know if it is not broke don't fix it kind of thing. For years, pitchers were told, keep the ball down in the zone keep it in the park ect. Then some people started to challenge that, like any good analytical thinker should. Not challenge that it was wrong, but actually test it against actual data. What was learned, that high fastballs in the zone actually is more effective at getting outs. The risk, if not high enough, may be in the sweet spot. However, as pitchers were told to keep pitches down, hitters started to only look at low pitches as well. So hitters adjusted, now pitchers adjust. Hitters were told to work the count, get pitch count up get into bullpen. Now data shows not so much pitch count but trips through order that is the big deal. Also, teams are building strong pens, so getting into the pen may not be best. So, pitchers learned they could pump first pitch fastballs into zone as players would take them more often. So what was learned, hitters started to swing at first pitches more often. So what logically should happen? More pitchers should start to throw off-speed first pitch, or try to hit corners more hoping hitter still looking to swing early. Baseball, as is all sports, is game of adjustments and trends. The best teams continue to identify areas that can be exploited and work that.

I would agree the flaw in this is the short sample size of recent players. To me, this seems more like the fan fav award over that time. As pointed out, absent the defense aspect Hrbek was right on par with offense as Puckett, but Puckett played premium defense and was more of a fan fav. Similar to Radke there was most likely single seasons of good play by other players that were better, but during that stretch Radke was the fav of the fans and he put up good enough numbers. Overall I like the concept, but I would agree if Berrios has a few seasons of decent pitching he may not have lost the title to Cruz, but when looking back Cruz just had a decent season compared to Berrios single season.

I wonder if MLB will change the draft rules for next year on who is available. Normally, high school player if they choose a 4 year college and not community or junior college, would have to wait three years to get drafted again. However, some teams draft them hoping to sign them out of that three year of no money commitment. If draft is shortened to 5 rounds, that could limit many high school players, as my guess, very few under classmen get much look at in show cases. So the seniors that are on the fence may want to try junior college if rules stay the same to see if they can get drafted next year, where it would be less likely they would get play at 4 year schools that first year anyways. I personally would expect more players drafted from college, as I would expect less info on high school players, and so much can change in a senior year. Sure the top top high school kids will still be there as they were on radar, but I am thinking those fringe guys. Where with college you have hopefully more tape to go off of.

I would assume the draft will be all online or teleconference without any MLB or very limited coverage.

I agree with not using Mauer for intelligence. Not only the lack of changing approach as pitchers and defenses changed, as that may not be that easy with 20 years of doing one swing to then change is not easy. However, one of my biggest complaints of Joe was always his lack of situational batting IQ. He had one plan always, get on base by any means. Well when you in the three whole, you are supposed to drive in runs, so do not take a strike down the pipe and take a walk after than when runner on 3rd and 1 out. Do not go out of zone, but how many times would he take a strike right down middle in that situation only to then walk, and get praise for working a walk, then hunter or cuddy hits into DP right behind him. Well he let a good pitch that should have driven in the run go, not smart in my mind. Remember when he got a ton of backlash for bunting. I never minded him bunting for base hits, but the big time that he got most backlash and then did not bunt for like to seasons. The situation was 2 outs runners first and second, tying run being on second. So a single to outfield should tie it. Double gets you the lead. Joe is supposed to be leader and hitting in three hole. Then what does Joe do, he tries to bunt for a base hit, not getting it, but what if he did bunt for hit, now bases loaded and 2 outs, with go ahead run at second, little better situation, but he basically said, I am not going try to tie the game and let whoever behind me do it. He just showed to me several times he lacked situational IQ and would never think about what would be best for the team to win. I was too old school thinker for me. Sorry, I do not always want to bash Joe, I give him credit for being one of best hitters of all time, but I do not like when people over value him. I also do not like when people undervalue him by knocking him for their want him to be something he was not. That was mainly because the organization wanted him to be more than he was and forced him into being the leader and three hitter.

The problem with the Twins old plan with pitching was every pitcher was the same basically, except for Santana. It was pitch low in zone do not walk people throw strikes. I remember a game I went to with Carlos Silva, he had a 87 pitch complete game, and even had a 3 pitch inning where he gave up a hit. The hitters knew strikes were coming so they were never off balance, for most part. The question was just where was it going to be hit. Then where the biggest problem was when a strikeout was needed, they could not get it. The Twins wanted to basically clone Radke, but he knew how to get strikeouts when he needed. Nothing wrong with pitching to contact with no one on base, but then be able to change it up once runners were on. I do not see a point spending tons of ptiches nibbling the corners when no one on base, unless it is a power hitter up, which now a days have increased.

I am glad someone has put this together. I have always been a huge fan of the percentage of RBI's vs pure RBI's. Nothing I hate more than a guy taking pitches down the pipe when runner on third and less than 2 outs, then eventually taking a walk, or worse striking out. Driving in that run is always better, in my opinion. To me, one good way to estimate this is to look at HR vs RBI numbers. If a player has high HR numbers he should have high RBI numbers, but if they are not then most likely they are leaving a lot of players on base but hitting a lot of solo shots. Look at Trevor Plouffe for perfect example. He had to be one of worst all time with RBI percentage. In 2012 he hit 24 HR with only 55 RBI, that is just terrible ratio. He would hit so many solo, meaningless homeruns, but would strikeout when runners were on. Similarly, in 2015 he hit 22 HR and had 82 RBI, not as bad, but hit into 28 double plays, so he was up a lot with runners on. Jason Kubel on the other hand was amazing at driving in runs when he had the chance, at least from what I remember.

Fun article, but I am not going to look up fwar for players I think of, if they do not meet the number, so sorry. First, comments on the list in the article. I agree with Mack and Tovar and Koskie for sure. I think Radke was not underrated, at least not by Twins fans. If he was by national media it was because he was never a media guy and just wanted to fish when he was not playing. I am going to say something very controversial, as all things are when it comes to Joe. I think he was overrated in areas of his game and underrated in others. The problem with Joe and his underrated is that people wanted him to be something he was never going to be. That being a power hitter, run producer, and leader. He was overrated as a defensive catcher, he won gold gloves because he could hit and was not terrible as a defensive catcher. However, when you look at him as a catcher he could throw guys out and control baserunning, although he should have tried to throw behind runners. He was not good at blocking pitches in dirt and would let plenty of wild pitches past him he should not have. That being said, he was one of the best pure average and on-base guys the Twins have ever had. The Twins always put him the 3 hole, when he should have been in the 2 hole or even the lead off spot, but he was managed by people that said best "hitter" bats 3 hole even though Joe never fit that spot. Joe would frustrate me so much in his lack of situational decision making as a hitter. Not sure if it was all him, or leadership telling him, but he would constantly do things that were counter to producing runs. Mainly taking strikes when runner was on third with less than 2 out and eventually walk, when he could have hit the strike to try and produce the run and not leave it to someone behind him. Now that my Joe vent is over, he was still one of the best hitters of all time and just because he was not a power hitter he still was great, and just lacked the personality stars have. My number one underrated players, from the 2000 era, is Nick Punto. He was amazing on defense, and just because he did not put huge numbers on offense he did not get the gred he deserved. When he was hitting well the team was winning. He would never drive fear in the other teams, but when Nick was going well the team was winning.

I know international players, except for Canada, aka USA jr. are not subject to draft, but I really do not understand why. I mean, why is Canada so special, is it because there is a Canadian team? I personally, think there should be a separate draft for international players, or add them to normal draft and just add some rounds.

I never saw the first two, and only remember Herbek in the end of his career. Joe was fine, if he would have played whole career there he most likely would have got some gold gloves. Doug was the best I ever seen play in Twins uniform on defense, got to love the bare hand batting and sitting in lucky spot on floor of dugout too for Dougie baseball. I have always said, good defending first baseman never get enough credit. Sure you can put the heavy hitter there than can only catch good throws and just blame all the bad throws on the one throwing, but a good defender saves so many bad throws and turns them into outs. Half of amazing stops require amazing grabs from first basemen because it is not easy to get a good throw on amazing stops. Without those grabs by first basemen the amazing stop means nothing. As long as Sano does not look like he did in RF, I think he will hit enough. Twins have heavy fly ball pitching, and teams trying to hit more fly balls too so hopefully the weak infield defense does not mean anything.

The overall ratings get skewed in games because certain attributes give greater weight to the overall. I agree MVP baseball was best baseball game, and was way ahead of its time. It was the first game that used throws going offline even slightly, and a good AI. It took the Show many years to even catch up, and still from my last experience with the Show it still lacked some of the things that made MVP the best. That being said, nothing like some of the classics RBI or baseball simulator, where the 3 outfielders and 1 infielder that is not assigned to go to a base all move in same direction at same speed. I remember the RBI baseball decisions that had to be made, do I move infielder out for short fly, or outfielder in. Pick wrong and in the park home run was very easy as the ball would bounce and roll away from the fielders.

My guess is if a season is played, the trade deadline will be moved to end of August, depending on how they play out the season. It will be interesting if a season is to start if teams will make early trades to get maximum value. Really, if the season is played it will be shortened and quick starts will play a huge factor. Imagine last year if season was shorted by 60 games, Washington would not have even made playoffs, assuming they had same terrible start.

I brought this up before, but depending on when or if season starts, there will be a lot of questions the players have. Worst case, no season at all, what happens with 1 year contracts, were they served? What happens with service time, does it accrue? What happens with arbitration, will another year be added, do you use the 2019 stats to decide worth? I have seen players being optioned to AAA recently, is that because the assumption is season was going to start soon and the figure is they would accrue service time if they are not optioned? Should players that still have option years that would not need to be waived be optioned to stop service time, would that raise a grievance? There are so many questions. The CBA may have the answers and I am sure lawyers on both sides are looking into it, but it will be interesting to see how it all shakes out. Even if half a season is played, many of the same questions will come up with service time. Think the questions about option years and contracts would be moot, but for many young players service time is a big thing.

To me, the correct approach is what Ted Williams said many years ago when asked the key to hitting. He famously said, "pick a good pitch to hit and don't miss it." Sounds simple, but the way I break it down is this. Go up with a plan, whatever it is, and stick with it. Hopefully you can be good enough to foul off pitches that are borderline. Then you should get a pitch you like. Hitters that are good at hitting fastballs will want to hit first pitch more often, as fastballs on first pitch are most common, unless pitcher is "pitching backwards" However, to go further, do not just swing because you have timing right, you should also look a zone. If it is not where you want, okay may be a strike may not. If it is fine you have two more, if it is a ball great. Mitch Garver talked about his plan at the plate last year. It was to look middle and swing at those pitches and take any borderline ones. So unless first pitch was middle he would take. He would even take borderline with 2 strikes. Sure sometimes he got rang up, but in his mind he could not hit those pitches well, so why do the pitcher a favor, make the umpire make the call. Other players have different approach where they will fight off those pitches. Either way they have a plan. Sure, Eddie his plan is swing at anything and everything, but that is his plan. I have no issue players swinging first pitch or not, as long as they have a plan for the at bat. Take Buxton for example, when he is struggling, or maybe even when doing well, I feel he never thinks out his at-bats. I have said many times when he walks up to plate, here comes slider off the plate, and he swings, then again and he swings, then again and he swings. Out on three straight chases, because the book on him is slider away. So his plan should be, look inside or at least middle. Anything away, just leave it, if it is a fast ball that clips corner good on the pitcher, but he has better odds taking outside first pitch than he does to swing at it.