82 thoughts on “Where Did It Go Wrong? Playing the Blame Game”

1. I agree that Bill Smith gets a lot of the blame. I know he left three years ago, but it takes a lot less time to destroy something than it does to build it, especially if you're not going to sign major free agents.

   I do think, though, that the Twins haven't really developed talent once it's gotten to the major leagues. It seems like some responsibility for that ought to fall on Gardy. The best of the home-grown talent, at least on the offensive side, is probably Dozier, and while he's been okay he really hasn't been anything great. Plouffe hasn't developed at all. Parmelee hasn't performed like we expected. Arcia doesn't seem to be getting better, although he's still young. Pinto didn't do much, although it was only half a season. Hicks hasn't developed at all yet, and in fact seems to have gone backward.

   It could, of course, be argued that none of these guys was ever that good in the first place. That could be true. Some of them weren't all that great in the minors, either. Still, when I look around the diamond, I don't see where any of these guys are getting any better after they get to Minnesota.

   You're right, change for the sake of change is dangerous. However, so is standing pat for the sake of standing pat. It's true that a little patience goes a long way, but it's also true that too much patience goes absolutely nowhere. I would not be particularly upset if we said good-bye to Gardy at the end of the season, especially if, as you suggest, it's to hire Paul Molitor.

   1. A couple thoughts on player development: Most of the young players the Twins have now were never considered high prospects. Arcia was probably the best and he was never higher than 41st ranked overall, mainly due to his defense and position value. However, Arcia had a league-average OPS last year at age 22, which is pretty impressive. I think his injury this year really set him back, but I think he's starting to come out of it.

      Dozier was never ranked in the top 100 and is an above average hitter and fielder and has improved his OPS each season. Plouffe was considered a disappointment as a former first-round pick but has developed into a league-average hitter and has improved his defense at third, although still below average. Pinto has never been ranked in anyone's top 100, but he has a career OPS+ in the majors of 124, which is outstanding for a catcher and decent for a DH.

      The biggest failure has been Hicks. He was ranked as high as #19 by BA, but that was before 2010. Prior to his debut in 2013, BA had him at #72. BP had him at #46. Hicks certainly has struggled and the Twins basically forced him to play through his struggles in the majors because they had no backup plan when their backup CFers got hurt. However, they also didn't encourage him by telling him as long as he kept his OBP up and playing good defense, they weren't going to worry about him. Hicks' OBP this year was .338, which is 19 points about the AL average. Probably my biggest complaint about the Twins as a whole evaluating themselves is comparing themselves to the rest of the league. Offense is way down everywhere. The Twins have an average offense and terrible run prevention and yet I seem to hear more complaints about the offense, which has been hurt the most by injuries.

      1. My point, though, was:

         I don't see where any of these guys are getting any better after they get to Minnesota.

         Dozier's OPS is "better" than last year, but not significantly. He's basically the same hitter he was. Plouffe's best season was 2012, his first year as a regular. Arcia has gone backward, too, although it's certainly possible that the injury has something to do with that--there's no way for me to know. Pinto's OPS+ was way better last year than this year, although both are small sample sizes. Parmelee is slightly better this year than last, but again, not significantly so.

         It would be wonderful if players came to the big leagues fully developed, but that rarely happens. Part of the job of the big league staff is to develop them farther after they get there. I can't see much evidence that the current staff can do that, especially on the offensive side.

         1. Dozier was significantly better last year than his first year. He struggled so much that there was doubt 2 months into last season that he would be in the major leagues much longer. Things suddenly clicked and now this year there was talk about him being an All-Star. He's become one of the Twins' best all-around players and a leader on the team. His biggest flaw is his batting average, however he has a very low BABIP of .244.

            Plouffe has improved his walk rate and batting average. The biggest difference between this year and 2012 is the HRs. He had a very high 14.5% HR/FB rate that year. This year, it is very low at 4.8%. I really think the conditions at Target Field this year have been very bad for home runs because the Twins' pitching staff has given up the fewest (or near it) HRs in the AL and the Twins' batters aren't hitting HRs either. Plouffe's K rate has remained about the same but this year he is at a career high 27% line drive rate, which has improved every season.

            I also didn't mention Danny Santana, who has exceeded expectations.

            1. I also didn't mention Danny Santana, who has exceeded expectations.
               

               The big league staff hasn't worked with Santana much yet. If the argument is that they develop talent, I think you need to wait at least a year.

2. 

3. Thanks for the post socal - I appreciate the review.

4. I agree that the Twins have had some bad luck with injuries. But then injuries are part of the game.

   My rube-like sentiment is that everyone, and I mean everyone, involved in the baseball part of the Twins operation should be let go. We need a whole new way of looking at things over at Target Field and shuffling the deck chairs or changing the manager isn't going to fix what ails the Twins.

   Manager -- You make good points in support of Gardy and so does Jeff above about his lack of player development. What you failed to mention was Gardy has had a lot of input in the construction of the line-up. He was the one who wanted to get the band back together at the expense of other players on the 40-man roster. Back a few years he's the one (reportedly) who wanted to get rid of J.J. Hardy. Gardy is the one who can't seem to get a long with players who any personality or a little swagger to their step. I'm sure we could find fault with his line-up construction or in game strategy but I think one could do that with any manager. The bigger issue is that Gardy has contributed greatly to the predicament the Twins find themselves in. I don't see him changing his approach anytime soon either.

   Front Office -- Sure blame Bill Smith but everyone forgets that Terry Ryan was still in the building during the Bill Smith regime. By all accounts Terry Ryan and Rob Antony were part of the brain trust that approved some of Smith's lamest hits. Also right now, almost every other MLB team is running circles around the Twins in using metrics and analytics to evaluate players. Sure the Front Office made some moves this past year that was out of character for the Twins, but part of it was their hand was being forced. No one thought that Ricky Nolasco would be this terrible but a soft tosser coming from the NL to the AL is always frought with peril. The fact that the Twins want to re-sign Suzuki shows that the Twins still like to buy high and sell low. Finally when a Front Office Job comes open throughout the league do you ever hear about Rob Antony or any other front office up-and-comer included in the discussion of potential hires? I think that speaks volumes about what the rest of the league thinks about the Twins Front Office. Empty out the front office and bring the disinfectant. Let's start this whole thing over in time for the prospects to make an impact.

   1. I take some objection to what appears to be foisting Bill Smith's bad moves on both Gardy and TR/Rob Antony. I really don't know how around TR was during Smith's tenure. When he came back it sure seemed like he had actually been away, not pulling levers behind the scenes. And I seriously doubt the Pohlads would have brought TR back if he had really been the one doing the job, with Bill Smith serving as puppet. I think Smith really was GM, TR was minimally involved, and that the advancements made since he's come back are worth giving him more leash.

      But I think the bigger thing here is the complaint that the Twins aren't doing things like every other ball club. That's a dangerous position. I don't want the Twins to be like every other team. You don't get ahead by following the crowd. That's why the A's are so successful - they do things differently. Yeah, the Twins could probably use more advanced metrics. But they're doing some of that (and there are lots of teams that aren't doing much more than the Twins), and to the extent that everyone else is doing it, it won't get them ahead. They need to do the minimum to make sure they're not falling behind, but they're certainly not going to get ahead that way.

      1. Like I said, Terry Ryan never left the building. He didn't go to another team, he didn't retire to his cabin on Red Lake, he didn't work for the Pohlad's Pepsi bottling company. He was in the building on the baseball side of the operation. Now do I think he and Rob Antony and Bill Smith shared one big office, made joint decisions, and then sent Bill Smith to call up the Orioles to see what they would get for J.J. Hardy and then go out and explain the decision while sitting back mixing G&Ts? No. But TR was in a position that if he felt Bill Smith was doing some he had some latitude to at weigh in on the decision. Bill Smith gets the bulk of the blame but he was not acting in a vacuum. Terry Ryan (and probably more importantly, the rest of the baseball side of the operation) cannot be held blameless.

         Your second paragraph is totally unconvincing.

         1. I will to some degree echo free's critique of Philo here.

            The Twins aren't going to get ahead by "doing something different" that involves NOT understanding and utilizing advanced metrics. The point of advanced metrics is to make full use of the observable data available to you. If you don't use advanced metrics to analyze the observable data available to you, you are going to make inefficient use of that data. Inefficiency isn't the new market efficiency.

            If everyone is making full use of the observable data, and everyone has (essentially) the same data, then we would expect convergent analyses on many, if not most or all, baseball analytic questions. That does not imply that every organization would then follow the same courses of action. There's more than one tactical way to play the game, and more than one strategic way to build a roster. I strongly doubt that any one tactical approach or any one strategic approach (in the informal sense of strategy) is globally the best way to run a club.

            But, again, failing to take full advantage of modern analytics IS a suboptimal strategy. It is a recipe for falling behind.

            1. No one has suggested that they not understand and utilize advanced metrics. Why is this being presented as an either/or proposition? They can both use them and operate differently from other teams. Both Free and I want them using sabermetrics. I want them using them in a way, or in combination with other things, that shows something novel. Free wants them used in such a way that they conform to the expectations of the rest of the league, so Rob Antony can get a job with a different club, or something.

               1. Free wants them used in such a way that they conform to the expectations of the rest of the league, so Rob Antony can get a job with a different club, or something.

                  Huh?

                  1. Well you're complaining that the Twins FO guys aren't getting love from other teams. That is, you're appealing to "what other teams think of you" to support your argument. I find that reasoning to be specious.

               2. I'm speaking for free here, but I interpreted it as the level of statistical analysis the Twins are at is below that of many other teams. They are different by being worse.

               3. again,

                  If everyone is making full use of the observable data, and everyone has (essentially) the same data, then we would expect convergent analyses on many, if not most or all, baseball analytic questions. That does not imply that every organization would then follow the same courses of action. There's more than one tactical way to play the game, and more than one strategic way to build a roster. I strongly doubt that any one tactical approach or any one strategic approach (in the informal sense of strategy) is globally the best way to run a club.

                  1. So the question then is "when have the Twins analyses diverged?" That's really the point I'm trying to make here. A few years ago, when they were trading away Hardy and pulling in Capps, their analysis was laughable. But from when TR took over, I don't think it has been. I think there are plenty of examples where they've been right on the money. For example, they let Cuddyer go and signed Willingham, a move that was lauded for being solid analysis.

                     1. This is probably the right question. I don't know the answer.

      2. But I think the bigger thing here is the complaint that the Twins aren't doing things like every other ball club. That's a dangerous position. I don't want the Twins to be like every other team. You don't get ahead by following the crowd.

         I don't think this argument applies to using sabermetrics. Maybe you don't want to focus on the same metrics that other teams do, but ignoring it is a slow death.

         1. Sure, they've got to use relevant statistics. And yes, traditional statistics aren't nearly as worthwhile for player evaluation as sabermetrics. But I don't think the Twins aren't using them (I don't know where this claim comes from.), and I sure don't want them using them in the same way as other teams. Is the concern that they don't have enough statisticians? I don't want them to have more. I want them to have the right ones. That's what makes the special teams special - the right scouts, who see something others miss. The right statisticians, who find value others aren't seeing.

            I'm looking at the last few years and I see an organization I like. Most organizations wouldn't trade away two CFers in the same offseason. The Twins got two high-level pitching prospects because of it. Meyer or May alone would be nice. In tandem, they're more exciting. I see a team that went with Buxton because their scouts knew best, when not everyone was convinced. They went with Berrios, who was "too small" to be a first round pitching prospect. Heck, they gave Sano a chance when almost every other team backed off because of the age concerns. They're trying some things that aren't the same, and those are the things that have upside.

            1. I don't think the concern is that they don't have enough statisticians, I think it's that any statistician(s) they do have aren't being effectively used. There certainly isn't anything being said by the FO that makes me believe they understand (or are trying to understand) any modicum of non-traditional stats.

               You're talking about two different things when you start talking about our prospects; if there is one strength of the FO (at least the last dozen years), it seems to be in evaluating the players they draft -- sabermetrics is less of an issue here, because at that point you're talking tools not stats.

               1. It's not two different things though - that's my point. The front office is responsible for both. Free wants to fire the front office because they don't talk about statistics enough. I'd rather look at the bigger picture. So long as they're aware enough of sabermetrics and not making egregious player value assessments (and Suzuki, Hughes, and Morales would suggest their current value assessments aren't too far off), then they're not going to be falling behind in that way, and the other things can be a benefit.

                  Edited to add: And Hardy/Capps would suggest that a few years back their value assessments were way off, and hiring statisticians and firing the GM were absolutely the right call in response to that.

                  1. Their value assessments have improved but the roster building was so very bad this year. The refusal by both managers to platoon is throwing away easy wins.

                     1. I'll conceed the point on platoons. But I see that as more a Gardy issue than a FO issue - they can give him platoon worthy players, but if he won't use them that way... If you want to complain that Gardy doesn't do well with sabermetrics you'll get no fight from me. I'm of the mindset that he's the change we need to see.

                        1. Ryan doesn't seem to be pushing much:

                           "Put guys out there that are everyday players, then you don't have to platoon," Ryan said. "You're always looking for players that can play 162 games, right? That's what I'm looking for. I don't go out looking for platoon players."

                           While obviously a player that doesn't need platooning is preferred, sometimes you have to cobble something together.

                           1. "sometimes," like 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014...
                              😉

               2. if there is one strength of the FO (at least the last dozen years), it seems to be in evaluating the players they draft

                  I'm not sure I know what you mean here, Rhu. Do you mean that they are strong in evaluating players available in a draft, or that they are strong at evaluating players once in their minor league system?

                  1. Draft. They seem to be better at evaluating potential talent than evaluating veteran players that have a given track record, where sabermetrics would be a valuable tool.

                     I know they got crap a few years back for picking Ben Revere when they did, but I think the end results proved them out. He's no star, but he's a serviceable big leaguer.

                     1. in six of the eleven draft years 2000-2010, the Twins' top draftee (by rWAR) was drafted in either the first or second round. Impressionistically (i.e., I looked at the track records of Oakland and ChiSox to compare), that's quite good, in the sense that the top picks should tend to be the highest picks, and the Twins' top picks have been their highest (or near-highest) picks about half the time.

                        On the other hand, I don't see a lot of big successes there either. You gotta get lucky in the draft, but you also have to draft value. Are the Twins drafting as well or better than the average club? I don't have the patience to collect the data to see.

                        Twins' best picks (by rWAR) since 2000

                        2000 Paul Maholm (17th round, 492), 12.2 rWAR
                        2001 Mauer (1st, 1), 44.9
                        2002 DSpan (1st, 20), 21.8
                        2003 Scott Baker (2nd, 58), 15.7
                        2004 Glen Perkins (1st, 22), 8.0
                        2005 Matt Garza (1st, 25), 14.2
                        2006 Danny Valencia (19th, 576), 1.5
                        2007 Ben Revere (1, 28), 3.4
                        2008 George Springer (48th, 1437), 1.8
                        2009 Brian Dozier (8, 252), 7.2
                        2010 Logan Darnell (6, 195), -0.2

                        1. Pretty sure they didn't sign Maholm. BR doesn't even mention the 2000 draft on his player page. Ditto George Springer.

                           1. Yea, I didn't mean to imply that the Twins benefited, just that these were the draft picks who've generated the most rWAR.

                              under full information, any such list would be tilted toward the highest draft picks (assuming that rWAR is a pretty good proxy for "expected value") because all teams are able to identify and rank players by expected value. So this list is intended to provide a (weak) assessment of the Twins' ability to identify talent in the draft.

                              Baseball is a high-variance business -- some very low draft picks turn into stars. Perhaps more so than in either basketball or football.

                        2. The Twins next best pick in 2008 was Kolten Wong, but they didn't sign him either. That leaves Hicks and his 0.6 rWAR as the best 2008 pick for the Twins thus far.

                           For 2000, it's Kubes with 4.0 rWAR.

5. Last week, I went to a game with Sheenie's cousin who was in town from Houston. He asked me point-blank, "What the hell happened to the Twins?" It was very interesting trying to explain that the Twins are in the exact opposite spot as the Astros who are trying just about any new idea there is to see what sticks. Personally, I would rather know there is a plan in place that COULD work but could also fail miserably than continuing to muddle along with a plan that WON'T work and may also continue to fail miserably.

   What I'm saying is that sometimes change just for the sake of change is good.

   1. RE: the Astros - I really enjoyed this article.

   2. Also regarding the Astros - what the heck happened here and what happens for these young men next?

   3. You really want to use the Astros as an example?

      1. That they are open to trading desirable assets in a market that will overpay? Seems like a smart move to me.

         1. You want the Twins to go out now and admit they won't be anywhere near competing through at least 2018? That's what the Astros are doing. Keuchel is a guy you build around as the team is showing signs of getting better. You have him under team control through 2018 and you want to trade him away for what? Guys that might be good sometime in four or five years. I'd be upset if the Twins were "open" to trading Gibson and he's not nearly as good as Keuchel. You have to stop trading away young, established players at some point so they can actually be good for you.

            1. Trading Gibson isn't an admission they aren't going to contend until 2018. If the team is able to improve for 2015 or 2016 and beyond, yes, it makes sense. The Twins might compete in 2015. The Astros aren't.

      2. The Twins benefited SO much by not trading Willingham in 2012.

         1. Seriously? That's a ridiculous comparison. Totally different situation and players.

6. Thanks for doing this, SoCal, but I disagree with you. I will write more later but I just want to share an "Exhibit" here. Rob Antony Q&A from 2010.

   1. Wow. Thanks for that link.

   2. The paragraph on the Blackburn contract... uff da.

      It wouldn't bother me so much if I thought they'd learned something from that failure, but then there was Diamond and Worley and Nolasco and Pelfrey...

      1. At least he use statistics to back it up. "We thought he could be a 15-9 guy."

         It's not that I think statistics are the end-all. I just think you should actually look at the right statistics.

7. I will start with the manager. I don't believe that a manager in baseball is the difference between a 70 win team and a 90 win team. I can buy that he is the difference between a 70 win team and a 75 win team. Given that I am starting at that point, why do I give the manager credit for 6 division championships? If he doesn't get the blame for 90+ losses in four straight years, why would he get credit for 90 wins? All I can go by is the observable items.

   1 Once the team started losing, we saw more and more subtle jabs at Joe Mauer coming from the manager. I can't find specific examples right now but he would say things like "He'll play when he's ready." instead of "He'll play when he's healthy." Or the quote just last week that it "hurts him to sneeze" seemed like it came right from drive-time sports radio.

   2 Batting order. Ubelmann has always argued that batting order can only account for 1-2 extra wins per year so I should get over it. The problem is that I'm only giving the manager around 5 wins as it is. Losing 1-2 wins per year is huge! The batting order isn't a recent problem. I have always had a problem with Gardy's batting order. Batting Jacque Jones #1 against LHP? Batting Redmond 3rd against a RHP? Having a light-hitting middle infielder always batting 2nd? I would also argue that most of the criticism of Mauer on the RBI front is due to Gardenhire's batting order. Joe doesn't dictate who bats in front of him.

   3 Platoon. This is such a simple concept that I can't believe that it even comes up. And the Twins have had guys like Valencia and Delmon that were serviceable against RHP. This is something that Tom Kelly had no problem doing but it is somehow lost on Gardenhire.

   4 Favorites. Of the players that went on to play better elsewhere - Lohse, Garza, Bartlett, Gomez - One common denominator is that all of them were publicly criticized by Gardenhire. He has obvious favorites. He prefers light-hitting utility infielders. The first time I ever came to the old sight was when SBG wrote the Scrubini Fixation April Fools Day post. Nothing has changed.

   5 "New blood on the coaching staff." Steinbach, Brunansky, Molitor...New blood? How is that "new blood?" It is just reinforcing the "Twins Way."

   6 Overall injury culture - Players being lauded for playing terrible through injury has to stop. It doesn't help the team. It hurts the team. Gardy is always front-and-center on doing this. Players are afraid to admit they are injured and they end up getting more serious injuries.

   7 Phobia over losing the DH. It is totally ridiculous. Pinto should be with the Twins as the DH/backup catcher. Instead, we have to settle on back up catchers that can't DH.

   I'm sure I'll come up with more after I hit "mail" but I think this summarizes my thinking. If the manager only has so much control over a team, I can't look at W-L record. I have to look at things like batting order, lineup construction, pitcher usage, etc.

   1. Non-platooning and the fear of losing the DH are the things that irritate me the most often. The only point I'm not in total agreement with you is #1- I think you might be reading more into those comments than is really there, but then again, Gardy does have his favorites and Joe could be more gritty.

      1. Re point #1: The manager certainly isn't out there publicly defending his star from ridiculous columnists and clubhouse leaks about his softness. Whether or Gardy actually co-signs with the criticism, he gives the public impression that he does.

         1. Whether or Gardy actually co-signs with the criticism, he gives the public impression that he does.

            Yes. And listing this first didn't make much sense. I was just going off the top of my head. I don't mean to imply that it really has much to do with wins and losses but just wanted to illustrate that it is indicative of an overall attitude that I think hurts the team. It definitely hurts my enjoyment of the team as the sheeple boo their team's best player.

            1. A lot of the problems you list could be filed under the irritant category that don't, in and of themselves, subtract very much in the way of wins. There are just so many though (I would add the need to have eight relievers on the roster to the list).

               My biggest argument in favor of keeping Gardenhire over the past two years is that I don't trust the organization to hire a better manager. I fully expect Gardy 2.0. I will say that Brunansky and Molitor represent some hope in that regard.

   2. I actually agree with a lot of this. But so many of these items rest with Gardy, and not TR. Which I guess was really my earlier objection to Free. I think Gardy does active damage. The thing I wouldn't agree with is point 5. I'd suggest that Gardy is the deviation away from Kelly, and Bruno, Molitor, et. al. are a return towards TK.

      1. While I am sure that Gardy has complete in game and and line up decision making, if you don't like the way the 25 man and 40 man rosters are constructed that blames rests just as much on the front office as it does Gardy, if not moreso.. They could have said no when Gardy wanted Bartlett for example. They could have had centerfielders for Gardy instead of him playing middle infielders out there.

   3. I don't see how "hurts to sneeze" was an insult to Mauer. If you have ever had a rib or oblique injury it hurts just to breathe, let alone sneeze. 3, 6 & 7 are the ones I agree with the most and believe have done the most damage, although 6 & 7 I think are done by most managers. I think pretty much any coach or manager of any sport lauds players for playing through pain. Rarely does anyone go out of their way to make sure players aren't hurting the team by playing injured, which I think has done more damage to the Twins over the years than anything. See Nolasco, Morneau's back, Hardy's wrist, Stewart's feet, etc.

8. Front Office

   The problem I have with the front office is that it is so in-bred. It is as if they started believing all the stuff about "the Twins Way" and just stayed status quo. Rob Antony was a P.R. guy. He wasn't a "baseball guy" or a "statistics guy." He has just been there since he graduated from college 25 years ago.

   Here is what Rob Neyer had to say about the Twins use of statistics:
   "I don't see any way around this ... the Twins are way, way behind most of the other good teams in this area. Hiring "a guy," however talented, isn't going to change this. I can tell you stories about other sabermetric-unfriendly teams that have hired guys -- smart guys, all of them -- and then ignored 95 percent of their advice. You wonder why they even bothered. I think sometimes the general managers sincerely believed the information was valuable but just didn't have any idea how to use it; sometimes they were just doing what they thought they were supposed to do ("Hire nerd to play around with numbers: check.")

   Yes, the Twins have been successful for a long time, despite an utter lack of sophistication regarding statistical analysis. Wouldn't they be even more successful, though, if they had even a passing familiarity with some of today's basic analytical precepts? " http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/3040/twins-thrive-without-sabermetrics

   Yes, Bill Smith should take a lot of the blame. He was the GM when they constantly traded down on Santana (Gomez - Hardy - Hoey). He made the Delmon Young trade. He made the Matt Capps trade. I don't disagree with any of this. This was a big part of the Twins slide.

   I think the real problem has been the drafting from 2003-2011. First round picks:
   Year Player Pos School Pick #
   2011 Levi Michael SS North Carolina 30
   2010 Alex Wimmers RHP Ohio State 21
   2009 Kyle Gibson RHP Missouri 22
   2008 Carlos Gutierrez RHP Univ. of Miami (Fla.) 27
   2008 Aaron Hicks OF Wilson H.S., Long Beach, Calif. 14
   2007 Ben Revere OF Lexington (Ky.) Catholic HS 28
   2006 Christopher Parmelee OF Chino Hills (Calif.) HS 20
   2005 Matthew Garza RHP Fresno St 25
   2004 Glen Perkins LHP Minnesota 22
   2004 Kyle Waldrop RHP Farragut HS (Tenn.) 25
   2004 Trevor Plouffe SS Crespi HS, Northridge, CA 20
   2003 Matthew Moses 3B Mills Godwinn HS 21

   Glen Perkins has become a great closer. Plouffe has become a marginal starting 3b. Ben Revere has become a serviceable outfielder. Garza became a good starting pitcher. Kyle Gibson could still become a decent starter. Hicks could still do something. The rest? Yuck!

   This is where I really get confused by SoCal's argument. On the one hand, I'm supposed to be happy with the front office because they have stockpiled talent the past few years through the draft and trades. But then he also says that that doesn't mean anything since they haven't contributed at the major league level. I don't think you can have it both ways.

   One reason I'm not too impressed with the influx of talent in the minor league system is that it is primarily a result of picking in the top five each of the past three years. Does a front office get credit for Buxton slipping to them at #2 or would anyone have made that pick? Is the draft primarily a crap shoot? If so, how do we judge the front office and scouting? Trades? Contracts? Free agent signings?

   I do know that their solution to a problem has always been to just shuffle the deck. Heck, they offered Bill Smith a job within the organization when they fired him!

   This is where I side with Free. Maybe the whole thing doesn't need to be blown up but I really don't see why there shouldn't be a major shakeup. Ok, we keep Terry Ryan but why do we keep Rob Antony? Because he's loyal? What is he bringing to the table? If Terry's background and strength is scouting, why doesn't he have an assistant GM that has a background in statistical analysis? I think everyone would agree that statistics and scouting should each contribute to the equation.

   I know one thing. I do not want to see another year of former Twins brought back like it is an old-timers game. I can go with Kubel since he was just over a year removed from a decent year. Guerrier? I didn't really see a need for another right-handed reliever. Bartlett? What the ...?! He was out of baseball! He retired with the team in April! That was embarrassing and anyone paying attention knew it. Where did he even fit on this roster? Was he better than either of the SS options?

   1. Yes, but then reconsider from my list above: 6 of the 11 draftees with the highest rWAR of any player drafted that year by the Twins from the 2000-2010 period were drafted in either the first or second round. Compare that record to those of the A's in the same period. The Twins did far better near the top of their drafts than Oakland (in this limited sense). Likewise Chicago White Sox and Tampa Bay Rays.

      Did the Twins draft "well"? I dunno. That requires comparing the Twins directly with other teams. But the success rate for 1st-3rd round picks, for example, is not particularly good for many teams.

      1. Due to the huge margin for error and development time, it is very hard to say a team is good or bad at drafting. I just think that if we are going to give credit for good drafts, we also have to give blame for bad ones. Has the minor league system been rebuilt due to shrewd drafting or is it just a product of three straight top five picks? I don't know the answer.

         1. Some of TR's more recent trades have loaded us up pretty well, too. Not saying they were good trades or not, but they helped the farm clubs.

         2. It's worth pointing out that Berrios was not a top-5 pick.

            1. I don't think that one pick proves anything, good or bad. I think you need to look at years of data.

               1. I don't think it proves anything either. But it helps temper the idea that their success is solely a product of having top 5 picks.

                  1. No. It could be a product of luck. I could just as easily pick on a single pick that didn't work out.

                     1. It could be luck, but it could be more than that. I didn't say it rebutted the idea, I said it helped temper it.

                        1. It is well established that the baseball draft is a crapshoot.

                           Out of the top 5 picks in 2000, only ONE has a positive career rWAR. In 2001, two have rWARs over 40 and two more are over 10. In 2002, only two have positive rWARs (13.4 and 0.5, respectively). In 2003, three are positive, but the high is Ricky Weeks at 11.8. In 2004, 4 are positive, led by Verlander's 40.6, but the next best is only 4.1. In 2005, 4 are double-digit positive with two over 30. In 2006, 4 are positive, led by Longoria's 38.6, but the next best is only 7.3.

                           Albert Pujols was drafted in the 13th round. Cliff Lee was a 4th-round pick. Ryan Howard was a 5th-round pick. Jake Peavy was taken in the 15th round. Brandon Webb in the 8th round. Those five have each won an MVP or Cy Young in the last 9 seasons (including Pujols' 3 MVPs).

         3. Sano was not a top-five pick. Neither was Meyer, at least not for the Twins. The Twins have built the farm system through draft, international signing and trades.

            And a top-5 pick doesn't ensure a top prospect. The Twins took Adam Johnson at No. 2 overall the year before taking Mauer at 1/1. The year before that, they took B.J. Garbe at #5. Dave McCarty (3), Bryan Oelkers (4). The Twins have had 8 top 5 picks prior to the last three drafts and only Mauer accumulated more than 1.1 rWAR for them. Two of them became solid regulars for other teams when the Twins couldn't sign them (Tim Belcher, Travis Lee).

9. Both the Neyer article and Antony interview linked to were from 2010, under Bill Smith. Anyone have any reason to know whether the Twins have changed anything in the past 4 years?

   1. If so, they have done a good job of keeping it quiet.

   2. Exactly what Algonad said. It's a fair point that these are 4 year interviews but what in the last four years in either words or deeds have demonstrated to you that the Twins are using analytics anywhere near the level of almost every other MLB team? It think its pretty generally well understood league-wide and in the media (both traditional and blogosphere) that the Twins are still considered old school when it comes to statistical analysis. If you interviewed Rob Antony or Terry Ryan today, they'd probably agree with that statement.

      1. It might be the case. But it might also be the case that they, unlike some teams, actually try to listen to their statistician. As Neyer pointed out, lots of teams have them and then don't listen. Seeing different things from the team recently is exactly what makes me wonder about this. The bottom line is that they don't appear to be operating - at least at a FO level - the same way they were 4 years ago.

   3. Jack Goin is the Twins' baseball research "stats guy." He added the baseball research to his duties in 2011.

      It probably will surprise the sabermetrics set, then, that one of those people in whom Ryan places the most belief is Goin.

      "I do not make a decision," Ryan says, "until I get his input."

      1. Looks like the stats staff has doubled: http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/team/front_office.jsp?c_id=min

         1. For reference, according to the Astros article above, they have five total.

            1. And Luhnow hired Mejdal in St. Louis in 2005.

            2. Well, it appears they're trying to expand. I'd love for one of Algonad's "half dozen people from this site" to apply.

            3. Does this mean you are for or against having more stats guys?

               1. Yes.

         2. Looks like the newbie is a recent grad.

            I would feel more comfortable with a half dozen of the people at this site doing that job.

            1. He did intern with the Twins for more than 20 months...

      2. Wow. They promoted the single game ticket sales guy to stat guy. If that doesn't reek of inbredness, I don't know what does.

         1. In fairness, it appears he did hold a few other jobs in the organization in-between the two.

         2. If that doesn't reek of inbredness,

            Heh, this quote is even better since it's coming from the guy with the Cletus Spuckler gravatar.

            1. Some people won't eat skunk and some folk'll; it's Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel!

10. Anyone have ESPN insider? Did TR make the 4ltr's list?

Comments are closed.