Thread: Hot Stove Time Machine

Originally Posted by CDog

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

An outfielder just has to run fast and open his glove (a simplified take on it but mostly true).

Oh, and he doesn't have to close his glove at just the right time? Hmmmm???? C'mon, man, you're smarter than that!

Didn't you know, playing the outfield is simple...

Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave

What do those two things have anything to do with the topic at hand?

You're comparing hitting by a catcher and an OF and you're discounting the PR value in having Mauer, the #1 pick from the local area, up as soon as possible...impacting revenue and such with the local boy done good. Obviously he'd have to perform too, but they knew he'd do that. I'd think that'd be pretty obvious as to how it affects the topic at hand...

Originally Posted by ThePuck

Originally Posted by CDog

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

An outfielder just has to run fast and open his glove (a simplified take on it but mostly true).

Oh, and he doesn't have to close his glove at just the right time? Hmmmm???? C'mon, man, you're smarter than that!

Didn't you know, playing the outfield is simple...

It's actually quite hard.

But when compared to playing catcher, it's absurdly simple.

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

Originally Posted by ThePuck

Originally Posted by CDog

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

An outfielder just has to run fast and open his glove (a simplified take on it but mostly true).

Oh, and he doesn't have to close his glove at just the right time? Hmmmm???? C'mon, man, you're smarter than that!

Didn't you know, playing the outfield is simple...

It's actually quite hard.

But when compared to playing catcher, it's absurdly simple.

It's simple when compared to any other defensive position on the diamond, except for probably a pitcher, who can and often does get by with doing little or nothing after he releases the baseball toward the plate.

Fielding fly balls is childs play compared to fielding ground balls.

thanks for that summary, scottyB. as painful as it is to see, it is fun to see. it took some work on your part for sure, and i appreciate that, and i don't see you presenting it as "captain hindsight" at all, but as a treat for your fellow fans.

I think this is a valid question and I also think that history shows the Twins are far more conservative than EVERY other team at promoting their players. Those that argue are ignoring the facts - see this study from Baseball Prospectus: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...rticleid=13018. From 2001-2009 Twins led the major leagues in time spent in the minors among it's major leaguers... Twins Major Leaguers had an average of 200 more at bats in the minors than any other team in all of baseball. There were only 2 teams with more IP per pitcher in the minors than the Twins.

This goes beyond a minor anomaly, it's a trend. Now we can argue about whether the Twins are right and everyone else is wrong all you want, but the fact remains the Twins are very conservative at promoting players. The occasional exception with a Mauer or Puckett is just that an exception. I happen to think that you can harm a players growth by promoting him too slowly, as much as you can by promoting him too quickly. Trout may have been an exception based upon his minor league performance, but it would have been a rare one. With the recent lack of success coming out of the Twins minor league organization, isn't it time to re-think things and find a better way?

Now, can we put to rest the notion that the Twins don't promote their players slowly? Our do we add this to the statistical facts that so many want to ignore, like strikeouts don't matter as long as the pitcher gets outs?

Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave

Going back and playing captain hindsight on the freaking baseball draft is a futile endeavor. You act like guys like Josh Johnson etc were clearly "can't miss" guys and everybody but the Twins knew this, when it clearly isn't the case. Also shouldn't the other 31 teams be embarrassed they didn't Take Jason Kubel in the first 16 rounds or whatever?

Would it have been nice to get Trout? No doubt, but Gibson at least is looking like a potential very good #2, if you can grab that in the draft its a success. Hopefully Plouffe continues to produce, two years ago the 2004 draft class was looking like a complete lost cause, if Perkins ends up being a good closer and Plouffe at least a average starting 3B with pop it turns out to be somewhat of a win.

Pretty much this. Looking back and condemning the front office for every guy the draft they missed is incredibly foolish. None of these guys were can't miss guys. If they were, they'd all have gone 1 or 2 overall. FWIW, Albert Pujols was drafted in the 13th round. The greatest hitter in our generation was passed up 13 times by most teams. Think about that... It isn't rocket science. Not even close.

Originally Posted by whydidnt

I think this is a valid question and I also think that history shows the Twins are far more conservative than EVERY other team at promoting their players. Those that argue are ignoring the facts - see this study from Baseball Prospectus: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...rticleid=13018. From 2001-2009 Twins led the major leagues in time spent in the minors among it's major leaguers... Twins Major Leaguers had an average of 200 more at bats in the minors than any other team in all of baseball. There were only 2 teams with more IP per pitcher in the minors than the Twins.

This goes beyond a minor anomaly, it's a trend. Now we can argue about whether the Twins are right and everyone else is wrong all you want, but the fact remains the Twins are very conservative at promoting players. The occasional exception with a Mauer or Puckett is just that an exception. I happen to think that you can harm a players growth by promoting him too slowly, as much as you can by promoting him too quickly. Trout may have been an exception based upon his minor league performance, but it would have been a rare one. With the recent lack of success coming out of the Twins minor league organization, isn't it time to re-think things and find a better way?

Now, can we put to rest the notion that the Twins don't promote their players slowly? Our do we add this to the statistical facts that so many want to ignore, like strikeouts don't matter as long as the pitcher gets outs?

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I seem to remember them also leading the league in actually getting players to the majors during that same time span.... something else to think about before you simply condemn them for being conservative.

Originally Posted by ThePuck

Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave

Originally Posted by ThePuck

I don't believe he'd be in the majors if he had been drafted by us.

Well then you'd be wrong.

Sure I am

sure you are , the twins wouldnt keep a kid in the minors just so he didnt hit free agency till he was already in or past his prime ...

Originally Posted by old nurse

All sorts of "We could have had" players out there. Don't get too hard on the Twins drafting, Oakland hasn't drafted a player that latter had a + WAR in the majors since 2006. The players from 06 were all traded, too. The same for Boston with Bill James to help them. The Yankees have less in numbers produced than the Twins since 2000. The SABR people do no better than the money people. In 2005 Tampa Bay drafted Longoria and Hellickson. 2006, they got Price and Jennings. Not much help since then either.

Bringing it up again because they're so lauded in their development, but the Rays have not drafted a player that's made the major leagues since 2008, and they're the only team in baseball that can say that.

Originally Posted by ThePuck

Didn't you know, playing the outfield is simple...

So simple a caveman can do it:

johnny-damon-hair.jpg

Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave

Originally Posted by ThePuck

Joe Mauer was a #1 pick from the local area...and you're comparing numbers from a catcher as opposed to an OF.

What do those two things have anything to do with the topic at hand?

Yes, Mike Trout would be in the majors by now with the Twins (assuming he produced similarly in the minors-plus no injuries), it's really not that difficult of a concept. The Twins front office isn't the bumbling bunch of idiots that geniuses like Thrylos and others on this board try to make them out to be.

yes they are.... plain and simple

Originally Posted by whydidnt

I think this is a valid question and I also think that history shows the Twins are far more conservative than EVERY other team at promoting their players. Those that argue are ignoring the facts - see this study from Baseball Prospectus: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...rticleid=13018. From 2001-2009 Twins led the major leagues in time spent in the minors among it's major leaguers... Twins Major Leaguers had an average of 200 more at bats in the minors than any other team in all of baseball. There were only 2 teams with more IP per pitcher in the minors than the Twins.

This goes beyond a minor anomaly, it's a trend. Now we can argue about whether the Twins are right and everyone else is wrong all you want, but the fact remains the Twins are very conservative at promoting players. The occasional exception with a Mauer or Puckett is just that an exception. I happen to think that you can harm a players growth by promoting him too slowly, as much as you can by promoting him too quickly. Trout may have been an exception based upon his minor league performance, but it would have been a rare one. With the recent lack of success coming out of the Twins minor league organization, isn't it time to re-think things and find a better way?

Now, can we put to rest the notion that the Twins don't promote their players slowly? Our do we add this to the statistical facts that so many want to ignore, like strikeouts don't matter as long as the pitcher gets outs?

Interesting

So how about instead of a time machine theory how about spending some big money to get someone who can actually scout and evaluate players so we could draft better. Throw some insane money at the scouts of Tampa or San Francisco, just the first 2 teams I thought of that always seem to develop young talent.

Originally Posted by whydidnt

I think this is a valid question and I also think that history shows the Twins are far more conservative than EVERY other team at promoting their players. Those that argue are ignoring the facts - see this study from Baseball Prospectus: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...rticleid=13018. From 2001-2009 Twins led the major leagues in time spent in the minors among it's major leaguers... Twins Major Leaguers had an average of 200 more at bats in the minors than any other team in all of baseball. There were only 2 teams with more IP per pitcher in the minors than the Twins.

This goes beyond a minor anomaly, it's a trend. Now we can argue about whether the Twins are right and everyone else is wrong all you want, but the fact remains the Twins are very conservative at promoting players. The occasional exception with a Mauer or Puckett is just that an exception. I happen to think that you can harm a players growth by promoting him too slowly, as much as you can by promoting him too quickly. Trout may have been an exception based upon his minor league performance, but it would have been a rare one. With the recent lack of success coming out of the Twins minor league organization, isn't it time to re-think things and find a better way?

Now, can we put to rest the notion that the Twins don't promote their players slowly? Our do we add this to the statistical facts that so many want to ignore, like strikeouts don't matter as long as the pitcher gets outs?

So you have no evidence that slow is bad?

Originally Posted by johnnydakota

Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave

Originally Posted by ThePuck

Joe Mauer was a #1 pick from the local area...and you're comparing numbers from a catcher as opposed to an OF.

What do those two things have anything to do with the topic at hand?

Yes, Mike Trout would be in the majors by now with the Twins (assuming he produced similarly in the minors-plus no injuries), it's really not that difficult of a concept. The Twins front office isn't the bumbling bunch of idiots that geniuses like Thrylos and others on this board try to make them out to be.

yes they are.... plain and simple

You're the one who thinks that Ken Griffey jr would not have made the bigs until he was 25 if he was a member of the Twins, so you're opinion on this subject is pretty much worthless as far as I'm concerned.

Originally Posted by biggentleben

Originally Posted by old nurse

All sorts of "We could have had" players out there. Don't get too hard on the Twins drafting, Oakland hasn't drafted a player that latter had a + WAR in the majors since 2006. The players from 06 were all traded, too. The same for Boston with Bill James to help them. The Yankees have less in numbers produced than the Twins since 2000. The SABR people do no better than the money people. In 2005 Tampa Bay drafted Longoria and Hellickson. 2006, they got Price and Jennings. Not much help since then either.

Bringing it up again because they're so lauded in their development, but the Rays have not drafted a player that's made the major leagues since 2008, and they're the only team in baseball that can say that.

Originally Posted by darin617

So how about instead of a time machine theory how about spending some big money to get someone who can actually scout and evaluate players so we could draft better. Throw some insane money at the scouts of Tampa or San Francisco, just the first 2 teams I thought of that always seem to develop young talent.

See above, how would that help?

Originally Posted by ThePuck

Originally Posted by whydidnt

I think this is a valid question and I also think that history shows the Twins are far more conservative than EVERY other team at promoting their players. Those that argue are ignoring the facts - see this study from Baseball Prospectus: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...rticleid=13018.

Interesting

Do the Twins draft/sign more high school and international players than other organizations? That would skew the numbers up for time of service. Do the Twins stick longer with pitchers trying to make them starters before deciding to make them relievers? Those are factors that could make your numbers meaningless.

Arcia, the last three years:

.375/.424/.672, 14HR, 51 RBI
.291/.335/.531, 13HR, 51 RBI
.320/.388/.539, 17HR, 98 RBI.

Those numbers are pretty impressive...he's been in the minors for 5 years...he'll be 22 a month into the season...yet doubtful he'll be in the majors this year...at least not till September.

Originally Posted by old nurse

Do the Twins draft/sign more high school and international players than other organizations? That would skew the numbers up for time of service. Do the Twins stick longer with pitchers trying to make them starters before deciding to make them relievers? Those are factors that could make your numbers meaningless.

The study was over 10 years, not just a year or two, and the end conclusion agrees with what many respected sites such as BP, Fangraphs, etc. have commented on from time to time which is that the Twins are slow to promote players.If you want to argue with facts feel free, but in this case the facts are what they are. Yes, the items you mention could impact how long a guy is in the minors, but the fact remains guys stay in the minors longer with the Twins than any other team in the league and it's not even close. Other teams also draft high schooler's etc.

Like I mentioned, we can argue if it's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's still a thing, and seems like a strange thing to try and twist or debate. If all you want to do is sit here and say the Twins organization is always right and never makes a mistake, I wonder why you bother responding to a thread that asks questions such asthis? Seems your mind is already made up, even when statistical reality is presented to you.

Further if you think the reason is the Twins draft more young or international players, how about showing some evidence to that fact. Otherwise, hard to say the article I referred to is meaningless. You could do that with ANY statistic, Mauer hit .300 last year, yea but maybe he only faced lousy pitchers, must be a meaningless stat since you didn't compare every pitcher he faced to the rest of what every hitter faced, see where this goes?