I tried to study the impact of the batting order change using ZIPS projections. I was a little disappointed in the results.

I used the average plate appearances by batting order position in the AL last year. The second spot had 103 more plate appearances on average than the 8th spot. That made sense as it is close to 6x18.

I then compared a Dozier with 735 plate appearances to a Dozier with 632 plate appearances. (Yes... I know he is not going to play 162 games and neither are any of the others but this should give me the extreme.)

I added to Dozier's 632 plate appearances all of the increases of the other 6 players using yesterday's batting order to compare with Dozier in the 2 hole.

Using ZIPS

Dozier batting 2nd 247/349/300
Dozier 8th (plus others) 249/359/305

This difference over that many plate appearances amounts to about 5 runs.

Darn! I expected more.

Why was the change so small?

The batting average hardly changes because six of the guys getting more at bats (Willingham, Plouffe, Doumit and Parmelee) are projected to have about the same average as Dozier. Mauer's extra 18 plate appearances helps some but not much in the context of 735 plate appearances.

I know the study has flaws

- If Dozier isn't hitting second, a few less outs will be made in that spot and overall the team should have a few more plate appearances on the season. That can't account for a significant change.

- I used ZIPS.

2013 ZiPS Projections ? Minnesota Twins | FanGraphs Baseball

Maybe ZIPS does not project the Twins hitters well or over projects Dozier.

- It isn't realistic that the best hitters will play 162 games. They will be replaced by guys that are not much different than Dozier and reduce the impact of the extra at bats.

I am disappointed. I thought I would see a difference of over 20 runs and then scale it back due to playing time. It didn't happen.

There are many studies written about optimizing a batting order. A well optimized lineup is shown to be better than a poorly optimized order. Moving just one guy in the context on this team and their ZIPS projections didn't make difference I expected. I will take the 5 or so runs though.

It will be interesting to watch three teams as they try to pull themselves out of the basement. The Twins, Cubs and and Astros all have set out different path towards success. They also represent the three very different markets and revenue streams.


The Cubs have purged salaries in trades and then are putting money back in for next year. They will probably not match last year's payroll, but they will spend the most of the three. They also have the most revenue. Will the additions be enough or will they be more like the Mets of the last 4 years?


The Astros are all in the rebuild process. They have two players over 30 (Pena and Veras). In 2012, they hired Mike Fast and Kevin Goldstein. Their farm system had been one of the weakest for years. Keith Law has said that their farm system took a hug leap forward, the largest 6 month jump of any team. They go into this season without hope of approaching 90 wins, but they have set a clear direction. Will they be able to rebuild the team through the farm system?


Like the Astros, the Twins have rebuilt their farm system in the last year. The draft class combined with the recent trades puts them in a much stronger position. Like the Cubs, they have more decline phase players on the roster. The Twins may have more over 30 players on their opening day roster than the Cubs. In order to help rebuild the system, the Twins traded off younger assets rather than older. That was out of necessity. The Twins have spent budget on decline phase players hoping to compete in the weak central. Can the Twins be successful at doing both?


Three different markets. Three different paths. Which leads to sustained success?

In the current era of baseball it doesn't make sense to quantify pitchers as #X starter. It used to be that #1 or #2 starters would get more starts because they would skip over guys at the back end of the rotation. I think Verlander and the Tigers are the only team that did that with any consistency.

Virtually all teams roll their starters so that all slots get about the same number of starts. Even when the opportunity at the all star break comes to skip some starts at the back end, those opportunities aren't often taken. Last year the Twins took the opportunity to give Diamond a longer rest at the all star break taking away a start rather than getting an extra.

It is more important to look at the staff's overall contribution in terms of WAR as a whole. Instead of a #4 starter, it would be better to quantify a starter as a 2 WAR starter or a 1 WAR starter. The #4 no longer has any value. The pitcher is not going to get their starts skipped.

Note: Top starters in the playoffs often do get an extra start and rotations are dropped to 4 pitchers.

There were 2268 starts last year in the AL. The ERA for those starts was 4.40. That included 95 pitches in 5.9 innings. Looking at AL pitchers who pitched the full season and had that profile you will find the league average pitcher contributes just less than 2 WAR over a full season.

If the Twins can get 5 guys to give them 2 WAR they will far exceed the total of 3 WAR the starters earned last year.

Let's look at the Twins recent acquisitions.

According to fangraphs, from 2008-2011 Mike Pelfrey had 8.1 WAR over 4 seasons. If he can do 2 WAR for the Twins he will be well worth the contract.

Vance Worley had 4.3 WAR over the last two seasons. It seems reasonable to project 2 WAR from him.

Kevin Correia was worth 0.9 WAR last year and that was his best season in the last three. At his age, it doesn't seem likely he will produce more than 1 WAR. If he does achieve 1 WAR, he will be worth about the
level of his contract.

Of the returning staff, only Scott Diamond had more than 2 WAR (2.6) as a starter.

Instead of debating pitcher number, the Twins should be striving towards putting together a league average pitching staff that contributes about 10 WAR. That alone is a 7 game improvement.

I used fangraphs WAR calculation for this article.

"I don’t say this about many decisions, but starting Doumit at catcher might be a fireable offense. In 60 games at catcher for Pittsburgh in 2011, his framing cost the Pirates 20 runs. In 59 games for Minnesota in 2012, his framing cost the Twins 21 runs. All told, his framing has subtracted 98 runs over the past five seasons, on top of the damage from the other things he does poorly behind the plate, which wipes out his offensive value."

Ben Lindbergh, Baseball Prospectus

Read the article at http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=18863

It has been difficult on this site to state concerns about Doumit and the Twins extending him. In a debate last week, I was told 28-29 teams would love to have Doumit and he was more valuable than ever.

Let's look at two teams attempt to fill out a bench.

Last fall the Twins and Rays were both seeking catching help. The Rays signed Jose Molina and the Twins signed Ryan Doumit.

The Rays signed Molina for 1.5 million and picked up his option for 2013 at 1.5 (also reported 1.8) million. The Twins have invested 10 million in Doumit over three years.

For several years catching performance has been evaluated using pitch f/x. The results seem to be reliable as the catchers who perform at the top or bottom of the list remain relatively stable.

This information and study by Mike Fast was available to both teams. Aaron Gleeman referenced it at the time of the Doumit signing.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...rticleid=15093

Jose Molina was the best catcher at saving runs through framing pitches over a 5 year period. Ryan Doumit was at the bottom of the list. They were at the extremes both in total and average per 120 games.

How did it work out for both clubs?

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/a/18896

If the metric is accurate, Molina saved his team 50 runs in 80 games. Doumit cost the Twins 21 runs in 59 games. Molina's value is all defense but those 50 runs saved represent 5 wins. Doumits -21 represents a loss of 2 wins and completely wipes out his contribution to the team as a hitter. Molina and Doumit took there familiar positions at the top and bottom of the list. A result that could have been easily projected.

28-29 teams would love to have Doumit? Must be everyone except the Rays.

It couldn't be more clear that the Twins evaluation differs greatly from the Rays. One other quote from the first article about the Twins management and pitch f/x

"...Ryan Doumit, the patron saint of poor receivers.Except that Doumit hasn’t exactly been blacklisted behind the plate: in fact, he caught more innings for Minnesota in 2012 than he did as a Pirate the season before. Well, okay, you might say, but that was the Twins, the one team you could almost persuade yourself hasn’t heard about PITCHf/x yet. (“Wait, you mean all this time all of our pitchers were throwing really slowly?”)

I am assuming you stopped reading this a long time ago if you join the Twins management in skepticism about pitch f/x.

If not, what should the Twins do about Doumit?

Doumit's only value as a catcher is on someone's fantasy baseball team. In that realm, Molina isn't even an afterthought.

Doumit does have value. He can platoon at DH and pinch hit. While I question whether that role merits an extension, the real concern is the Twins management understanding of the impact of defense on wins. The Twins should not enter the season with any plan of using Doumit as a catcher. Anything more than a late inning emergency replacement can not be justified. Our young and struggling pitching staff must be given any edge the Twins can provide.

There has been much discussion about the Twins carrying 5 catchers. It is really 4 if Doumit is rightly moved into a Jim Thome role. It is 3 if Butera does not return. One of the three, Pinto, is not near ready for the majors. That leaves Mauer and Herrmann.

The bigger question must be asked about the Twins management. From the outside, it seems like they are taking a long time to embrace some of the metrics of the last decade.

One roster decision about a back up catcher speaks volumes about the two teams. One team commits 3 million to get two years of top ranked defense. The other commits 10 million over three years for an above average bat without a position.

Let's hope the Twins are right and the metrics of the last decade are poor indicators of how to build a roster and win ball games.

The early ZIPS projections were reported midweek and the AL Central has sobering information for the Twins.

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/hotst...teams-2013-mlb

Note: Unfortunately, you will need an insider account to access the link above.

The Twins in their construction are projected for 66 wins and 5th place in the AL Central. Entering the 2012 season they had a projected 70 win team from ZIPS so in the ZIPS lens the Twins have dropped back some.

Clearly, the poor starting rotation has a significant impact on the performance. Scott Diamond and his poor k/9 ratio is the number 1 starter projected for a 4.85 ERA.

Gleeman and the Geek had an interesting debate last week about indicators and performance. Runs given up is what matters. However runs given up in 2012 is not the best indicator of runs given up in 2013. Strikeout, walk, ground ball and home run rates are better indicators for 2013.

Diamond's indicators and his three year past shows that ZIPS expects a significant regression.

The projections have a hard time even finding a 5th starter listing Duensing but giving him an innings number and projection of a reliever/spot starter. The Twins can gain some ground by replacing Blackburn's and DeVries' projection. Replacing Blackburn and DeVries with league average performance will help significantly. Maybe even 6-8 wins. That only gets them to 74.

The real concern has to be projections for the Twins offense.

Willingham, Doumit, Mauer, Morneau and Span are all projected to regress. Why? All five had a relatively healthy season compared to previous and that can not be expected again. Four of the five are in their 30s. In the steroid era, some players kept their peak performance well into their 30s. That is not likely the case.

ZIPS OPS projections for these 5

Willingham .890 to .819
Mauer .861 to .812
Morneau .773 to .767
Doumit .781 to .722
Span .738 to .700

Morneau's is not a mathematically significant drop, but it also isn't a return to his previous level and mediocre play for a 1B.

ZIPS projections are based on 3-4 years of previous data based on the player's age. The Twins can choose to ignore them. Somehow they need to convince the faithful that they can add three pitchers and all will be OK. It is necessary for ticket sales.

I would suggest that the Twins can not be fixed for 2013. The only long term fix is to repair the minor league system.

How do they turn it around?

1) Sign no one to a multiyear contract that will commit the Twins beyond their age 32 season.

2) Trade off declining assets and build the system. Trading Willingham is a must. He is owed 14 million (2 years). He can not be put in LF any longer. He is unlikely to be more valuable than he is this off season. Someone will take on all 14 million and give the Twins prospects

3) Similarly Morneau has 14 million left over 1 year. The Twins should trade him and "buy" prospects in the form of picking up a significant portion of his contract.

4) Do not offer extensions that commits the Twins to anyone beyond their age 32 season. That means pay Burton his due this year and do not extend him beyond 2013. Hopefully he is a tradeable asset midseason.

http://twinsdaily.com/entry.php?1968...Old-Set-Up-Man

5) Does Doumit have any value in a trade? Is it reasonable to think his 2014 season will be anything like his 2012 season?

http://twinsdaily.com/entry.php?1390...er-in-Baseball

6) Wait out the free agent season. Although Ryan would disagree, there are plenty of starting pitchers on the market. Some will be left with few suitors The Twins should be able to sign some of them to a 1 year deal. If the deal is one year, age should not be a factor.

It is critical that they no longer sign decline phase players to multiyear contracts. They did it in the 90s with no success. The 1997-1998 teams were among the oldest Twin rosters.

The 2012 roster is comparable to those of 98-99. Doing so will only continue the cycle of mediocrity.

How do they turn it around?

Go young. Build the system.

They did it in 1982. The average batter and pitcher age were both lowest in organization history.

It paid off.

They did it again in 1999. Average batter age dropped 3 years and average pitcher age dropped 2.4 from 1998.

Paid off again.

Can you wait for the pay off? Would you rather be mediocre?

I fear the Twins management doesn't trust the ticket buying public to accept the growing pains of building the system. They will sign decline phase players to multiyear contracts to satisfy the fans and drive ticket sales.

This article will be written again next year as it was last year.

http://twinsdaily.com/entry.php?332-...-of-mediocrity

A common thought among baseball fans like...

"Since there are a larger number of starting pitchers on the free agent market, it is good for my team because we need pitching"

I would like to challenge that argument. I do believe a larger market can be an advantage for some teams. I don't believe that a larger market can be good for every team that needs pitching. Many teams need pitching. If the market is an advantage for some, doesn't it need to be a disadvantage for others?

In a large market both of these elements are in play...

1) There are more free agent pitchers available. Sounds good for teams like the Twins that have openings.

2) More teams have opening in their rotation. Sounds bad for a team like the Twins as their is more competition in the market.

The starting pitching environment really remains constant.

1) The demand does not change from year to year. The number of jobs for starting pitchers is a constant.

2) The supply may change, but it can not be measured by counting the free agent pitchers. An accounting of all major league pitchers would be necessary. Is there an influx into the market of new pitchers that exceeds the number of starters no longer effective and exiting the market?

I think it is more likely that the market will not help the Twins. With more buyers in the market, teams have to do something to become more attractive. How else attract the more desirable free agents?

How can the Twins make themselves more attractive?

These might be factors.

- Dollars offered
- Years offered
- A teams record the previous season
- The coaching staff and particularly pitching coach
- The medical staff
- Geographical location
- Opportunities for endorsements
- Facilities

Would any objective look at these factors come to the conclusion that the Twins are an attractive place to sign as a free agent pitcher?

I wouldn't think so.

I think one could argue that the large number of job openings will actually be a detriment to the Twins ability to address pitching through free agency.

I think they will have two options.

1) Sign the less desirable pitchers who are in decline and on the way out of the market.

2) Overpay for middling free agents risking crippling contract obligations in the future.

So which teams will benefit from a larger market of starting pitching?

We might look at previous years of large markets and see which teams came out ahead. That may be difficult to study due to sample size.

We might try to project whether there will be an increase in pitching supply. That is not as simple as counting free agents, but it is the only way to truly measure the market.

I was surprised at the suggestion earlier that the Twins should consider extending Burton. They have him locked up next year. In two years he will be 33. On the other hand, he has been very valuable this year.

My first thought was it was a horrible idea. Take his season next year at the bargain level. Don't buy his 33 year old season now! That was clearly the minority opinion.

I went to Baseball Reference for clarity. I searched for every season pitched by a 31 year old set up man from 2000-2010. I sought pitchers with a workload of at least 60 games. I eliminated closers as they have a different work load. I eliminated guys with ERAs over 4 as most were on their way out of baseball. I found 28 pitchers. I eliminated pitchers jailed for attempted murder in their home country and was down to 27.

This is their aggregate data in their 31 through 33 year old season.

Age	W	L	ERA	G	GS	SV	IP	H	R	ER	HR	BB	IBB	SO	BF	WHIP	H/9	HR/9	BB/9	SO/9	SO/BB
31	137	109	3.01	1902	0	59	1994	1687	727	666	166	711	99	1654	8256	1.20	7.6	0.7	3.2	7.5	2.3
32	97	95	3.95	1501	32	69	1622	1578	777	711	172	625	94	1326	7019	1.36	8.8	1.0	3.5	7.4	2.1
33	72	77	4.12	979	39	32	1199	1206	592	548	128	433	55	869	5164	1.37	9.1	1.0	3.3	6.5	2.0

The data per pitcher

Age	W	L	ERA	G	GS	SV	IP	H	R	ER	HR	BB	IBB	SO	BF	WHIP	H/9	HR/9	BB/9	SO/9	SO/BB
31	5	4	3.01	70	0	2	74	62	27	25	6	26	4	61	306	1.20	7.6	0.7	3.2	7.5	2.3
32	4	4	3.95	56	1	3	60	58	29	26	6	23	3	49	260	1.36	8.8	1.0	3.5	7.4	2.1
33	3	3	4.12	36	1	1	44	45	22	20	5	16	2	32	191	1.37	9.1	1.0	3.3	6.5	2.0

The drop in ERA is dramatic at 32. The drop in innings is dramatic at 33. Look at he drop in strikeouts.

At age 33, 7 of the 27 pitched 60 games with an ERA under 4. Add one guy who became a starter to make 8 effective pitchers. Braden Looper at age 33 started 33 games and pitched 199 innings skewing the data further. Take him out and the average number of innings pitched falls to 38.

I hope the Twins management is wise enough to keep his marvelous season in perspective. The likelihood of decline is far too great to sign him to an extension when he is already locked up next year.

Isn't the risk of signing him greater than the risk of losing him at age 33?

I think everyone would agree that the Twins greatest need is starting pitching.

In order to get major league starting pitching, the Twins probably need to offer starting pitching prospects. Look at all of the Oakland deals where they traded established pitching for pitching prospects. The Twins don't have starting pitching prospects to offer.

Conversely, the most attractive way to get starting pitching prospects is to trade major league ready starting pitching. Twins certainly don't have starters to offer.

So what to do with Span (or Willingham, Morneau, Doumit)?

By 2014 an outfield of Arcia, Revere and Hicks can be foreseen. Parmelee can be projected to help next year. Willingham, Morneau and Doumit will be in decline,

The Twins probably can't get significant starting pitching for them. Maybe they can fill another need.

Middle infield is a need.

The Pirates are an example of a possible trade partner. This is assuming that the Pirates believe in Brock Holt and also realize that his only position is 2B.

A parallel trade that might make sense to both teams could be Span for Neil Walker. I suppose Revere for Holt is also a parallel trade of position players at a similar age.

The Twins might spend the entire off season trying to trade position players for pitching and come up empty. They came up empty attempting to get pitching this summer. Maybe they need to adjust the target and try to fill a different need.

Thinking back on the trade in the context of the market, I do think the new CBA played a part in depressing this year's trade market. An additional wild card team should have led to more buyers. I am not so certain it did.

At the time Liriano as traded, I was interested to see what kinds of deals were made for starting pitchers on deadline day. After the Liriano deal, two starting pitchers were traded. That surprised me. I expected more. It leads me to wonder how many teams were so interested in starting pitching that they were willing to part with top prospects. Pitchers more valuable than Liriano were left on the table.

I look at the two deals an I wonder if Liriano could have been substituted in either.

Paul Maholm deal- Liriano has better stuff, but I don't think his stuff is enough. Maholm has been consistently solid over his last 50 starts. He is not a rental and has a reasonable option for 2013. Had the Twins waited, I don't think the Braves would have given the Twins the same package they sent the Cubs.

Dempster deal- A rental like Liriano, but performing much better. Given the choice, I think Texas would have more confidence in Dempster. They really didn't give up much. A B- infield prospect and a C pitching prospect. Hendricks looks a lot like a typical back of the rotation Twin pitcher with control. He is 8 months younger than Hernandez. He is also right handed and in A-Ball. He didn't enter the season in the Ranger top 30 but is likely there now.

It does not appear that better deals were available had the Twins waited.

Another aspect I wanted to look at is what would it take to get a Zack Wheeler type prospect at the trade deadline. I am not sure any Wheeler's were traded this year. The best of the pitching prospects also come with some concerns.

Jacob Turner - Entered the season an A- prospect but his arm troubles and K rate are concerns. It took Anibal Sanchez to get him. The Twins don't have anyone like Sanchez to trade so this was not a possibility.

Nate Eovaldi - Not Zack Wheeler but a B pitching prospect. It took Hanley Ramirez.

John Hellweg and Ariel Pena - These are the pitchers in the Zach Grienke deal. B-/C+ prospects. Hellweg has the arm but lacks in performance. Born in 1988, he is old for a top prospect just hitting AA.

Arodys Vizcaíno - Great prospect and huge injury concerns. Second arm injury leads him to Tommy John surgery. I would love for the Twins to have had the opportunity to roll the dice with him. However, I don't think Liriano has near the value of Maholm when you look at performance and next year's contract situation. Maybe a deal of Span and Liriano could brought Arodys Vizcaíno, but that is a lot to give up for such an injury risk. It is very likely that he will return as a reliever.

Kyle Hendricks - Wrote about him above. A command and control pitcher from Dartmouth. It took Dempster to get him.

J.C. Sulbaran - Noteworthy because this is the guy the Reds were willing to deal. Low 90s fastball curve and changeup. He is in AA this year and continues to struggle with control. Strikeout numbers look good. His upside made him an interesting prospect entering the season (BBA #12 Reds, Sickels C+). If Sulbaran was the key offering from the Reds in a Span deal, would you have traded Span.

We do know that these starting pitchers were available since they were ultimately moved.

Which pitcher could the Twins have acquired?

I think they could have acquired Sulbaran in a deal for Span. They would have received other pieces but I think this is the best starting prospect the Reds were willing to part with.

How about Vizcaino? Is Liriano close enough to Maholm that they could see Liriano meeting their needs? Certainly not alone. Would a package of Span and Liriano been enough? Maybe. But that's a lot to give up for an injured Vizcaino with concerns about whether he will hold up as a starter.

Starting pitching prospects have always carried the most value. In the context of the new CBA, acquiring them at the trade deadline has become more difficult. The Twins best hope is to find and develop a few more Diamonds among the C prospects available. No easy task.

The Twins are a team of many needs.

Doumit fills the need of back up catcher and emergency RF. He hits well for a catcher, but at best adequately for a DH or RF. He doesn't defend well at either spot. As he declines, his best role will be back up catcher and pinch hitter. He will do that job well. He will be a good guy in the club house.

Essentially by signing him now, they have begun the winter process of rebuilding this team through free agency. Is this the best first step? Is this one of the key needs to be addressed? Is he a major part of your off season blueprint?

Another team might have chosen a different direction. They might have tried to fill this need by using Butera and Parmelee. This might free a few million more to use towards overpaying a free agent pitcher or middle infielder. They might have chosen to fill out the bench from the free agent bargain bin at catcher taking what is left as spring approaches. Worst case, Butera and Herrmann are around.

Go back to last winter. Why not take money spent on Doumit, Carroll and Marquis and try to sign Edwin Jackson instead? The other spots would need to be filled with near league minimum guys. Yes, we would be left with Alexi Casilla playing more. We might get to see what Parmelee can do with playing time. Maybe Sean Burroughs would still be on the bench. Butera would have more at bats or we could have signed a back up option like Dioner Navarro.

Jamey Carroll and Ryan Doumit are great guys to have in the clubhouse. They have value. They are also the kinds of respectable players you always find on losing teams. The Twins may have the best back up catcher in baseball going into 2013. I simply question whether this should have been the Twins top priority.

This Twins team is not a playoff team. That shouldn't be a surprise. The over under 73 wins looks generous now. They are not 15 million dollars or a serviceable reliever away from 90 wins.

At some point this season it will be time to invest playing time in the future in spite of the growing pains. As I chose a date to put in the headline, I tried to account for the "Super Two" arbitration deadline. There will be some players with 2+ years of service time that will be eligible for arbitration following the 2014 season. The deadline is always a moving target. This year it is harder to project since the threshold changed from 17% to 22% in the new CBA. It probably has shifted from June to sometime in July... hence the arbitrary July 4 date above.

I would like to see the Twins invest playing time in the future. My roster...

Starters

Hendriks, Blackburn, Liriano, Diamond, Swarzak

Bullpen,

Capps, Perkins, Burton, Slama, Waldrop, Burnett, Duensing

Catcher

Mauer, Doumit

Infield

Morneau, Parmelee, Plouffe, Valencia, Dozier, Casilla

Outfield

Willingham, Span, Benson, Revere, Thomas


Who's out?

Burroughs, Gray, Maloney can be outrighted

Pavano, Marquis, and Carroll can be traded. We would get very little in return. I was tempted to add Capps to this list and add Guerra to the roster. Guerra certainly needs to get to AAA soon.

The Twins should seriously listen to offers for Liriano, Willingham, Doumit and Morneau.

The roster as constructed is short on middle infielders and has too many outfielders. Thomas can easily join the outright list .

The Twins will win fewer games with this roster. In return, we may get some answers to questions for 2013.

Can Dozier provide at least average defense at the SS position? If not, we need to address SS in the winter and move him to 2B.

Does Plouffe's bat play well anywhere? I don't think it plays well at corner OF. I would like to see him at 2B and 3B. Probably not going to work either. This is the year to find out.

How will Benson adjust to major league pitching? He won't solve it this year. He will probably need 1000 PA's before he can be counted on with the bat. Let's start banking some of the 1000 this year.

Can we find hope in the starting rotation? I can't see any solutions. I don't think Diamond is a solution and maybe another name will surface by July. I do think Pavano and Marquis have little left. Moving them now means I won't see them in 2013.

The bullpen is a mess too. Too early to tell which if any will be valuable members of a 2013 pen. I arbitrarily chose Burton to hang around. Maybe by July someone will rise from the cast offs they signed this winter.

Most importantly, I do not want to enter the off season wondering if Dozier can play SS. I want to know if Plouffe has value to a major league team. I want to see if there is any piece to a starting rotation that we can count on next year. I want some younger players to start taking their major league lumps soon.

I am excited to see Chris Parmelee this year. I look forward to seeing Joe Benson and Brian Dozier. I want to see how Trevor Plouffe and Ben Revere progress. I also know they are not ready. At some point this season someone will have written, they called him up to soon because they weren't ready.

The reality is that very few are ready. Most cannot get ready for the majors without struggle at the level first. So expect the struggle. Be patient. The plate appearances invested this year will likely have a pay off down the road.

Recall how some previous Twins grew towards all star level and seasons worthy of MVP votes.

Justin Morneau was 24 in his first full season as a Twin. He had a slash line of 239/304/437 that season with an OPS+ of 93. He had playing time the previous two seasons and was had better results at 23 and weaker results at 22. It is a credit to the Twins and Gardenhire that they stuck with him through that season as a 24 year old.

Torii Hunter received significant playing time at age 23 and 24 combining for 780 plate appearances. His slash line over those two seasons was 267/313/393 with an OPS+ of 76. His defense probably kept him in the lineup but with the investment in at bats he became a very good hitter. The Twins patience paid off.

Michael Cuddyer did not have an OPS+ > 100 season until age 27. What was the Twins investment? Parts of 5 playing seasons. Trying him at 3B and 2B before he found a home in RF. 1109 plate appearances with a slash line of 260/330/428 and an OPS+ of 97.

Joe Mauer has never had a season with an OPS+ of below 100. He was an all star and received MVP votes at age 23. The Twins didn't need to invest at bats in him. They did invest a good deal of their budget. You expect guys drafted at the top of the first round to be ready.

Jason Kubel qualifies to make the list receiving MVP votes in 2009. He had the knee injury which certainly impacted his 24 year old slash line of 241/279/386 with an OPS+ of 72 at age 24. It is possible one of our young players will have a start like this. It doesn't mean that they will not be productive major league players.

Denard Span has not been an all star or receive MVP votes but he is worthy of mention. His was very good in his rookie year with an OPS+ of 122 and followed it up with an OPS+ of 114.

Delmon Young is another guy drafted at the top of the first round. Not sure he should be on this list since I was looking for guys that came up with the Twins. Like Mauer, he came up very young and experienced some success. Unlike Mauer, he never really progressed and through age 25 and almost 3000 plate appearances sits at a career OPS+ of 100. When mixed with his fielding, he has not been a useful player most seasons. He did have one outstanding 2010 season. The Rays assessed that he was one player not worthy of investing in.

The Rays did benefit from the Twins investment in Jason Bartlett. He was an all star and received MVP votes with them. As a Twins through age 26 and parts of three seasons, he had an OPS+ of 86 (278/342/364) in 572 plate appearances. He had a small window of success and wasn't a full time starter until age 27.

What's the point?

- We need to be patient and expect to see below league average performance from our young players. Below average performance this year does not mean they can not attain all star level.

- In order to be "ready" to contribute, major league at bats must be invested.

Some thoughts on players...

This is a key year for Valencia. Will he take a step up towards being recognized among the better 3B's in the AL?

Dozier reminds me of Bartlett. I don't think the Twins threw Bartlett out their early enough. I hope Dozier is a regular by June 1.

Benson (and Hicks) have some parallels to Hunter. We may need to be particularly patient with their progress and hopefully the defense will offset inconsistent offense when they get their chance.

Not sure about Plouffe. Some parallels to Cuddyer but not near the performance in the minor leagues. Is he worthy of investment?

Chris Parmelee has all of our hopes up. Not sure if he parallels well with anyone (maybe Kubel). It could be 2014 before we know if he can be among the better RF's or 1B's in the AL.

Are you willing to wait?

Baker doesn't appear close to ready. Marquis is not in camp. Is it possible that both will not be in the rotation as the Twins break camp?

Who is in line to get those starts? Any signs of the Twins stretching out some of the players pegged for a relief role?

What is the succession order?

Liam Hendriks
Anthony Swarzak
Brian Duensing
Matt Maloney
Jeff Manship

Seth may be able to help with this... what is the projected starting rotation at Rochester? How close are PJ Walters and Luke French to a Twin uniform?

I know there was talk of scanning the waiver wire for reserve shortstop help. Pitching might be the greater need.

I love this site. Thanks guys! I enjoy reading the thoughts and projections for the opening roster. However, I cringe every time I see anyone use spring data in support of a player making a roster.

All winter long, I listened to Gleeman and the Geek remind me that Parmelee's 86 plate appeaeances last fall were not predictive of the future. They are essentially correct. There have been some significant studies about sample size and at that size we might start learning something about contact rate. It is also true that every sample means something. I am very certain that Drew Butera will never have an 86 PA stretch that matches Parmelee's OPS over that stretch. That it means he is almost certainly a better hitter than Drew Butera is not really useful. We knew that from the AA data.

The spring data is essentially useless and shouldn't be used in support of a player making a roster or not. If the Twins assess that Michael Hollimon belongs on the opening day roster, they must not base it on his data from a few spring games. We shouldn't either.

Last spring, Danny Rams hit .500. Steve Holm .400. Delmon Young had an OPS of 1066 (he is doing quite well this spring also). Nishioka hit .345. Dusty Hughes pitched 12 scoreless innings. Matt Capps' ERA was also 0.00. This data was just as useless last year as any of the incomplete spring data we are using this year.

So if it's is useless, how do we join in projecting a roster for the Twins? How do the Twins make decisions? I hope they throw away the statistics this spring as they make decision about the roster. If not we may end up with a Dusty Hughes in the bullpen.

As I read posts about the decisions the Twins have made and predictions about their roster, I wonder if they are in danger of entering a cycle of mediocrity. They have been there before, signing older players on the down side of their careers with the thought they would be the necessary difference in the coming season. Ultimately they were not and the Twins entered the following season with the same holes and questions.

Of course there are many motivators for signing the veterans. Sometimes they are signed to appease the fans and increase season ticket sales. If the Twins had not made any moves this winter, ticket sales would be down even further. It seems that the Royals were in this cycle for many years, but now are coming out of it. The Mariners may still be in the cycle as they continue to pour at bats into Chone Figgins.

As I look at this roster, I wonder if they have a reasonable chance of 90+ wins and a playoff spot. If so, signing veterans like Carroll, Marquis, Doumit and Willingham will have been money well spent. Is that season really reasonable? It would certainly be one historic turn around from 63 wins. Is it more reasonable to think these players were signed to give us a chance at 84 wins while appeasing some fans and increasing ticket sales? Will any of these players be on the next Twins team that wins a playoff game?

I, for one, do not need to be appeased. Given the likelihood of mediocrity this year, I would prefer they search for the next Jamey Carroll or Nick Punto rather than sign one on the down side. I appreciate that they are looking for the next Todd Coffey or Matt Guerrier rather than sign a mid 30's version. Doumit? He is signed for one year. Would we have been better off finding out if Parmelee is a major leaguer? Should we see if we Towles is an answer as a reserve catcher? Marquis? I guess if he finds success, we have a chip to trade midseason. What if these signings are just enough to wonder if we are buyers or sellers? Even last year in a 63 win season, we were potential buyers mid July.

Following a blue print of going with youth has risks. Fans will be angered when the it appears the only motivation is the budget. Ticket sales would be down further as signing veterans generates interest even though those veterans are on the down side. This blue print also has benefits. Moving up to the major leagues requires adjustment through struggles for most players. The Royals will benefit from the major league time given to Moustakis and Duffy. The Twins could invest time into Dozier, Parmelee and Benson. You will argue they are not ready. I concede they are not ready to contribute significantly to a 90 win team. I do think they will be more ready in 2013 with significant major league at bats this year.

What do you think? Are the Twins making decisions that will lead to a cycle of mediocrity? Is it reasonable that the players they signed this off season will be part of the next Twin team that wins a playoff game?