Reality Checking the Geek Chorus

Really? 74 comments? I get 74 comments when I try to suggest that the 3-year, $41 million contract tied to Dan Haren’s 4.6ish ERA isn’t a bargain? That’s the cross the Geek Chorus wants to carry?

Hey, I’m game. The Geek Chorus, which is what I'm now calling the comments section, is here to provide a counterpoint – and some comic relief. If you want to argue that we as fans are currently entitled to unlimited funds from the Pohlads due to our support of this team, go for it.

Geek Chorus: Just because you want to trumpet your half-@** analyis, don’t expect the rest of Twins Territory to embrace your Montgomery Burns fetish.

Twins Geek: I don’t know exactly which of Burns’ fetishes you’re talking about – and I don’t want to. But this strikes me as lashing out at a truth. Sort of like a desperate 6-year-old, wanting her Malibu Stacy doll. She doesn’t care what it costs – it’s CHRISTMAS, dammit.

(Oh, and like Malibu Stacy, “Math makes her brain hurt.”)

GC: I’ll give YOU a brain hurt. Ok Poindexter, prove it to me. Prove to me that the Twins aren’t going to have a payroll closer to $120 million next year.

TG: Let’s take a look at the Twins recent payroll spending, shall we? This is according to USA Today (which ignores some signing bonuses, but still):

2006: $63M
2007: $71M
2008: $57M
2009: $65M
2010: $98M

The increase of $33M and 50% of payroll over the last year has an obvious source – the new stadium. Actually, if you take a look back at last season’s TwinsCentric Offseason GM Handbook, you can see where that increase comes from. We did a pretty nice job of predicting it:

Still, you’ll notice that the Twins payroll has basically leveled off since the announcement of the new taxpayer subsidized ballpark. And while MLB (and the rest of the world) has faced a recession during that time, we haven’t seen similar stagnation in other teams’ payrolls. Overall, major league payroll climbed 7% across the board over those two years. If the Twins payroll climbed a similar amount, it would be closer to $77 million this year, $12 million higher than it actually was.

So, given that level, we’ll add a 5% increase for 2010 and another $15 million to $20 million bump from the new stadium. Add all that up and you have 95 to $100 million to spend.

GC: Is your arm OK from patting yourself on the back? So, you’re saying that the entire $33M bump wasn’t solely due to the new stadium?

TG: Actually, no, I don’t care. The truth is that wherever that new money came from, it isn’t coming again. Either it was a result of the new stadium, or it was a result of not appropriately growing payroll earlier and then also getting a smaller bump from the new stadium. Either way – it isn’t happening again.

GC: Posh. How do you know that the $97M was even the limit this year?

TG: Look back at the Orlando Hudson signing. Hudson (and a few other desirable free agents like Felipe Lopez) were sitting out there just waiting for a deal. Hudson was literally the PERFECT fit for this team – a second baseman with multiple gold gloves that could bat second in the order. And yet, he didn’t sign until February 4th for $5 million. And it was reported three days earlier that the Twins couldn’t afford even $3 million.

GC: Maybe that’s just good negotiating.

TG: It’s undoubtedly good negotiating. But it also sounds like (and there were plenty of rumors afterwards to support it) that the Twins had reached their budget at about $95M and were stretching to $97M. After all, if they had money left it the budget, why didn’t they have moved to shore up the bullpen in March when they were freaking out about Joe Nathan’s injury?

GC: Whatever. So they were at their limit. The Twins are making money hand over fist. They’re making far more money than they could have anticipated.

TG: No, they aren’t. Don’t get me wrong – they’re making out like bandits in the new stadium, but what exactly could they have not anticipated? They had to anticipate the seat sales, especially given their season ticket sales of almost 20,000 seats. Their local TV contract is fixed. Their radio contract is fixed. Their national revenues (such as TV) are fixed. Their apparel sales are split with the league. Their corporate sponsorships were set long ago. (Oh, and forget about concessions being a huge moneymaker. That’s not going well.)

Ratings are up? Great – that’s a boon to Fox Sport North. Radio ratings are up? Good news for ESPN 1500 for the $1 million they’re paying the Twins to broadcast their games. (And probably to the Twins for their radio advertising, but this isn’t a bonanza.)

It’s not that the Twins aren’t making great money. They are. It’s that there is NO WAY they are making tens of millions of dollars more than they could have anticipated.

And there is REALLY no way they are going to make tens of millions of dollars more next year than they made this year. Where are they going to make it? Ticket demand always softens in the second year of a stadium. TV is fixed. Radio is up for negotiation, but we’re talking about an increase of a million dollars a year at most (and probably not).

There will likely be an overall increase similar to what we’ve seen from the rest of MLB – about 5%. If the Twins, due to some increased revenue, add another 5%, we’re up to maybe a 10% increase in payroll – which bring things up to about $107M. Which is enough to basically not re-sign any impending free agents, let alone pay a big trade acquisition.

GC: But what about this? Didn’t the Twins already talk about a $120 million payroll?

TG: No, they didn’t. In a feel-good press conference after Joe Mauer signed, LaVelle E Neal said he and Joe Christensen walked away with the “feeling” that maybe the Twins might increase that much, given Jim Pohlad’s joviality at the press conference. Well of course he was optimistic – he had just signed Joe Mauer. That’s a long way from announcing a payroll level.

Payroll level is easy thing to ask the Twins, but they since the Bill Smith era began, they generally haven’t answered it. But a general impression on a day when the LAST thing anyone wants to talk about is fiscal reality is thin soup. I’ll stick to data, thanks.

GC: Especially when it makes you look oh so smart and allows you to defend the do-nothing front office. Pohlad is worth BILLIONS. He should be spending the money.

TG: Uh-huh. Here's 3 rules I live by. You might want to try them.

1) I don't tell George Clooney how to dress.
2) I don't tell Wilt Chamberlain how to meet women.
3) I don't tell the Pohlad's how to manage their money.

GC: Meanwhile Jhonny Peralta is joining the Tigers. How do we respond to that?

TG: Panic, maybe? After all, who wouldn’t want a defensively limited third baseman with a 697 OPS? When you have a shot at that guy, you’re got to pull the trigger.

GC: It’s more than the Twins have done.

TG: It sure is. If only the Twins could dig up a third baseman who could hit. I sure wish we had one of those. Oh, wait….

Haren Not So Reasonable

More and more when I talk to Twins fans about the trade deadline, I envision the conversation I’ll have with my kids when they get their first credit card. Ah, the freedom! Suddenly you can get those things that were always out of reach. And you’re making more money than you ever did before. Why not go get a Dan Haren? Damn it, you deserve it!

And I’m going to tell them that they actually deserve quite a bit more than that bauble. Especially when they consider the price.

Almost invariably, whenever I have heard Haren’s name mentioned in Twins trade deadline talk, the words “reasonable contract” have been uttered. (We actually had that same phrase in the Trade Deadline Primer. I almost modified it, and didn’t, much to my current chagrin.) “Reasonable” is true if you’re talking about the guy who posted All-Star seasons in 2007, 2008 and half of 2009.

But here are Haren’s stats since the All-Star break last year (over a year ago): 4.61 ERA in 240.1 IP including 38 home runs and (for those of you who care) a 12-13 record.

That’s not terrible. It’s not even bad. At the very least, he’s eating innings, and on the sexier side, there are 235 K and only 51 BB in those 240.1 IP. Of course, he’s also been pitching in the National League.

Would he have been an upgrade on the Twins staff? Sure. Even with Haren’s struggles, it would be like adding a rich man’s Scott Baker, with a little bit better ERA, a better ability to eat up innings, and the same weakness of giving up too many moon shots. And, like Baker, he has some big money coming his way – and that’s what REALLY makes him a rich man’s Scott Baker.

You know how we’re starting to sweat the $11 million that Baker is guaranteed through his next two years? Haren is going to make more than that ($12.75M) just next year. And that’s not the good news for Haren. The good news is that he’s guaranteed at least $29M over the next two years. Or, if his new club prefers, he could make $41M over the next three years.

If a player is a Cy Young candidate (which Haren was nominally last year because of his first half), that’s a reasonable contract. But if he’s posting a 4.60ish ERA and reliably offering souvenirs to the cheap seats, it’s a killer. That kind of money isn’t thrown around easily. There was only one starting pitcher last year who received anything close to that kind of money as a free agent – John Lackey, the biggest name on the market.

That’s why Haren was acquired by a team like the Angels, who have been among the most aggressive spenders for free agents in recent years. (They also were the team that lost the aforementioned Lackey, maybe not so coincidentally.) And it’s also why the package that landed him – a mediocre starter, two decent but not great prospects and a supposedly better prospect to be named later – looks so reasonable.

What would the Twins have needed to put together to match or exceed it? A comparable package might have been something like Nick Blackburn, Rob Delaney, Shooter Hunt and some very young pitcher with a high upside (Deolis Guerra?) as the PTBNL.

Would I be happy if the Twins were announcing that deal tonight? Sure. Just like I am whenever I overspend for a new toy. But I’m not sure I would be happy if my kids did it. And I’m quite sure I wouldn’t be happy this winter, with money tight, when the “reasonable” bill came due.

Unless I had a pennant to show for it.

From a Loss - Options

So, what do you take from that game exactly?

Bad starting pitching. Bad relief pitching. Bad clutch hitting. Bad defense. An ugly crowd. A loss to a bad team that was starting a bad pitcher. And it all happened the day after we thought the season had turned around. So where does one start?

In cases like these, I think it's important to prioritize, don't you? Otherwise we're likely going to lose our focus. So which of the above should we start with? I'm going to go with the fact that 60% of the starting rotation has been terrible for at least a month. To be sure, that's overshadowing other issues, but like I said: priorities.

Is terrible too strong a word? Let's see:

• Since June 1st, Scott Baker has posted a 6.08 ERA, plus, he might be hurt. Terrible might be too strong in that case, but certainly "scary" is in play.
• Since June 13th, Kevin Slowey has posted an 8.78 ERA as a starting pitcher. He's also given up five or more runs in all but one of his starts. That's pretty close to terrible.
• And since June 1st, Nick Blackburn has posted a 9.87 ERA, and hasn't lasted more than 4 innings in five of his nine starts.

These aren’t terrible pitchers - they're just pitching terribly. I have no doubt that they'll turn it around eventually. But it isn't clear that it's going to happen this season, and it isn't clear it is going to happen in the major leagues.

So can someone PLEASE tell me why I keep hearing sportswriters tell me that the Twins need an ace pitcher, no matter how much he costs next year? Or that this it isn’t worth the (never-defined) cost to pick up a Ted Lilly, Brett Myers, Ben Sheets or even Jarrod Washburn? Was Yohan Pino too high a price to pay last year for Carl Pavano?

This is silliness. I understand that, way back on April 1st, one might have concluded that it made sense to target an ace pitcher. But for the better part of a month, 60% of the rotation has been throwing (up) an 8ish ERA. That’s a pretty good recipe for losing about 60% of your games, which this team has.

Acquiring one or even two average arms would be a significant upgrade, just like adding an adequate Brian Duensing would be an immediate upgrade. To focus on a couple of premium names smells more of laziness than anything based in reality.

Gettin 'Er Duen

What do the Twins need this second half? They need a bunch more “Brian Duensings.”

This week I got to participate in the Sports on Demand web show on Fox 9 (which you can see here). On of the midseason awards we presented was the Twins Most Valuable Player, which belonged to Justin Morneau, who was chosen unanimously. This is not a surprise.

But second place, at least on my ballot, should surprise.

When I look at MVP, I like to look at a statistic called Win Probability Added. WPA isn’t like most of the advanced offensive metrics: you’re not taking a bunch of other stats and adding them or dividing them together. WPA just measures how much each player impacts the probability of their team winning a game. So, if a player who comes to bat with his team having a 47% chance of winning a game, and leaves the at-bat with his team having a 51% chance of winning the game, he gets .04 points. If they have a 44% chance of winning the game when he’s done with his at-bat, he loses .03 points. That’s it.

I like WPA because it places a player’s performance inside the context of their situation. Pitching a scoreless inning in an 8-1 blowout doesn’t help your team much. Doing the same thing in a tie game does.

You find out that players with higher WPA scores are often fan favorites. Why? Because fans watch the game, and understand that this guy’s impact on their season was far higher than their numbers might indicate. For instance, if you liked Orlando Cabrera last fall, you had good reason. His stats were good, but his WPA was excellent. His impact far exceeded his time here.

If you look at WPA this season for Twins hitters (you can find them here), Morneau is where you would think he would be – atop the list and by a far amount. If you look at the list of pitchers, you find Carl Pavano, Jon Rauch and Francisco Liriano, but you find them in 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th place. Guess who is at the top of that list…

A: Brian Duensing

How does one become one of the team’s most valuable players as a middle-innings reliever? The SOLE answer is consistency. Duensing has appeared in 38 games. Only in five of them has he decreased the team’s chances of winning. Those five are:

6/19 at Philadelphia – This was Saturday’s “comeback” game in Philadelphia. He gave up a solo home run in the 7^th when the Twins were down 8-4. Because the lead was already large, it didn’t have much of an impact. Total percentage impact: -1.2%

7/4 vs Tampa Bay – With the Twins already down 5-1, Duensing took over for Nick Blackburn with one out in the seventh, inheriting runners on first and second base. He got out of the inning but the two runners scored on a double by Gabe Kapler. Again, team is already losing, so a small impact. Total percentage impact: -3.4%

6/10 vs. Kansas City Royals – The Twins had been down 8-1 but had closed the gap to 8-6 as Duensing pitched the top of the ninth. After getting two quick outs, he gave up a home run to Wilson Betemit and a single before being placed to Matt Guerrier. The Twins continued their comeback in the bottom of the frame, but lost 8-9. Total percentage impact: -3.9%

Now we get to the one’s that hurt, because the game was close.

6/23 at Milwaukee – With the Brewers leading 3-2 in the seventh inning, Duensing walked a batter, got an out, intentionally walked a batter and hit Prince Fielder with a pitch. One of those runners eventually came around to score. Total percentage impact: -7.5%

5/22 vs Milwaukee – This was the Saturday game at Target Field, where the Twins grabbed an early lead, the Brewers tied it in the ninth, and the Twins finally won it in the 12^th after missing all kinds of previous chances to win it. I expect to find out that Duensing was the main culprit for that comeback. Nope. He just started the seventh with a single and a walk when the scores was just 4-2. Then he was pulled. Guerrier got him out of the inning without any runs scoring. Total percentage impact: -13.6%

Bu that’s it for negative WPA. By contrast, he has impacted 31 games positively (two were neutral). But what is amazing here is that these are not Herculean endeavors. These are a guy doing his job in a close game. Here are the five games he impacted most positively:

5/12 vs Chicago White Sox – The Twins were clinging to a 3-2 lead and Duensing started the 8^th. He struck out Juan Pierre, and got AJ Pierzynski to ground out to second. That’s it. Guerrier got the third out of the inning and the Twins eventually won the game 3-2. Total percentage impact: +9.9%

5/1 at Cleveland – The Twins blew a 4-2 lead to lose this game 5-4 in the 11^th inning when Jesse Crain was unable to clean up a mess that Alex Burnett created. Duensing pitched a scoreless 7^th with a 3-2 lead. Total percentage impact: +10.9%

4/24 at Kansas City – Duensing entered the eighth inning of a tie game with one out and a runner on first. He walked David DeJesus but got a line drive double-play to get out of the inning. This one was mostly luck. Total percentage impact: +11.3%

4/17 vs. Kansas City – Nick Blackburn had given up 5 runs in five innings, but the Twins had matched it. Duensing pitched the 6^th and 7^th innings of the tie game. He actually got a “W” for this one too, because Orlando Hudson hit a home run to lead off the bottom of the seventh. The Twins won the game 6-5.

4/9 at Chicago White Sox – This was the first game versus the White Sox, and the big question was what Liriano would look like away from Fort Myers. But the pitchers that carried the team that night were Guerrier and Duensing, who each pitched two scoreless innings in a 3-3 game. Duensing shut down the 9^th and 10^th frames, and also got the “W” when JJ Hardy singled in Joe Mauer in the 11^th inning.

There are another 25 examples like that.

Brian Duensing is never going to be a Cy Young winner, and is probably a longshot to make it to an All-Star game. But he’s doing his job on a consistent basis, and the impact it is having on the team is overwhelmingly positive. The Twins have more than enough talent on this team already. If they can coax more players to perform like Duensing – day-in and day-out positive impacts – this pennant race can still be over early in September.

----------------------

Have you downloded your 2010 Trade Deadline Primer yet? How about the free 1/4 book sample? Why not? It's FREE. And it's going to help you sort through all the trade B.S. that is rushing your way. Get it! Hurry!

Cliff Lee Fallout: Now What?

So the Twins missed out on Cliff Lee. If they want to address their pitching issues, there is a list of 40 starting pitchers in the 2010 Trade Deadline Primer (available here), 38 of whom are not Twins. Let's go through some of the bigger names, and to play along, we'll coax the Geek Chorus out of retirement....

Roy Oswalt -
This is the name everyone likes to mention, which is a shame. Because this is not ever, ever, in any way, shape or form, ever going to happen.

Geek Chorus: What if....

No. Not happening.

GC: But if...

Stop. Stop now. Quit talking.

GC: B...

Listen, and listen good. Oswalt is owed $16 million next year. The Twins payroll is already looking like it's going to go up as much as $10 million in 2011, and that's without re-signing any of their free agents. (You can find details in a Primer essay.) They cannot absorb that salary. It would gut the team.

GC: Maybe the Astros will pay it? The Mariners paid part of Cliff Lee's salary for the Rangers...

It is thought that the Mariners paid about $2.5 million of Lee's salary. Oswalt is owed almost 10 times that - $8 million this year and $16 million next year. How many prospects would the Twins need to include in a deal to make that worthwhile? The mind boggles.

So repeat after me: This is not going to happen. It is SO not going to happen that it is not worth the breath it takes to say it is not going to happen.

Dan Haren
This seems to be the next most popular name out there and is seen as a better, more long-term and economical choice than Oswalt.

GC: That's why you've publicly pimped him on Twitter. As usual, you're about 1/3 right. He's long-term alright - he's under contract through 2012. But what exactly is economical about $12.75 million over each of the next two years?

Right. I didn't realize that contract was for quite so much. That doesn't fit it too well with that whole payroll thing I just talked about.

GC: Don't forget to talk about how he sucks.

TG: "Sucks" is a strong word. He has a 4.36 ERA. His problem seems to be how many home runs he's given up. The league average is about 1 per nine innings, which would be about 14 home runs for him. He's given up 19. But his career ERA is 3.61. That's worth something.

GC: Yes. Apparently it's worth $25 million over the next two years. But before you expect him to extract himself from this year's slump, don't forget that this slump actually started last year. After the All-Star break, he posted a 4.61 ERA, due largely to a spike in his home run rate. It's possible you actually supported someone who is a worse fit than Oswalt.

Pedro Martinez
TG: My personal favorite. Last year Pedro showed that in a short season, he's still a heck of a pitcher. After signing late with the Phillies, he posted a 3.63 ERA in nine starts during the regular season. Then he started three postseason games, pitching reasonably effectively in two of the three games and posting a 3.71 ERA. He's worth kicking the tires on.

GC: Be careful kicking Pedro in the tires. I'm pretty sure that's what Don Zimmer was going to do a few years ago..... Hey YO-O-O!

TG: Best of all, you don't need to trade anyone for him - he's a free agent. He was signed last year for $2 million plus incentives, which should be well within the money the Twins received back for insurance for Joe Nathan's injury.

Jarrod Washburn
GC: No. NO! Don't say it.

TG: I can't believe it isn't already done. This is who the Twins are going to get, right? He's available without giving up any prospects. He's got to be desperate. They can try him in the minors for awhile, make sure he's still effective.

GC: The horror. THE HORROR!

TG: It's also got to be enticing to Washburn. Back to his midwestern roots. A chance to pitch in a pitcher's ballpark to show what he can do. Behind a stellar defensive outfi....um, hold on.

GC: Leave it alone! What is the matter with you?

TG: Ok, let's move on to....

Carlos Silva
GC: Blink. Blink. You pulled me of retirement just to torture me, didn't you?

TG: Hey, this isn't your old Carlos Silva.

GC: The old Carlos Silva was OK. It's the newer Carlos Silva that has been killing teams. Good lord - the man was traded straight up for Milton Bradley. And everyone thought Jack Z got the best of that deal.

TG: Everyone always believes Jack Z gets the best of every deal, all evidence to the contrary. Silva has apparently added a pitch to his repertoire and not only is his ERA at 3.45, but he's only given up just 97 hits in 101.2 innings, and he's struck out 72. He's a different guy.

GC: He'll kill us. He's like Jason. He's risen from the dead and he'll come back to kill us.

TG: Don't worry, you can still take that late-night walk with the hottie in the woods. Silva is owed $11.5 million next year. The Twins can't afford him the same way they can't afford Oswalt and Haren. He won't be coming here.

Ted Lilly
TG: He's left-handed, he's a free agent next year, and he's got a 4.08 ERA. He's also a 34-year-old veteran. And the Cubs are likely done.

GC: He's also been knocked around in his last two starts and is coming back from arthroscopic shoulder surgery.

TG: Fair enough. But he needs to be on the watch list. He says he's healthy. Let's see what happens.

That's it for today. If you would like to kick around another 20 names or so, please stop by TwinsCentric.com and take a look at the $9.95 Primer or download the 1/4 book sample of it for free. But first a few more notes....

- On 7/24 at the Hennepin Stages Theater, baseball historian (and Twins scorekeeper) Stew Thornley is going to be doing a baseball talk. If you don't know Stew, he's an absolute local baseball stud and literally wrote THE book on Minnesota baseball history. He's also funny.

They're going to have drawings for theatre and baseball merchandise and it's the same night as the Aquatennial fireworks so people can come downtown and enjoy two events for free! You can find more information here. I'll almost certainly be there, too.

- Tomorrow morning I'll be on KFAN at 7:20 to talk baseball with the Powertrip morning show. You'll be able to download the podcast here.

- I took part today on Fox 9's "Sports on Demand" webcast with Jim Rich and Seth Kaplan. It looks like it isn't posted in the archives yet, but it may be by tomorrow morning. So check it out and then come back and bust on me in my comments for using the word "frankly" too much.

Cliff Lee Fallout: So What Happened? And Now What?

What Happened?
When we produced the first draft of the 2010 Trade Deadline Primer (now available) last week, here was the introductory paragraph (written by Scott Lucas of The Newberg Report) for the Texas Rangers:

"The Rangers have marketed their 2010 club with the slogan 'It’s Time,' asserting that they won’t settle for mere prospect development and a polite stab at contention. Despite financial constraints, the Rangers geared their offseason toward a legitimate run at the division title. During spring training and the season, roster decisions have largely reflected a 'win now' mentality that stands in bold relief against most of the post-Alex Rodriguez era."

Little did we understand how prescient that was. Now it includes a final sentence:

And that has now culminated in a four-for-one trade for Cliff Lee.

The bottom line is that the Texas Rangers were just plain more willing to go after this thing very hard. They also might have been a little lucky that the Mariners (and most commentators) value the main prospect so highly.

Justin Smoak, for some reason is considered to be gold grade. Looking at his minor league record and availability, I'm surprise more people aren't asking if it's really fools gold. He's supposed to be a powerful middle-of-the-order presence for many years, but he's got all of 17 home runs in his 2+ years in the minors. He's also 23-years-old (a year older than Wilson Ramos), plays first base, and has yet to show he's mastered AAA, let alone the majors.

And the rest?

• Blake Beavan is Twins type of pitcher, strike-throwing, low strikeout rate, good at getting grounders. He'll start at AAA. I'd liken him to Jeff Manship.
• Josh Lueke is a pitcher in AA who is striking lots of guys out, but he's also 25 years old. Oh, and he was arrested last year for rape and sodomy, though he eventually agreed to a lesser charge of false imprisonment with violence. By the way, apparently for a first offense you can get just 40 days in jail for that.
• Matthew Lawson is a 24-year-old second baseman who has an 809 OPS in AA this year.

There isn't anything special in the bunch of them, with the possible exception of Lueke, provided he becomes a human being.

So, I guess I'm puzzled. I can't figure out how the Twins got outbid here. And I can't figure out why everyone is so quick to praise Seattle GM Jack Zduriencik, other than the fact that it's Jack Zduriencik, and he had one hell of a good first year on the job.

It's worth noting that his second year has been almost as bad as his first year was good. He was praised for taking a 61-win team and turning them into an 85-win team in one year. Well, guess how many wins the Mariners are on pace for this year? A: 65. A four-win improvement in two years is a little less impressive.

So What's Next?
Gimme 24 hours and we'll delve into it. Frankly, both myself and my family are a little burned out by the publishing of the Trade Deadline Primer, which you can now order for $9.95. Or you can download a free "quaterbook." (Because it's about 1/4 of the whole, book. Get it?)

If you get either, you'll see a list of starting pitchers that will be available. That will be tomorrow's starting point.

Cliff Lee to Yankees? How? Why?

Joel Sherman reported in the NY Post today that the Yankees are on the verge of acquiring Cliff Lee. He followed up that post with more information on his blog. Both are worth a read, because there are all kinds of things that don't make sense...

1. Why would the Yankees offer up catching prospect Jesus Montero for Lee? Their starting rotation has been one of their strengths this year. Sherman claims it is because they have some concerns about their rotation holding up in the playoffs. He claims it might mean moving Phil Hughes to the bullpen. He (and ESPN apparently) suggest that Javier Vazquez could be traded in the deal, too.

Presumably, Vazquez would be sent back to level out the salaries - because the Yankees don't want to pay too much? Really? Or would the Mariners believe they can trade him and get something for him to a National League team?

And Hughes has been great, but the Yankees recently skipped a start for him, and when he came back he had a bad night. Are they hiding an injury? Or are they so worried about his innings (he only threw 86 last year) that they're really going to move him back to the bullpen? Could that not have been foreseeen when they moved him into the rotation to begin with?

2. Why would the Mariners want Montero over Wilson Ramos AND Aaron Hicks?

You can argue that Ramos is a better prospect straight up than Montero. Montero is younger, both were highly regarded, and both are struggling in AAA, but nobody really knows if Montero can stay at catcher. There is no doubt about that with Ramos.

So either the rumor earlier this week is wrong, or this one is wrong. I'm guessing both, and I thin it's Seattle (along with the Yankees) working to drive Lee's value up.

And if I'm wrong? Well, then you're REALLY going to want the TwinsCentric Trade Deadline Primer that is coming out on Sunday night. Because it lists Montero and Lee as two of the 150 players that might be available. Just like it listed Russell Branyan (already traded to Mariners) and Bengie Molina (already traded to Rangers). And you can use it to find the other few dozen starting pitchers that are available on one of it's handy-dandy cheat sheets. It'll be on sale as an ebook on Sunday night for $9.95.

But I really hope we aren't looking at that starting pitcher list for the next best alternatives by Sunday night. And I don't think we will.

Tired

Matt Guerrier took the loss last night. Again.

You gotta feel bad for him. I think it’s fair to say that he’s currently residing in his own little personal circle of hell. I’m going to go with the fifth circle – Wrath and Sullenness – because I’d be pretty sullen/wrathful if I had been tagged for the loss in the last three games in which I appeared. That also seems kinder than the ninth circle: Betrayal.

But I don’t doubt that a fair amount of fans feel betrayed. In the last week, Guerrier has made three appearances, pitched a total of two innings, and given up the winning run in each of those three games. That’s about as bad a week as one would care to have as a relief pitcher.

But Twins fans who remember 2008 don’t want to hear about a bad week. They don’t want to hear about, well, anything, because they have spend a good deal of time trying to forget about 2008. Particularly about the 8.88 ERA that Guerrier posted that year after the All-star break.

But remember we do, and it appears manager Ron Gardenhire remembers too. After pitching predominantly the 8th inning for most of the season, Guerrier didn’t come in during the 8th last night. He came in during the 7th. That’s different.

Also different: unlike the previous game (in which he gave up four earned runs) Guerrier also had a much shorter leash. He pitched to three batters, one of which walked and two of which hit the baseball very hard. He still managed to be on the mound when both the tying run and the winning run came across the plate. And he wasn’t around when the inning ended.

What Gardenhire and Twins fans are witnessing is a meltdown, pure and simple. In those three games and two innings, he has given up six hits. Three walks. Six earned runs. He doesn’t have a single strikeout even though he’s faced 14 batters. His ERA has ballooned from 1.72 to 3.03.

The last time this happened, back in 2008, the Twins swore it was because Guerrier had been overused. That year, problems began on July 8th, when Guerrier pitched for the fourth time in five games. This year, it began on July 1st, when Guerrier pitched the fourth time in five games.

This time, the Twins seem to have already tried what has often worked in the past – given Guerrier a break. After a pair of disastrous outings against Tampa Bay, Guerrier got three days of rest. It didn’t work.

The natural conclusion is that Guerrier again has a tired arm, or has hit some sort of wall, but I can’t find any evidence of it in today’s pitches. His fastball was consistently 91 or 92, and according to pitch tracking it wasn’t drifting over the middle of the plate. But it caught enough to let Vernon Wells knock the snot out of it. We don’t know if that was primarily because Guerrier is struggling, or because Wells is very good at hitting a baseball.

What is clear is that the Twins can’t, and seemingly don’t, trust Guerrier too much right now. He’s about to get a pretty long rest in the way of the All-Star break. And there are a litany of right-handers in Rochester who might be able to contribute to this season’s division race, if only they could find their way onto the roster. If the Twins and Guerrier really want to overcome this little trend, I wonder if the two sides shouldn’t agree to extend that All-Star break with a short trip to the DL for a “tired arm.” Is that legitimate? Is that really the problem?

I’m not sure, but god knows we’re tired of it.


Lotsa stuff to talk about this morning. First, I had a great time at the TwinsCentric event last night at Park Tavern, despite the loss and only being there for about 1/3 of the game. Thanks to everyone who came out. It was very good to touch base again.

Second, we are now just three days away from being able to by the TwinsCentric 2010 Trade Deadline Primer. It's an ebook only which we were showing on the iPad yesterday, and people really seemed to like it. It is basically a 175-page reference that you can use throughout the next three weeks to really launch yourself into the trade season.

Want to know whether the Reds really would pursue Cliff Lee? It's in there, under the team summaries. Or a list of third basemen the Twins could pursue? Also there, in the list of 150 trade targets. Or what prospects The White Sox have which might impact the second half race? We also have 100+ prospects. There is also an essay about the Twins payroll for 2011 which you need to read. I think that harsh reality is driving a lot of the urgency this year, and I can't believe people aren't talking about more.

I hope you'll take a moment, take a risk, and check it out. You'll be able to start ordering it Sunday night at TwinsCentric.com.

Everything Cliff Lee....

It's been way too long since I've updated regularly, and since I'm back from vacation, and since the Cliff Lee rumors are flying, let's just heave all these thoughts into cyberspace and hope it looks a little better than fingerpainting.

So is Seattle starting pitcher Cliff Lee really that good?
Well, yeah, he's that good. The usual sabermetric caveats apply with the big one being: he's very, very good, but that doesn't mean he would be very, very good for the next three months. But all the signs are there.

1. The Twins have to LOVE these numbers - 89:6. That's how many strikeouts and walks Lee has so far this year. Thinks the brain trust would like someone like that in the rotation?

2. He certainly has one heck of a lot of incentive. He's a free agent at the end of the year, and the big money teams are going to care a lot about how he performs in the heat of a pennant race and in the playoffs. He (literally) can't afford to choke.

3. And his history has shown that he shines in the spotlight. What really gets people excited about Lee is his performance in the playoffs last year. Facing the very best teams in the majors, he finished 4-0 with a 1.56 ERA. Excuse me while I swoon a bit.

What would it take to get him?
Considering that he's already been traded twice in the last year, we have a pretty good idea what it might take.

When he was traded from the Phillies to the Mariners, the Mariners traded away:

• Phillippe Aumont - A 21-year-old pitcher who was the Mariners #1 pick in 2007. Lots of upside (he's 6' 7") but also was converted to a relief pitcher already with the Mariners.
  
• Juan Ramirez - Another young pitcher who projects to be a mid-rotation starter.
• Tyson Gillies - A 21-year-old outfielder who excelled last year in High-A (but has struggled mightily this year in AA.)

Aumont was possibly on par with someone like Wilson Ramos, though I think someone like Carlos Gutierrez might be a better comp. Ramirez was a throw-in (though he's performed the best of the three). And Gillies I would put on par with someone like Joe Benson.

Of course, that's part of the reason that Philadelphia was criticized so vehemently when they made the deal. It just didn't seem like they got enough in return. How about when they traded for Lee? They sent the following players to the Indians (and also got back utility outfielder Ben Francisco):

• Jason Knapp - A 19-year-old flamethrower who needed arthroscopic shoulder surgery shortly after the Indians got him. He's the high upside guy in the deal.
  
• Carlos Carrasco - A 23-year-old who was the Phils top pitching prospect but struggled in 2009 in AAA before the trade, and has struggled since.
  
• Jason Donald - A 24-year-old shortstop who was also struggling at AAA when he was traded. He looked like a competent starting shortstop, but now looks more like a utility infielder.
  
• Lou Marson - A 24-year-old who looked like he could be a lower-tier starting catcher, or a competent backup catcher.

So, as I go through that list and look for Twins comps, I see Deolis Guerra, Kevin Slowey, Trevor Plouffe and Jose Morales. That's taking some liberties, but it's not too far off.

For either of those packages, I'd pull the trigger.

Would the Twins be giving up too much if they offered Aaron Hicks and Wilson Ramos, as was reported by Jeff Fletcher of AOL FanHouse?
That package, in my mind, is better than either of the ones he was traded for previously. However, it is consistent in one way - both of those guys are struggling this year. The same thing was the case for an awful lot of the guys in the first two trades - they were struggling when they were traded for Lee. And not a lot of them have worked out.

Hicks is repeating Low-A ball as a 20-year-old. He's hitting just .259 with 5 home runs. He had an awful start, a stretch where he was an absolute monster, then another awful stretch and he's now settled in at "underwhelming." So while he was probably a better prospect than any of the other guys on this list last offseason, you can bet he's going to be down one or two "stars" in the same evaluations this next year.

And Ramos had an amazing spring training, a fantastic two-game debut with the Twins, and then a whole lot of nothing. He's still just hitting .208. He has been injured again this year. He's struck out 41 times while walking just 8 times. And in his brief major league debut he threw out exactly 0 basestealers (in four attempts). Will his prospect status next offseason go up or down?

Is that too much? I'm not sure it is. It would be nice if it also included a relief pitcher in return, though it's not like the Twins have any shortage of options. They just don't have room for them all on the roster.

Are there any other teams that could drive the price up?
Hmm, how deep do I want to go on this...

Aw hell, I'm already not sleeping tonight. Let's go deep. Here are the teams likely to be buying at the trade deadline:

Probably Looking for Something Else
Atlanta - is likely looking for offense, not pitching.
Boston - already has plenty of pitching options, too.
Chicago White Sox - also needs offense, not pitching.
Cincinnati - is a possibility, but the bullpen is a much, much bigger concern.
Colorado - needs to focus on offense, especially with the injury to Troy Tulowitski.
New York Yankees - had had great starting pitching and are battling injuries in their lineup. Plus, there is no need to trade for a guy they plan to sign this offseason anyway.
San Diego - needs offense, not pitching.
San Francisco - ditto.
Toronto - won't derail it's long term plans by giving away top prospects.

Could Be Interested But There are Obstacles
Los Angeles Angels - They need pitching and have money, but they're also in the same division as the Mariners. I can't imagine them giving up top prospects knowing they'll need to face them 18 games over the next six years.
Los Angeles Dodgers - They need pitching, but it looks like they don't have any money because of the nasty divorce settlement going on with their owner.
Philadelphia Phillies - Often mentioned, but if they didn't have money in the offseason to pay Lee, why would they have it now? Plus, their starting pitching has been pretty good and has J.A. Happ coming back soon.
Texas Rangers - They are often mentioned, but the starting pitching is pretty good and they also don't have any money to spend, as their creditors (including MLB) would need to approve it.

May Be Worth Worrying About
New York Mets - Their pitching has been really good lately, but it's come from suspicious sources, like RA Dickey. They also have money. But GM Omar Minaya has never really pulled off a big deadline deal, and the bullpen looks like a bigger priority.
St. Louis - I don't think they have the prospects to really draw much interest, but they could use a fifth starter, they have the money, and the trio of Lee, Adam Wainwright and Chris Carpenter could get that region REAL excited about the playoffs.
Detroit - They seem like a decent possibility. Again, offense seems to be more the need, and they have had luck rehabbing Rick Porcello and Max Scherzer. Still, I'm surprised we never hear them mentioned.
Tampa Bay - They've already got a lot of good pitching, but I suppose they could look for an ace, or simply acquire him as a defense of anyone else getting him. They have the prospects, that's for sure. I bet Seattle would love for them to be interested.

The Twins are a better fit than any other team. They have a bigger need than all but a handful, they have the money, and they have the prospects. They aren't the only game in town, and so they'll need to pony up some decent talent in return, but Lee should be attainable if they're willing to make a fair offer.

Road Trip Thoughts

You can tell when I’m either lazy or out of touch, because the columns take the form of bullet points. Especially when I’m both….

Cuddy at 3B
Manager Ron Gardenhire gets a lot of criticism for his staying the course, so it was fun to see him start Michael Cuddyer at third base in the National League parks. In the initial series vs the Phillies, Cuddyer only did so against right-handers. That allowed Jason Kubel to get his hacks against right-handers, but protected him against left-handers. However, as the road trip went on, the Twins kept seeing left-handed starter (four of their last six games were against southpaws) so Cuddyer played third against some of them, too. That was interesting in and of itself, because Gardenhire has pretty consistently dissuaded any talk of moving Cuddyer to the infield.

But what could really be interesting is if Gardenhire continues to do something similar back in the American League ballparks. I haven’t been able to see most of the games on this road trip, but my understanding is that Cuddyer didn’t embarrass himself at the hot corner. According to FanGraphs.com, he had six assists there, or about one per game. Defensively, that seems like a pretty small risk to take.

And the offensive upside of such a move isn’t insignificant. Playing Cuddyer at third allows Jim Thome to be in the lineup (at DH) instead of Danny Valancia. Given Thome’s inconsistent health status, that isn’t a trade you want to make every day, but it could certainly be something to try semi-regularly. If Cuddyer is open to that flexibility, it could be something the Twins could employ versus some tough right-handers.

Kubel versus the Southpaws
I keep looking for evidence that Jason Kubel is relatively effective against left-handed pitchers. And I keep not finding it.

This year, I thought it might be different. Anecdotally, I’ve noticed several good games against southpaws by Kubel, including this weekend’s game against Johan Santana. Kubel hit a home run late in the game, but his key at-bat was the ground rule double against Santana. Delmon Young’s double scored more runs, but Young is right-handed, Kubel is left-handed, and Kubel was the guy the Mets needed to get out. (Young was probably the guy the Mets needed to walk, but that’s another story.)

So I thought Kubel was doing better against left-handers. He isn't. He’s hitting just .219, he’s slugging just .359, and only his on-base percentage of .346 shows any real sign of improvement. The really depressing thing is that he continues to lack any semblance of power against lefties. Here are his slugging percentage the last four years against lefties:

.359, .345, .374, .333

His career slugging percentage against lefties is .357. As a point of comparison, Brendan Harris’ career slugging percentage is .383, 26 points higher than that. And he’s not even in the majors any more.

I’m not saying that Kubel shouldn’t be in the majors, or even that he shouldn’t be in the lineup against left-handers. But it might make sense to move him down the order a bit against southpaws, even if that means having Cuddyer and Young (who both bat right-handed) bat back to back.

The Twins versus Left-handers
Yesterday’s game is the second time in the last two series that the Twins ended up losing to a young pitcher without a great record, the first being last Tuesday against Chris Narveson. But those two pitchers have something else in common besides their relative inexperience - they were both left-handed.

The Twins sport a 760 OPS overall, good for 6th overall in the major leagues. But that number falls to 740 versus left-handers, which puts them in the middle of the pack in MLB. Its not a huge weakness, but it’s worth keeping an eye on as the Twins face lefties.

Incidentally, getting JJ Hardy back could help a lot with that. He has hit lefties quite a bit better over the course of his career.

The Mariners Trade
This weekend the Seattle Mariners surprised the baseball world a bit, nabbing slugger Russell Branyan for a couple of marginal prospects. It wasn’t a surprise that they liked Branyan, since he worked out pretty well when he was on their team last year. It was a surprise because that’s the kind of move a contending team makes, and the Mariners aren’t especially close to contending. They’re 15 games back in their division.

In fact, if any trade was going to be made by the Mariners, most expected the exact opposite. For a couple of weeks baseball has speculated that Seattle’s ace pitcher Cliff Lee could be available, with the Twins being mentioned as frontrunners to acquire him. Does this trade me that won’t happen?

Probably not. It might mean that the Mariners aren’t ready to give up just yet. But is also might mean that Seattle GM Jack Zduriencik took a look at the trade prospects for his guy and didn’t like what he saw. The trade market works like any other market, determining value based on supply and demand. Unfortunately, there isn't that much demand just yet, especially for a pitcher that is going to cost a lot of money, like Lee.

But further depressing the value is that there is a big supply. There are plenty of pretty good pitchers that could be available in trade, many who might be considerably cheaper than Lee. Furthermore, there are still some pitchers who are available as free agents, like Pedro Martinez who showed just how useful he can be in when used in a short season last year with the NL champion Phillies.

With little opportunity to move Lee now, why not trade a couple of very marginal guys for a possible shot in the arm for the team? Worst case is the Mariners keep Lee and end up getting a couple of good draft picks next year, right?

That sounds good. At least until the end of July….

A Walk in Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh sits 874 miles, two travel days and one waterpark overdose from the Minneapolis. It seems like a good place for a walk.

• And any good walk in Pittsburgh starts with a bridge, because the city is practically chained down by them to the surrounding area. And, as you might expect, they are old, big, manly bridges, decorated by rivets. They are made of testosterone in the form of pure steel and concrete and nothing else, because what else would need?

This walk starts on Roberto Clemente’s bridge, the one that goes to PNC Park from downtown, spanning the Allegheny river. It is closed down completely a few hours before game time, creating an impropmptu plaza for under-attended Pirates games. It ends at the cornere of the ballpark, in front of the gate where Clemente’s statue stands. It provides one of the most unique pregame approaches to a ballpark in MLB. I’d rank it even above the tailgating that happened at old Milwaukee County Stadium

• Does anyone else out ther feel the road calling to them as they make a big change in their life? I do. It seems to be th perfect way to embrace the change.

When I moved from Minneapolis to Philly to court this girl I had been dating long-distance, I moved my life in a Honda Prelude. When we married and moved back to Minneapolis, we abandoned our careers for 3 months to tour the U.S. When I left my job to start my own business, we road tripped to Cleveland for a wedding, just because we could

There is a shared spirituality about change and road trips. The rules are being rewritten, there is a sense of freedom and adventure in both. The Road Trip is a taste of a larger impending truth. It is a reminder to honor the Start of Things.

• After going to PNC Park yesterday, The Voice of Reason and I ranked our favorite ballparks. By the end of this trip, we will have been to 19 active parks and probably another ten deceased parks, so we’re not rookies.

PNC ranks in my top 3, and it’s near there for TVOR, too. It’s top three attributes are the primary attribute for all great real estate - location, location, location. It is just over the river, from downtown, on the river, at the end of a prototypical Pittsburgh bridge. It has it’s own neighborhood, but is close to downtown, and along a beautiful riverwalk. You would sit in that ballpark for hours - picnic there - just for the view.

And to the Pirates credit, they didn’t screw up that built-in advantage. (The guy I went with states both proudly and lamentably that PNC is the only thing the Pirates have done right in the last fifteen years.) They refrained from adding seating in center field and kept it low in the entire outfield. The background to the ballgame is a river, a bridge, and a sparking downtown skyline.
It’s a place lovers would go to be alone with each other. And, unfortunately for the Pirates that’s reinforced by the sparse attendance on weeknights.) The fans come to spend some time with their team, enjoying each other’s company, and escaping the harsher day-to-day realities.

But I suspect it would be nice if they won, occasionally. We saw the Pirates drop their ninth in a row.

• Even after 17 years of futility, I think I would like to be a Pirates fan. It’s a team with a ton of great history, a fantastic ballpark, and a dedicated fan base that is passionate. That city reminds me of Cleveland in the early 90s - just waiting to have someone to cheer for. They could use a movie like Major League for that team.

It is easy to forget how similar the Pirates were to the Twins through the 90s and up until 2001. Hell, the Twins were likely ranked lower in most people’s minds - it wasn’t Pittsburgh that was scheduled for contraction. I see a team like this, and I wonder how the Twins did it. We like to focus on a struggling team’s mistakes, and they’re valid, but it also tends to go overboard in blaming the victim. The truth seems to be that it isn’t about avoiding mistakes as it is about filling the gaps and having an awful lot go right all at once. And I don’t’ know how that happens.

• Because you asked, here are the list of top MLB ballparks. Load up the Honda Prelude with gas and get busy.

1. Wrigley - Because I feel like I’m back in time 70 years when I walk into that place. Get there 2 hours early for batting practice. Is it holy.

2 & 3. Camden Yards (BLT) and PNC Park - They’re both new, but they both feel older, and they both feel like ballparks and utilize their inherent location advantage. I rank Camden higher right now, but it’s been 10+ years since I’ve been there, so I might be wrong.

4. Fenway (BOS)
5. Dodger Stadium (LAD)
6. Kaufmann Stadium (KC)

I give Fenway the edge, both because of the sense of history and the neighborhood around it. Dodger Stadium is a beautiful place, and I love the 50s-60s Mad Men vibe about it. It might be the most underrated stadium in MLB. I can’t tell you what I love so much about Kaufmann, but it’s similar to Dodger - nice design, has heldup will to history and is valued by it’s team that doesn’t screw with it too much. I just wish the latter two weren’t in the middle of parking lots.

7-10
Target Field falls into this group, along with Petco (SD). Coors (COL) might, just because of it’s neighborhood. Possibly Jacobs (CLE), too.

Most overrated - Miller Park. I cannot be happier that Target Field stayed away from a retractable roof after seeing Miller. It feels like you’re watching baseball inside a mall.

Would be #2, but deceased - Tiger stadium. A GREAT old ballpark. I haven’t seen Comerica yet, but I plan on hating it. This is a stadium that should have been saved, ala Kaufmann.

--------------

Tomorrow night we’ll be in Philly to watch the Twins and tailgating beforehand. We’ll try and be in the upper left hand corner up of K-lot as early between 4:30 and 5:00. We’ll try to park against the bushes right across the street from the stadium. There's a pedestrian gate right there at the corner of 11th and Pattison. If you can make it, stop by. We’ll try to have a hot dog for you. Also, if you want to contact us, direct message me on my Twitter account.

Think, Know, Prove, revisited

About a month ago, I played the Think, Know and Prove game, and drew a fair amount of criticism in the comments. Some thought I was jumping the gun or drawing conclusions far too early. Some thought I was being conceited. And the truly rational were panicking because they thought I was jinxing the Twins.

I absolutely agree with the third criticism, and I sort of generally agree with the second one, though I think I can find better examples. But that first one – jumping the gun – I wondered about that one.

It might be true. I had never written a story like that after just one month. I wondered how it might change as the year goes on. And since it’s already half an hour after midnight and my life force has been sapped by consecutive nights at a Twins game with 13-year-old girls followed by 10-year-old boys, this seems like as good a night as any. So let’s revisit those statements and see if we want to make any revisions.

1. I think Oakland or Texas is going to find themselves in the postseason. By default.

Revision: It’s likely a three-horse race, but will likely come down to the remaining games between the Rangers and Angels..

The team that is still “out” is Seattle, who was 12 runs below .500 when I wrote the story, is now 52 runs below .500, as well as 23-36 and nine games back of first place. It might be hard to imagine how a team with that pitching (remember, they took three of four games vs our Twins last week) can be that bad. The truth is they haven’t been bad against the AL East (6 wins, 8 losses) or the AL Central (9 wins, 6 losses). But they have been dismal against the AL West, posting just seven wins in 27 games. They have tangled with each of the AL West teams and been emasculated.

The other team I thought was done, the Angels, are a half game back of first place as of today. More tellingly, they’re also almost even in run differential, a significant improvement from where they were a month ago. They’re still over performing at four games over .500, but teams do that, and they don’t give those wins back.

But the real reason the Angels are in such good shape, and the reason I have no idea who is going to win this thing, is that they just haven’t played the Rangers much yet. The two teams have played just two games so far (both won by the Rangers), meaning they have seventeen games left. Basically, the first half of the season has been one long spring training for these teams. Now things are going to get serious.

2. I think I was dead wrong about the White Sox.

Revision: none

Still true. I half expected them to rebound a bit, maybe even challenge the Tigers for second place and make a half-hearted run toward competitiveness in July. That doesn’t look like it’s going to happen. The Pale Hose have netted another negative 16 runs, are still eight games under .500 and are 9.5 games behind the Twins. Things may not get really, really ugly, but I can’t imagine GM Kenny Williams not being a seller at the trade deadline. And probably sooner, seeing as both AJ Pierzynski and Mark Buehrle will soon be achieving no-trade protection due to their 10-5 deadlines.

3. I know the Red Sox don’t matter.

Revision: I think the Red Sox don’t matter.

Back on May 6, the Red Sox had a .500 record, were about even in runs scored and runs given up, and looked like a .500 team. Now they’re +33 runs and +9 games over .500. They’re also just three games worse than the Yankees.

So they’re not totally out of it, and while they have a losing record so far this year against the Yankees and Rays, I guess they’re not totally out of it. In any case, they no longer look like a .500 team. Do they matter? I don’t think so, but that has more to do with the next belief than anything else….

4. I know that the Twins are the third best team in the American League. But they still need to prove to themselves and the rest of the baseball world that they matter.

Revision: The Twins are far behind the top two teams in the American League. And they’re a longshot to matter.

The Rays and Yankees run differentials dwarf the rest of the American League, as do their records. In the two series versus the Yankees, the Twins won just two of four, and that was without facing CC Sabathia or Phil Hughes. Unless Andy Pettitte breaks down or retires or has some demon driven out of him or something, he’s not going to lose to the Twins. The Yankees have better pitching almost across the board, and right now the Twins don’t have an answer to that.

I don’t want to write about this any more.

5. I can prove that the Twins will handily win the AL Central.

Revision: none

Since the last story, the Twins have mostly tread water, inching up slightly in wins and run differential. But the Tigers have inched the other direction, seemingly determined to show that they’re only a .500 team. As of today, they’re just two games over .500, -5 runs in run differential, and 4.5 games back of the Twins.

The good news for them is they still have 12 games against the Twins in which to make up ground. The bad news is that they are 2-4 against the Twins so far this year. And that’s after posting a 7-12 record last year. And a 7-11 record in 2008. The Tigers continue to be a mediocre team that doesn’t match up particularly well with the Twins. Their offense is 9th in the AL in runs scored. Their pitching and defense is 4th in runs given up.

The Twins are two notches above in each category. They’re also two notches above the Tigers and possibly one good surge from proving to Tigers management that Detroit might want to start selling off pieces for some future returns. But even if they don’t, the Twins should make September fairly anti-climactic.

Running Wild

Are opposing teams running more on the Twins, and especially on Joe Mauer? It sure seems like it has been more of a problem this year.

It turns out that Mauer has thrownout 9 of 32 stolen base attempts, which is just 28%. That's actually above last year's 26% rate, but below his career rate of 37%. But it appears that any stolen base problems the Twins are having aren't really the fault of the catchers. They fall primarily on one pitcher'a shoulders, which becomes apparent when you look at how many stolen base attempts and stolen bases each has faced.

Nick Blackburn - 1 attempt, 0 stolen bases
Scott Baker - 3 attempts, 1 stolen base
Francisco Liriano - 4 attempts, 3 stolen bases
Kevin Slowey - 7 attempts, 5 stolen bases
and
Carl Pavano - 17 attempts, 15 stolen bases

Pavano has given up 60% more stolen bases than the rest of the starting staff COMBINED.

Maybe Bert is Right (Part 3)

(This is the third part of a 3-part series that I’ll be running on the TwinsCentric blog and at TwinsGeek.com. In Part 1, we discovered that an original metric for evaluating pitcher abuse, Pitcher Abuse Points (PAP) had been declared bunk by its creator, Rany Jayazerli. However, he and Keith Woolner instead presented another metric called PAP3 to replace it that also started tabulating abuse points of a pitcher at the 100-pitch mark.

In Part 2, we found out that PAP3 was actually developed to show short-term performance effects of high pitch counts, not long-term injury effects. What’s more, the “significant” effect it showed was a 1% decrease in pitcher performance after a 130 pitch outing versus a 90 pitch outing, or about one extra run per year.

In Part 3, we’ll look at the second half of the Analyzing PAP essay, where Jayazerli and Woolner see how effective PAP3 is at predicting pitcher injuries.)

In the second half of the study, Jayazerli and Woolner are very careful about what they are trying to prove. They do NOT try to show that PAP3 is a good predictor of pitching injuries. Instead, they try to show that it is a better indicator than just counting pitches. Of course, to those that believe that counting pitches is already bunk, that’s not proving much.

They do this by looking at the same time period and finding 73 pitchers with arm injuries that cost them 30 days or more of playing time. They then find comparable healthy pitchers that threw about the same number of pitches over their career. Then they compared the PAP3 scores for those pitchers.

They found that the injured pitchers were three times more likely to have had above-average PAP3 scores for their career. There are also two more studies from this same data set that suggest that PAP3 is better than just straight pitch counts. But again, it isn’t showing any kind of cause-effect or even a correlation between injuries and pitch counts. It’s just showing that their way of counting pitches correlates better than just straight pitch counts.

Interestingly, they specifically study the baseline of 100 pitches where PAP3 starts counting, and conclude it is essentially a line drawn in the sand. They tested 90, 100, 110 and didn’t find that any one measurement was significantly better than the other. They end up using PAP3 for injuries because it is convenient:

“Therefore, any reasonable metric that gives extra weight to high-pitch-count outings should yield a risk factor that in time is in the same ballpark as PAP3 (pardon the pun). Because we have a preferred metric for short-term impact that does acceptably well long-term injury risk to, we will stick with simplicity and use a single metric for both purposes.”

So let’s review. The purpose of the study was to study long-term injury risk as it related to pitch counts. Instead, a formula was devised to predict short-term performance impact instead. While the formula starts creating very large and spooky totals at 100 pitches, the results show almost zero impact on a pitcher’s performance until 130 pitches and nothing significant until 140 pitches.

As for long-term injury risk, all that was proved was that any metric that applies extra weight to pitches thrown late in a game is more accurate at demonstrating increased injury risk than just counting pitches throughout a season. But, of course, if you think pitch count is bunk, this is just a little above bunk. What’s more, since no baseline number or formula was any more accurate than any other, the same formula was used because it was convenient, not because it was more accurate.

Conclusion

The 100 pitch count “limit” was ingrained in people’s noggins before this study. The original PAP metric had sabremetrics lovers everywhere analyzing and criticizing managers for fragging their players' arms, present company included. The revised metric supposedly brought it even more credence.

It didn’t. The study of pitch counts appears to – as Bill James wrote a couple of years later – resulted in a dead end. The evidence shows that pitchers arms are no more affected in the short or long term by 125 pitches than they are by 100, and barely affected up to 139 pitches. And pitch counts like that almost never happen in major league baseball these days.

I’m not advocating pushing the limit to 180 pitches. But maybe Bert is right: we can trust the opposing batters to indicate to a pitcher when he is done, and rely a lot less on arbitrary pitch counts.

What is Going on with the DL?

So, why was Cuddy at second base?

The Twins have been slow to place banged up players on the 15-day disabled list (DL) this year, and last night that resulted in Michael Cuddyer playing second base. Cuddyer hasn't played second base consistently since 2005 when he played 11 games there. He started last night because the Twins have two injured second basemen on the roster and neither of them were on the DL.

Starting second baseman Orlando Hudson was injured Sunday night, and the Twins are still trying to evaluate if there is something wrong with his wrist. After negative x-rays, and a CT scan that turned up nothing, they say he should be back in a couple of days. We'll see.

But backup Alexi Casilla underwent an MRI on his elbow back on 5/21 or 5/22. It found a bone spur and loose bodies, but nothing that prevented him from filling in for Hudson back on 5/22. He also played on 5/27, going one for four. However, last night he was only able to pinch run, which is why Cuddyer ended up starting at second base. Now he's going to be placed on the DL, ten days after his MRI?

This isn't the first time the Twins have kept a guy on the roster while he treating an injury. It's happened over and over. Instead of calling a healthy backup from Rochester, the Twins have played short-handed this year, and the player coming back has struggled. Let's review...

Nick Punto
Situation: Most recently, Punto was basically out of games from 5/22 to 5/28 with an injured finger. I say "basically" because he was used as a pinch runner a couple of times during that stretch. When he returned, he could only bat left-handed, which limited the spots in which he could be used.

Results: In the 9 days in which Punto would have been on the 15-day DL, he has garnered two hits.

JJ Hardy
Situation: Hardy jameed his wrist sliding into third base on 5/4. Initially, we were told he would miss a day or two. A week later he ended up seeing a specialist and was finally put on the DL on 5/11.

Results: The Twins played short-handed for a week - and still ended up putting Hardy on the DL. He didn't return until 5/25 and admitted this weekend that his wrest still isn't 100%. He is 4-22 since his return, with one double.

Joe Mauer
Situation: Mauer hurt his heel in a game 4/30. He was out until 5/8, when he pinch hit. He started as a designated hitter on 5/9. And he finally started again at catcher on 5/11, eleven days after the injury. During that time the Twins used multiple roster moves to cover for not placing him on the DL.

Results: Mauer went 8 for 19 in the games in which he would have been on the DL. What can you say - it's Mauer. He hits.

Nick Punto (again)
Situation: On 4/16 Punto was held out of a game because he had a sore groin. Later the problem was diagnosed as a hip flexor injury, and he was finally added to the DL on 4/23, a week later.

Results: For a week, the Twins played without their starting third baseman and without making a roster move. Punto returned 4/30.

Pat Neshek
Situation: On 4/15 it was reported that Neshek had a sore flexor tendon in his finger. He was held out of games until 4/24. A week later the Twins decided to send him to AAA, at which point he asked to be put on the DL, at which point the finger-pointing started. Eventually he was given an MRI and a new diagnosis was given: he had a problem with his palm pulley tendon.

Result: In the 15 days he would have been on the DL, the Twins played short-handed for nine days, and then Neshek gave up two runs on eighteen pitches. Plus, he was eventually put on the DL, plus it looks like the missed diagnosis resulted in treatment that aggravated the actual injury.

Conclusion
What the hell is going on out there? For four guys (Neshek, Punto's hip, Hardy and Casilla), it looks like the Twins just had no idea how serious (or what) the injury was. In Mauer's case, the felt like they would rather play short-handed than not have him for a few days (and Mauer made that look almost prudent). And with Punto's finger, he was seemingly rushed back.

I had thought that the Twins were trying to be careful about roster moves. That doesn't seem to the be case. It looks more and more like the problem is that players are either trying to downplay injuries or the medical staff is having trouble evaluating them. I can only think of a couple of games that it has impacted, but it must be driving manager Ron Gardenhire crazy. This is an area that needs some extra attention, and needs it fast.

Maybe Bert is Right (Part 2)

(This is the second part of a 3-part series that I’ll be running on the TwinsCentric blog and at TwinsGeek.com. You can find Part 1 here. Part 3 on June 3rd.)

In Part 1, we discovered that an original metric for evaluating pitcher abuse, Pitcher Abuse Points (PAP) had been declared bunk by its creator, Rany Jayazerli. However, he and Keith Woolner instead presented another metric called PAP3 to replace it. It also starts tabulating abuse points of a pitcher at the 100-pitch mark. The evidence that it has any correlation to pitcher abuse is supposed to be in the Analyzing PAP essay, which is divided into two parts. We’ll look at the first part of that essay today.

Analyzing PAP Essay
While the initial intent of PAP was to study whether a pitcher is at risk for injury or permanent reduction in effectiveness, Woolner and Jayazerli tried to get that to happen indirectly. They broke their study into two parts. First, they studied whether there is any short-term reduction in effectiveness for pitchers after a long outing. Then, in the second part, they studied whether those high pitch counts also can predict injury.

In part one, they looked at starts for pitchers over a ten-year period (from 1988 through 1998) and look at a pitcher’s performance 21 days before and 21 days after each start. If a pitcher has a high pitch count, do the 21 days after the start reflect a decrease in performance compared to the 21 days before?

After looking at some initial results, they implemented one more filter. They only analyzed “high-endurance” starting pitchers, or pitchers whose average pitch count is above that of the league. They did this essentially so they could study the better pitchers in the league, and the ones most likely to be pushed. It also provided data that makes a little more sense.

The essay starts with a surprising result: they find a very slight decrease in performance across the board - about 1% – no matter how many pitches a pitcher throws. That is true up through 129 pitches; at 130 pitches, future performance slopes down 2% and at 140 pitches future performance dives about 5%. Those results weren’t terribly in sync with what PAP would’ve predicted, so they tried some other formulas and came up with the PAP3 curve instead.

To summarize Part 1, they found that a high pitch count can have a slight impact to a “high-endurance” pitcher’s short-term performance. That impact is about 2% if a pitcher throws upwards of 130 pitches. In what is otherwise a very candid and objective study, I’m a little disappointed by the attempt to frame this as significant:

“Assuming a fairly abusive usage pattern across a staff, a team’s starting rotation could suffer a season-wide decline of about 2%. Considering the effect on both the innings pitched (putting more strain on the bullpen) and extra runs allowed by the starting pitchers, this might amount to perhaps 20-25 runs over the course of a season, worth about 2 to 2.5 games in the standings. It’s comparable to the difference in value between Tim Hudson and Kevin Tapani or Todd Ritchie in 2000. That’s a trade worth making.”

Um, hold it. So if I allow all my pitchers to throw 130+ pitches in 162 games, I’ll decrease my staff’s effectiveness by 2%? And if I allow them to throw just 90, they’ll only decrease by 1%? And we think that’s significant, do we?

Just so we’re clear, on what 1% is, one of the metrics that was used was runs against. So Carl Pavano (who has a significant injury history) gave up 119 runs last year while consistently throwing between 90 and 103 pitches. But if his teams would’ve allowed him to throw 130 pitches, he would’ve given up – one more run? Again, I’m supposed to think that’s a significant finding?

And, of course, this doesn’t measure what all this was supposed to measure – whether it’s actually dangerous to the pitcher. That comes next, in Part 3….

Too Good To NOT Show

For two years I've been saying Justin Morneau was the captain of this team. Apparently he does have at least a little captain in him.




-- Post From My iPad

Maybe Bert is Right (Part 1)

Pitch Counts May Be BS

(This is the first of a 3-part series that I’ll be running on the TwinsCentric blog and at TwinsGeek.com. Part 2 will be published on Memorial Day and Part 3 on June 3rd.)

Let’s be honest: for the first one hundred years or so of major league baseball, the players were chattel. That’s the biggest reason that starting pitchers were allowed to throw until their arms fell off. Management didn’t really give a damn if they fell off or not.

That’s also why things have changed. With the introduction of guaranteed contracts, a fragile arm can sink an entire front office. (Just ask Omar Minaya next fall.) So teams, coaches, agents and certainly players are looking for a way to protect those investments. Pitch counts seemed like a good place to start. And 100 is such a nice round number.

But don’t make the mistake of thinking there is any science behind it. Or at least that it isn’t paper thin. The current wisdom that 100 pitches is some kind of limit is an overly simplified interpretation of very specific studies that weren’t afraid to point out their own limitations.

The initial and most significant research on pitching abuse was a pair of essays in the 2001 edition of Baseball Prospectus. The first is called “Re-Thinking Pitcher Abuse” by Rany Jazayerli, which gives a brief history of his attempts at studying pitching abuse and summarizes a new measurement called PAP3. The second is “Analyzing PAP,” written by Jazayerli and Keith Woolner, which details the study that led them to develop the new measurement.

Both essays are very candid about what they found and what their limitations are, mostly without an ax to grind. Unfortunately, the measurements they created have been misinterpreted and oversimplified to become some deranged gospel of truth that doesn’t exist. So let’s take a look at what we REALLY know about pitch counts from those essays.

Re-Thinking Pitcher Abuse Essay
Jayazerli introduces both essays by explaining his original theory: that all pitches are not created equal. In particular, pitches thrown later in a game, once the arm is tired, are more damaging than those thrown earlier in a game.

When Jayazerli had proposed that idea earlier, he also devised a statistic to try and measure it called Pitching Abuse Points, or PAP. The original idea was that the first 10 pitches over 100 would be worth one point each. The next 10, two points each. The next 10, three points each, and so on. The more points, the worse the risk to the pitcher.

(In the later essay, Jayazerli says he chose 100 as a starting point because of research dating back to Craig Wright’s The Diamond Appraised, which suggested the 100-pitch limit for developing pitchers. I’m afraid I haven’t procured a copy of that book to see exactly where it came from.)

Jazayerli had thrown out this statistic as a starting point, but BaseballProspectus.com was exploding in popularity at that time, and he noted that a strange thing happened:

“And for two years, I have tried to use PAP as a framework in which to center the ongoing discussion of pitcher usage. In the process, though, PAP became more than a framework for measurement; it became the standard for measurement. Which it was never intended to do.”

Jazayerli then points out that he had never found any evidence that this PAP score is tied to injuries. He explains that it is a very difficult thing to measure because of all the confounding factors. So he enlisted Keith Woolner’s help and they conducted another study (detailed in the second essay) which resulted in a new measure called PAP3.

PAP3 was similar to PAP except that the points increase exponentially once you get over 100 pitches. Basically, you cube the number of pitches over 100, so 105 pitches would be 5^3 or 125 points. But 110 pitches would be 10^3 or 1000 points. And 120 pitches would be 20^3 or 8000 points.

You can see, that creates some very scary looking numbers in a hurry. However, the standard for what was truly damaging was also raised considerably. So they also included a table which listed the pitch counts along with their risk. Anything below 105 pitches was “virtually none.” Anything under 122 pitches was “moderate” and anything over 133 pitches was “severe.”

So let’s review what this essay just said. First, it explains that there was never any evidence that a previous metric (PAP) was ever valid. It pushes any significant risk in pitch counts up to 120+ pitches. And finally it explains a new metric (PAP3) for evaluating pitcher risk.

Of course, the basis for PAP3 and those conclusions are in the second essay, and we’ll start evaluating that in Part 2 on Monday.

------------------------

I really, really, really cannot believe that I haven’t covered this next item yet. I’ve just been distracted by some life stuff. Many of you may have heard that one of the TwinsCentrick authors, Parker Hageman, has been designing some t-shirts for Twins fans. His initial one is a “Thome is my Homey” t-shirt and the first batch already sold out, but they’ve ordered a second batch. You know you’re going to want to rock this shirt at your next Twins game, so get it now, because I don’t think there will be a third batch.

More Endgame Talk

You may have heard about the Atlanta Braves big seven-run comeback in the bottom of the ninth last week versus the Cincinnati Reds. It ended on a grand slam that gave the Braves a 10-9 victory.

But one thing I didn't know about was that the Reds, leading 9-3, missed out on chances to add to the score in both the eighth and ninth inning. In both cases, the Reds had runners on first and second base with no outs, but the third batter hit into a double play and the fourth struck out. It seemed unimportant at the time - up until the Braves remarkable comeback.

The lost opportunities were a topic of analysis in the local SABR forum. (I'm including the link because I think you can sign up, and I'm guessing most of my readers probably would like some of the topics. I hope you can sign up. I'm not really sure how - it's been so long since I joined. And please, be nice.) The question is whether the Reds should have tried playing "smallball" to push an extra insurance run across in those two innings.

I replied:

Some folks may find this interesting. Below is the URL for something called the Win Expectancy Tracker, which shows the probability of winning a baseball game in various situations, based on historical results.

http://winexp.walkoffbalk.com/expectancy/search

Using it, I find that from 1997 through 2006, there were 1993 games where the home team entered the bottom of the ninth losing by six runs. They won three of them. So the visiting team won in that situation 99.85% of the time.

How much more would an extra run have helped? During the same time period, there were 4224 where the home team entered the bottom of the ninth losing by seven OR MORE runs. (Sorry about the OR MORE, but the tool just lumps everything over 6 together.) The home team came back to win just four of those, so they lost 99.91% of the time.

So getting that extra run across would've helped in approximately 0.06% of all games, and that's being generous. How insignificant is that? Let's take a look at another seemingly trivial situation and see how it would rank.

If the lead off batter of the visiting team just gets on base at the beginning of the first inning, he's improved his team's chances of winning 4.4%, or about 70 times more than that single extra run should've helped in the ninth inning.

One could do a similar analysis on the question raised yesterday - at what point do you really need a closer? So, if there wasn't a "save" statistic, at what point does the percentage chance of winning a game justify putting in someone other than your best reliever? So let's use the Win Expectancy Tracker to see historically what percentage of games were won by the home team carrying various leads or deficits into the top of the ninth.

Leading by 5 - win 99.7% of the time
Leading by 4 - win 98.8% of the time
Leading by 3 - win 98.0% of the time
Leading by 2 - win 94.5% of the time
Leading by 1 - win 86.6% of the time
Tied - win 52.2% of the time
Losing by 1 - win 15.2% of the time
Losing by 2 - win 6.3% of the time
Losing by 3 - win 2.9% of the time
Losing by 4 - win 1.3% of the time
Losing by 5 - win 0.6% of the time

Looking at those odds, I suppose you can make a pretty good case that whoever tries to hold a three run lead should be the same guy that tries to hold a four run lead. But I would argue that you don't need your best reliever to try and hold a three-run lead, either. 98% of the time a three run lead is safe, for chrissakes.

For the home team, the times a closer should be used include holding a one-run lead and a two-run lead. It also certainly includes a tie game, where giving up a single run decreases the chances of winning by 35%. I suppose one could even make a case for using him when losing by a run, since that second run decreases the chances of winning the game by almost 9%.

So I think it's a fair question to ask what the difference is between protecting a three-run and a four-run lead. But to claim that a closer needs to be used to protect a game that is already won 98.8% of the time seems a little severe.

Gardy's Late Inning Decisions

Is that where we are now? We can be frustrated by a near sweep?

Yeah, that's right, and I'm not going to apologize for it. The Twins seemed like a vastly superior team compared to the Brewers. Maybe that was due to the party-like atmosphere of Friday night. Maybe it was the quick start on Saturday. Even the Brewers late-inning comeback on Saturday felt like a fluke, and you had to love the pitching matchups for Sunday.

So even though the Twins finished with the same results we should have expected (I doubt the Twins were favored throwing Kevin Slowey versus Yovani Galarado), it left me frustrated, and I'm not going to apologize for it. Listening to the post-game audio for the game, the manager and players sounded like they were frustrated too.

One aspect that is bound to be analyzed after a couple of one-run games is the late-inning decisions, and the last two games provided more than their share for manager Ron Gardenhire. In fact, he's all ready drawn a little second-guessing from Patrick Reusse. So let's review them quickly:

1. Saturday, top of the ninth - 6-2 lead - Ron Mahay starts the inning over Jon Rauch.

This is the move that Reusse not only criticizes, but ponders whether Gardenhire learned from it. I'm sure his argument resonates, seeing as it provides an opportunity to trash managing to a fairly useless statistic, the save. Reusse (probably correctly) postulates that Rauch didn't start the inning because it wouldn't have resulted in a save.

I guess. To, if you're going to criticize the blown lead, it falls 10% on Gardenhire and 90% on Mahay and Rauch. There needs to be some dividing line - you're not going to have Rauch hold a seven run lead - and three runs is as good as any. The southpaw Mahay has been one of the Twins more reliable relievers this year and he got to start an inning where the first and third batters were batting left-handed. Oh, and he got to face the bottom of the Brewers order.

A priori, there was no reason that the Twins should have felt like they needed Rauch there. It was only after Mahay laid a major egg - and Rauch contributed a few extra-base hits himself - that it was a move that merited any criticism.

2. Saturday, bottom of the ninth - having Jim Thome pinch hit for Trevor Plouffe - and get intentionally walked.

It was a tie game with one out and runners on 2nd and 3rd when Gardenhire used the last bullet in his holster for what everyone knew would be an intentional walk. Of the three moves here, this is the most debatable in my mind, but still pretty defendable.

Gardenhire had two choices: he could either choose to have Plouffe bat with runners on second and third (and again, one out) or he could have Nick Punto bat with the bases loaded and one out. To me, the second is a defensible choice, and probably the one I would make. But it is a choice that can easily drawn two criticisms.

The first is that the Brewers would've walked Plouffe anyway to load the bases, which would've allowed Thome to bat with the bases loaded. Maybe, but not intentionally. Brewers manager Ken Macha has a decision to make too, and his is a lot easier to figure out. Would he rather face Plouffe with runners on 2nd and 3rd or Thome with the bases loaded? There is no doubt they pitch to Plouffe.

The second criticism is that it's a fairly incremental upgrade from Plouffe to Punto and the price for it is too high - it's Thome. That's a fair criticism, but I can only fault Garenhire so much for being aggressive in that situation. And it turned out that over the next couple innings, the Twins had good players at the plate in the high-leverage situations anyway. He ended up not needing Thome on his bench.

3. Sunday, bottom of the ninth - trailing by one run, Thome replaces Brendan Harris and is walked so Plouffe needs to drive in the winning run. He strikes out to end the game.

In this situation, Gardenhire had another choice to make. With two outs, he had to decide between batting Harris with runners on the corners or Plouffe with the bases loaded. Again, he went with the bases loaded, which means that the batter only need to draw a walk, instead of get a hit.

The problem wasn't where Thome pinch-hit. The problem was that Gardenhire had two spots where he needed a pinch-hitter and only one Thome. If one really wants to second-guess Gardenhire, the place to start might be to ask why there wasn't another option on the bench, cuz there coulda been. Joe Mauer was available until an inning earlier, when he had been inserted for Sal Butera. That was with one out and the bases empty, a much lower leverage spot. But, of course, Gardenhire couldn't see that another, better option would be coming an inning later.

The problem is that all three moves failed, and the last one led to a loss. The frustration we feel about the series might magnify them, but I can't say I disagree with any of the moves.