ewen21

If a starting pitcher gets outs and goes seven and your offense hits three home runs you are safe. How many web gems can an upgrade in the field give you over what they’ve replaced? Maybe 10 in a year tops? If that defensive upgrade isn’t a very good hitter and what he’s replacing is then it’s actually probably a downgrade overall. We are chasing our tails here

It is about opportunities to impact a game. The vast majority of plays made in baseball are considered routine for a major league player. If you put an above average fielder in the field over an average to slightly below average fielder how many opportunities will the above average fielder have to make an impact? We know he will get four at bats and if he can’t hit a lick what do we get from it? The hope that he can save a run isn’t anything that can be controlled. The number of at bats he gets can be. Houston and Washington got as far as they did for two main reasons: deep lineups and stellar starting pitching. I we are going to be honest it wasn’t because they “caught the ball” Guys like Hawk Harrelson and Gardy subscribe to that dated theory. Sure, it helps, but to make an analogy defense in baseball is like special teams in football. Offense is offense and pitching in baseball is like defense in football. Whether that analogy works for you doesn’t matter to me. The main point is defense in baseball has nowhere near the importance of pitching or having offensive depth. And let’s not kid ourselves here. Defense was not why we lost in the playoffs. Above all, it was because we scored 7 runs in three games and because our starting pitching was mediocre. I honestly don’t want to hear about the defense. It had virtually no impact in any of the three and outs we have had. It was mostly because we haven’t hit worth a damn in the postseason. Look it up if you don’t remember. We have scored on average less than three runs a game in the postseason and it’s not because the opponent’s defense took hits away from us

Break it down for me.

If I were allowed to field a team of the best offensive players by position and you were allowed to field the best defensive players by position and we had equal pitching staffs and we played 162 head to head games I guarantee my team would crush yours. I am not saying defense doesn’t matter. I’m saying it doesn’t matter nearly as much as you seem to believe. Pitching and offense is far and away the biggest aspects of the game with defense in third place. Could you imagine taking a team of the best players all time offensively by position against the best defensively by position? You can pick Ozzie Smith first and I’ll take Babe Ruth. Who made the better pick? Honestly, I think people who want to act like scholars or connoisseurs lean heavily on the defense argument because it is a nuanced position that requires and enlists arcane metrics. You did a mic drop with DER being the determining factor in who wins championships? You don’t think Houston and Washington didn’t get there because they both had deep lineups and maybe the best starters in the games? It was there defensive efficiency. Let’s be clear about this. The Twins were swept by the Yankees because we scored seven runs in three games and our pitching was exposed against their deep offense. It wasn’t because we couldn’t make 2 or 3 extra web gems.

I have to agree. Defense did not hinder us that much last year and the real reason why we have been terrible in the playoffs is that this team clenches up so horribly they can’t hit. Lots of talk about improving defense this winter but in each case it eels like we are chasing our tail. It’s nice to have good defenders all over the field but let’s not pretend defense makes a bigger impact than offense at the ML level

Pretty much my reaction when I saw this thread

He has good discipline and he’s durable. He and Arraez are guys I am not worried about

Not so worried about Polanco. Way more concerned about Buxton

This explanation for Mauer no longer hitting HRs after 2009 never really washed with me. It’s almost saying that he never really fell of in regards to making contact and to me he did significantly compared to what he did in 2009. This is what happened in 2009. Here are all his HRs: Early on, the first five or six, you can say that, but he hit to center or pulled 12 or 13 of those and he stopped doing that for good You can count on one hand the pulled long balls he’d hit over the course of three seasons He had a few monster shots that year and that hardly ever happened after that. Makes a guy wonder to be honest with you. I’m not sure what Polanco is going to do, but I doubt he’s going to take out his 7 iron every at bat like Mauer did. Polanco sees a fat pitch and tries to turn on it whereas Mauer might spit on that same pitch or try to chip it into left. I think Polanco has 17, 18 home run power. As a matter of fact I bet about 150 guys hit 17 or more and Polanco should be around there perennially. Mauer was lucky if he’d get ten and I always felt that was strange.

He has not had a single season where he made the qualifying number of plate appearances so I agree with you

I dont think the shift will kill Arraez the way it got Mauer because Mauer became a one trick pony. He literally would go weeks at a time without pulling the ball unless it was a ground ball. He was an opposite field hitter and he dedicated everything to that. I don’t see Arraez as being that. I feel he is going to adjust constantly where Mauer never did. That’s more on him than him being “victimized” by any shift.

It is for the reason I do not worry about the kid. He is young and at the bottom of the pay scale. If this were his third or fourth season and he was hyped I could understand the concern. Luis Arraez is the least of our problems. Other guys who are older are a far bigger concern to me.

Well, he hit over .300 and by a lot and doesn't that say something? He isn't Danny Santana, bro. I don't think the over .300 average and the .400 OBP was a fluke He was actually the best hitter in the lineup for pretty decent chunks of the year. With all the talk about the potential of guys who really haven't made contributions like that on a day in, day out basis; it is actually refreshing to see a guy come up and hit like he did. It shows he has skill at doing the toughest thing you can do in sports and he is still very young. Will the league catch up? Yeah, most certainly...but he isn't going to suddenly become a dog. I have a much more positive view of his future. His defense isn't so disgusting where you can discount the .399 OBP he brought to the table. The dude gives professional at bats and that is something sorely needed to put more pressure on opposing pitchers. Guys like Buxton and Rosario have shown a propensity to give away too easily for long stretches (especially Buxton, who I am actually more concerned about).. Arraez is like .100 points higher in OBP than both Rosario and Buxton. Food for the mind. For that reason, I am not worried about his lack of power (unlike in the case of Joe Mauer who was paid to be THE man) and I am not worried about his defense either. At least not until it becomes an real issue and it isn't. Not to me at least.

Don't expect much if that is all you are willing to part with. Those aren't the names anyone is going to come asking about

That isn't necessarily so. If you can get a guy who can pitch 7 innings consistently, is economical and can work fast there is lots of value in that because there is scarcity. To be clear, I am not advocating any particular move involving Rosario, but it is certainly worth a discussion. Outfield is a place we have what could be considered a surplus and we need pitching. Are we only to address this issue through free agency? Is every single player that comes through our system that is good or has potential conscripted to be a Twin for life? It might taking giving up something to get something. That means risk is involved, but that is what successful teams do.

Indignant is a good word, but then again so is truculence. I have not been in on these threads although I have read a lot of it. Rosario is the kind of player who will never be above the fray due to his cavalier approach. He has a strong offensive game and he has some tools to go along with it. He is durable and appears to be popular with his teammates. HOWEVER, there are some very reasonable criticisms that can be made about his game and for whatever reason this makes certain posters upset. I think maybe it is best to ignore the people who get upset at this juncture unless they want do develop a case against what has been said and I have yet to see anything much in that regard. We are getting to the point where a decision is going to need to be made with him. Is he a long term Twin? Not everyone can be or will be. This team (and its fanbase) really needs to stop believing that the players that come through the system are supposed to retire as Twins can get a special day. We need to start looking at players as assets and assets can be reallocated or sold off for other assets. With all the talk about us not getting pitching I am mystified by all this resistance to trading a guy like Buxton or Rosario. We have the most "depth" in the outfield right now. If we are not going to trade from those positions where do we trade from? I like Rosario, but my GOD.....can we have a grown up discussion without people being personally offended by the criticism that is drawn up? None of the actual criticism is controversial

I am not advocating to trade him, by the way. I was more interested in trading Buxton and if we didn't get Syndergaard because we thought Buxton was all that and a bag of chips then that was a big BIG mistake. I want to read different takes. I agree that Eddie is a reckless player in a lot of ways. I like what he brings to the table, though. However, at the same time, I would like to see people make their case. I am not interested in shuttting it down whereas these terse bitter responses seem to indicate the discussion should be shut down. WHY???? This is the hot stove. Any intelligent input should be good enough whether your or I like it or not

Is there something mean and nasty about that?

Nobody has "attacked" Rosario or is guilty of "bullying" here. These kinds of reactions are accusations that are not accurate. It is an attempt to marginalize the original post and if we are going to be a place centering on discussion that kind of thing should not be accepted. Instead of torpedoing the guy with an accusation, why not make your own point and try to have a conversation with the dude? Why insist there is some pernicious agenda against Eddie Rosario? Most of the stuff Nick said isn't even controversial. What gives? I think that is silly and I would rather have a discussion with all sides freely expressing themselves. I swear, some people are just dying to be "offended"

This is an "attack" in your estimation. He laid out a pretty fair narrative backed with lots of support. He dedicated a paragraph to how he likes the guy as well and this is your reaction? How about constructing and articulating your own view before you start with an accusation?

Bullying? Really? The overreaction to critical analysis never ceases to disappoint me here.

He is very good at striking a baseball and he is very confident in his ability to do so. As far as learning situational hitting, he has not

This right here. I recall an at bat during the playoffs and we got two runners on with none out in a tight game. Eddie came up, swing at the first pitch (which was well out of the strike zone) and he popped out. Totally took the wind of the sails. So yeah. He deserves criticism

It is like using Tom Brady as a benchmark for quarterbacks. For every Verlander there are literally hundreds of others every generation who’ve hung it up by the time they reach his age. I would not draw comparisons to him with any free agent arm out there now.

Jake is still an option. We can’t say they’ve moved on from him. Do you think Gibson is better?