NFL Thoughts

/0 Comments/in /by

1. The Extra Point. In an effort to add interest to the routine extra point after touchdown, the NFL added 23 yards to the length of the kick. This, however, added nothing of interest to the play itself. Yes, the point is more occasionally missed than before – especially by the Vikings’ kicker – but a routine kick is still routine. A field goal, like an extra point, is essentially a boring play, unless it comes at a challenging distance or affects the game’s outcome. If the NFL really wanted to spice up the extra point, it should have either eliminated the kicking option altogether, or moved the starting point closer, to the one-yard line for instance, to encourage an actual play that could be defended.

2. Why I Like the Jets. My antipathy toward New York teams was tested this fall by the Mets’ run to the World Series, fueled by their forlorn history, underdog status, low payroll, combination of castoffs and phenoms, and generally subordinate position to the hated Yankees. The Jets stand in the same relation to the New York Giants, including in their home stadium, and the only names I recognize on their roster are players deemed expendable by former employers. Their history of ineptitude, in terms of ownership, management and player personnel, is also well established. The New York press can hardly hide its amazement that it’s the Jets, not the Giants, that are meriting the headlines at the end of this season. More personally, I have a history soft on the Jets, despite their New York advantage. Seeking underdogs from an early age, I adopted the New York Titans as my favorite team, after outgrowing my even earlier infatuation with the Giants of Connerly, Gifford, Rote, Robustelli, Grier, Brown, Huff, et al. Al Dorow became my favorite quarterback until supplanted by Lee Grosscup, and Don Maynard my favorite receiver. The Titans morphed into the Jets, the AFL was absorbed by the NFL and the underdog aura evaporated, but not until Joe Namath, the key transitional figure, upset the Colts in the third Super Bowl. What brings me back to the Jets now is my connection to their three name offensive stars: Ryan Fitzpatrick went to my alma mater, Harvard; Eric Decker was a star for the University of Minnesota (and, frankly, is one of the few star white receivers); and Brandon Marshall shares my family name. Also, until yesterday, it seemed possible that they could finish the season with an 11-5 record and not make the playoffs, while a team from the NFC East could get in with an even, or losing, record.

3. Fantasy Sports Is Gambling. The bane of my NFL fandom is the rise of fantasy sports, specifically the two heavily advertising companies, FanDuel and DraftKing. Not only did their boring and implicitly misleading ads take time away from Geico and the other creative adsters, their product was being taken seriously by ESPN (among others including SI) which was producing shows devoted to the subject, in place of The Sports Reporters, which I can’t find anymore. What bothered me most, though, was the claim that fantasy sports was a contest of skill, not chance, and therefore not subject to every state’s anti-gambling laws. There is more skill in determining the winner of a team contest than in determining how many touchdowns an individual will score, yet betting on the former is universally considered gambling. The matter is now in the courts – many of them – but the case is open-and-shut in my mind.

4. Don’t Some Coaches Ever Learn? Perhaps by now it is widely understood that the only thing a “prevent defense” prevents is the continuing good play of the team employing it. Yet shortly after one terrible defensive ploy was exposed on national TV we saw it being repeated, no lesson learned. Aaron Rodgers beat the Detroit Lions on the game’s final play by throwing a 70-yard Hail Mary pass. How did the Packers have the time to get all their receivers into the end zone and Rodgers have the time and space to uncork his bomb? Because the Lions rushed only three linemen, leaving the rest of their defense to run into each other in the end zone, allowing Green Bay’s Richard Rogers to back into several of them and catch the pass. A few weeks later, the Chiefs were defending against the Ravens with the ball at midfield on the final play of the half and what did they do? They rushed three men (a fourth blitzed later), allowing Raven quarterback Jimmy Clausen to throw a Hail Mary that was caught by his receiver – whether the intended receiver or not we’ll never know – and run in for a touchdown. It seems so obvious: rush the quarterback hard and he won’t have time to throw to the end zone, or if he does, no one will be there to catch it. But in case you ever think NFL coaches are so smart, there was Vikings coach Mike Zimmer electing to run one more play from the Arizona 36-yard line with 12 seconds and no timeouts left instead of kicking a field goal to tie the game. Or, more famously, Pete Carroll trying a pass when the Super Bowl was only a 1-yard run away.

Fantasy Sports

/0 Comments/in /by

One of the few good-news stories I have to follow – along with the growth and cementing of gay rights around the country – is the legal offensive against FanDuel and DraftKing, the fantasy sports sites that bombard every sports event with ads that are equally boring and deceptive. There is no question, and the legal inquiries have so established, that almost everyone loses money in these ventures; and the incessant “John Smith has won $100,000” claims may be true for John Smith, but if you think you are the next winner, you are the next sucker.

The fantasy that gets me is the claim that these wagers are not gambling, because they involve an element of skill – or so Congress, in its usual lack of wisdom, decreed. By contrast, betting on the outcome of a game is gambling and is illegal, except in Nevada. There is far more “skill” in guessing which team will win a game than in guessing how many touchdowns a particular individual will score on a given day, yet the former is verboten while the latter is permitted.

I will never bet on a fantasy game, so why should I care? As mentioned, there are those ads, which have none of the wit of Geico spots. Now, the rage is spreading to on-air shows: instead of finding the Sports Reporters on ESPN2 on Sunday, I find a whole half-hour of fantasy tips, and this approach to sports is creeping into SI, as well. Concentrating on individual performances in a team game is a distortion of sport. So, go get ’em, attorneys general!

Game 4

/0 Comments/in /by

[fusion_text]

One beauty of the World Series is that it magnifies baseball, the most analyzable of sports. Every pitch seems to matter, every run is discussable, every move debatable, and last night’s 5-3 Royals win over the Mets was a perfect example.

First, the Mets’ runs: how did Michael Conforto, a rookie who had looked overmatched in every previous game – playing only because Michael Cuddyer looked even worse – suddenly hit two solo home runs and turn, in front of the viewing public, from prospect to future star? Granted, one was off a mediocre get-it-over-first-strike from mild-throwing Chris Young early in the game, but hard-throwing lefty Daniel Duffy should have been on alert when he faced Conforto later in the game – although Duffy hadn’t surrendered a homer to a lefty in about three years and Conforto had never hit one off a lefty.

The Mets’ middle run, which for awhile loomed as the game-winner, was even more baffling. After a rare passed ball by catcher Sal Perez allowed Wilmer Flores to move to third base with one out, Curtis Granderson hit a medium-short fly to right. Alex Rios came loping forward, with perfect position and momentum to gun out Flores at the plate. But he thought there were two outs and the inning would be over; when he heard his teammates’ cries and belatedly threw home it was too late. But was it? The Royals challenged the run, claiming Flores had departed third too early. An agonizing video replay showed Flores’ foot leaving the bag as the ball entered Rios’s glove, but was there a spike still in contact with the bag? Replays were “inconclusive” and the run stood. Of course, it wouldn’t have been fair to disallow a run on such a technicality that had no effect on the play – but then again the Royals had lost a potential first-inning rally when a clear stolen base by Alcides Escobar was turned into a double play on batter’s interference.

The Royals got their runs in their usual way, pecking here, pouncing there. Mets starter Stephen Matz looked untouchable for four innings – but prior Met starters Harvey and DeGrom had also looked unhittable before they didn’t. The Royals don’t seem discouraged by early difficulties, they just keep hacking and eventually got to Matz and his relief help for two runs in the sixth. The commentators questioned not pinch-hitting for Matz when he batted in the fifth, but that overlooked the fact that he is as good a hitter as almost anyone on the bench at that point.

It was the Royals’ four-run 8th inning that turned the game, and probably wrapped up the Series, that is being discussed today, and here every move has its detractors. After reliever Tylar Clippard got one out he walked two batters, albeit on close 3-2 pitches, leading manager Terry Collins to turn to his closer, Jeurys Familia. Why not bring in Familia after the first walk, asked the TV announcer? Why not bring him in to start the inning, asked the morning-after pundits? Collins was roundly chastised for wanting to save Familia so he could also use him in Game 5 tonight. You’ve got to win Game 4 first!, the critics cry. On the other hand, if Familia had gotten five quick outs, Collins’s use would have been considered wise. And furthermore, given Familia’s lack of success – facing four batters, he only retired one – it might not have mattered at what point he entered the game.

The key topic of discussion, however, was the error by Daniel Murphy on the slow grounder from Eric Hosmer, the first batter Familia faced. Did this lose the game – a la Bill Buckner in 19TK? First, let me note it was not a routine play. Murphy had to charge the ball, with a base runner moving in front of him. Although Hosmer is not among the fastest Royals, the team speed they had shown had to subconsciously put pressure on Murphy to rush the play. Nor is it clear to me that had Murphy fielded the ball cleanly he would have gotten Hosmer out. As the announcer commented at the time, Murphy was probably undecided whether he was going to shovel the ball to first with his glove or transfer it to his throwing hand. Either way, it would be tricky for the less-than-adept Murphy and a close play at first.

Even assuming an out is recorded at first, there are runners at second and third, both of whom would have scored on Moustakas’s ensuing ground ball single to right, let alone the following line drive to right by Perez. The Royals would have taken a 4-3 lead, and while not as comfortable as the 5-3 margin, there’s no reason to believe it would not have been sufficient for Wade Davis, who shut out the Mets over the last two frames.

Still, it is easier to put the onus on Murphy – especially as he is positioned to bear it. He is the single greatest reason the Mets beat the Dodgers and Cubs and reached the World Series. The amazing achievement of homering in six straight postseason games will be dimmed by the memory of his error, but only slightly. What the Murphy error does do, I predict, is make it easier for Mets management to sever ties when the season ends. They were largely predicted to do so before the postseason began, but Murphy’s heroics might have made it seem heartless to not offer him a contract for next year, despite his journeyman past, his mediocre fielding and baserunning (and, dare I say, religious right-wing opinions, out of place in New York). If anything, his defensive deficiencies were more apparent on the Moustakas single that followed the Hosmer error. Murphy dove and just missed the ground ball, and it’s easy to think of a dozen other second basemen that would have gotten to the ball.

My last thought on the game last night is prompted by the final play, a soft line drive from Lucas Duda that Moustakas caught easily and threw to first to double up Yoenis Cespedes. Cespedes’ sleepwalking at first, on top of his month-long slump, has undoubtedly clouded the Mets’ determination to resign him as a free agent, especially if there are any more Confortos in the wings. But the Royals’ luck was not just Cespedes’ gaffe, but that Duda’s ball was hit directly at Moustakas, the only fielder on the left side of the infield. The Royals have consistently applied a shift against Duda, a power-hitting lefty, moving shortstop Escobar to the other side of second. Duda, however, has hit at least five balls to the left side against the Royals, including three base hits – far more damage than he has done to the right. Why have the Royals not adapted? Furthermore, the Royals, unlike many other major league teams, have left their third baseman by himself on the left, instead of their more agile shortstop. Moustakas has stumbled over a ground ball and had trouble fielding a pop up behind him. Can’t they see that if they choose to continue their shift – which I would advise against – it’s Moustakas who should be moved, not Escobar.

That’s it until tonight’s Game 5…and maybe one or two more.

[/fusion_text]

The Perfect Playoffs

/0 Comments/in /by

A brief blurb on how pleased I am with this year’s baseball playoffs. Getting the Yankees wiped out – and looking particularly feeble – in the play-in game was a treat in itself. Next to depart were the Cardinals, who have won too much, in a colorless fashion, to root for. The fact that it was the wild card Cubs that accomplished the feat only made it sweeter. Toronto was my favorite team of the season’s second half, with their bludgeon baseball and former Twin Chris Colabello; so I thoroughly enjoyed seeing them come from two down to take out the Texas Rangers. Moreover, they did it morality play manner: just when you thought they would lose on an undeserved, freak play – with a return throw from the catcher bouncing off the batter’s bat – they bounced back with a four-run seventh, climaxed by a monstrous home run by Jose “Joey Bats” Bautista. The fact that Elvis Andrus dropped three straight balls to create the rally made you think there was some kind of baseball karma at work.

Kansas City has been a favorite since last year’s playoffs. They play the most entertaining brand of baseball – good defense, basehits from everyone, and a shutdown bullpen – and they are from the Twins’ division. But best of all was the Mets defeating the Dodgers, in Los Angeles, no less. I don’t usually warm to New York teams, but the Mets have been down so long you almost feel sorry for their fans (not their ownership). The Dodgers, meanwhile, are the Yankees West, an overpaid smug bunch. What set me off completely, however, was the Chase Utley slid play, which was not only loathsome in itself (see prior blog), but gave LA a game the Mets c0uld have, if not should have, won. If the Dodgers had gone on to the NLCS because of that, their defeat would have been a moral crusade. As it is, I don’t really have a rooting interest. KC v. Toronto is speed and finesse v. power, a classic confrontation. Mets v. Cubs is a revelatory showdown of great young pitchers v. great young hitters. I hope both series go the distance, by which time I may know whom I’m for. Until then, I will hope every game goes to the home team.

Outrage at Second

/0 Comments/in /by

[fusion_text]Previously on this site I have recommended a baseball rule change, requiring a baserunner to slide toward the base he is approaching and awarding a doubleplay when this rule is broken. The urgency of such a rule change increased tonight when a slide that should be illegal not only broke a shortstop’s leg, but changed the outcome of a playoff game.

With runners on first and third, one out and the Dodgers trailing 2-1, Mets second baseman Daniel Murphy fielded a hard shot behind second, tossed the ball to shortstop Ruben Tejada who reached backward for the ball, pirouetted and started to throw to first. Dodger runner Chase Utley, however, ignored second base and instead slid into Tejada well off the bag. In fact, and this should’ve been important, Utley did not even touch second base. His slide was late, starting only when reaching the bag, and wide.

Not only did the tying run score from third, the replay official noted that Tejada’s toe did not quite reach the base and so he ruled Utley safe, ruling that when an umpire makes an incorrect call on the field, the runner should be placed where he would have been had the correct call been made. Why anyone could think that Utley would have been at second if the umpire had not signaled him out is astonishing. It was just as likely, had the umpire signaled “safe,” that Tejada would have tagged Utley, who had overslid the base by several feet. Unless, of course, the replay official was factoring in Tejada’s broken leg, which he could not have known about at the time of his decision.

Under my proposed rule, a double play would have been awarded and none of the Dodgers’ four runs that inning would have scored. Maybe the Mets wouldn’t have held onto the 2-1 lead for another inning, but they should have had the chance.

The game announcers never really came to grips with this issue. Cal Ripken, surprisingly for a former shortstop, didn’t see anything wrong with Utley’s late slide. Ron Darling, former pitcher, faulted the slide, but with hesitation, while the play-by-play man, not a former player, deferred. No one took on the absurd conclusion that Utley “would have been at second” absent the incorrect out call. The postgame announcers were wildly out of their depth on the subject: I’m sure TBS did not expect to be holding hearings on rules interpretations when they signed up Pedro Martinez, Gary Sheffield and Dusty Baker to be their analysts.

I will look for more informed comment in the newspapers tomorrow, but my conclusion is clear and firm: the takeout slide at second – or any base – has no place in today’s game of baseball. The runner’s sole purpose can only be reaching his base safely. If he hits a fielder in the course of that aim, so be it; but he must not be allowed to interfere with the fielder, let alone attack him dangerously, if the fielder is not in his way as he goes to the base. You can’t run into a fielder who is fielding a batted ball; the catcher can’t block the plate without the ball; a runner can’t intentionally knock the ball out of the fielder’s glove – let’s make it consistent and rule that the runner can’t slide into a fielder if he is not going for the base. Period.[/fusion_text]

Next Year’s Twins

/0 Comments/in /by

[fusion_text]Everyone’s a general manager these days, and I’m no exception. Rather than linger on the Twins’ surprisingly successful 2015 season – which, thankfully, finished above .500 but short of the playoffs – I am already in roster-planning mode for 2016. And what a happy prospect it is!

Start with starting pitching, the heart of a successful team. This appears to be a strength, thanks to the totally unforeseen emergence of Tyler Duffey as the team’s ace. Next, Ervin Santana came on strong and will be available for a full season. Kyle Gibson gets a little better each year, especially at home, and should be a dependable third man in the rotation, capable of a 15-win season. Then there is Jose Berrios: I’ve never seen him pitch, but if he is as good as he’s been in the minors, he will earn a spot. That leaves one opening for Phil Hughes, Tommy Milone, Ricky Nolasco or Trevor May – and thankfully closes the door on Mike Pelfrey. That’s an enviable competition to have, and while Hughes and Nolasco will be paid a lot of Minnesota money, whether they pitch or not, I’ll be happy if Milone emerges on top. Of course, with injuries inevitable, it would be nice to be able to stockpile one of these starters.

The relief pitching is almost as important and much more uncertain. Kevin Jepsen earned the closer role, which raises the question of Glen Perkins, who is also on the line for a large salary, awarded when he was deemed the closer for years to come. First, can he be happy as the 8th-inning setup man? More to the point, can he regain the form that totally deserted him from the All-Star Game on? Was his problem physical? Or did he lose confidence? Trevor May was the next most effective reliever, but some thought he had the greatest upside as a starter. The surplus of starters and paucity of relievers argues for keeping him in the latter role, at least for now. The rest are journeymen, and you never know who among them will have a good year. Every season the Twins pick up someone who surprises – a Casey Fien, a Blaine Boyer – so it’s foolish at this distance to predict who that will be in 2016. I do think, however, the string has run out on Brian Duensing; and I expect to see J.R. Graham getting more minor league experience now that his Rule 5 year has passed.

The biggest issue on the offensive side is, what to do with Joe Mauer? He is vastly overpaid, and will be for three years, and has lost almost all his fan support. His lack of power for a first baseman is embarrassing, his unchangingly mild demeanor is frustrating, his play in the field is average, at best, and when he hits .260 instead of .320 you wonder what he is doing smack in the middle of the lineup day after day. If you could get him to catch again, even part-time, it would provide an upgrade over what’s there now. Trevor Plouffe at first would offer better defense, more power, and the chance to play Miguel Sano at third. Kennys Vargas is another possibility at first, but he would have to hit more consistently than he did this year.

Brian Dozier will be the second baseman, although one hopes he can be taught to hit to right and not wear down as the season progresses. It is hard not to think that his early success make him homer-happy, which led to a plethora of strikeouts and groundballs to short. Eduardo Escobar solidified the shortstop position, and Plouffe or Sano will man third. Kurt Suzuki slipped some at catcher and clearly needs better relief than Hermann or Fryer could provide.

The outfield, too, is interesting. Pencil in Eddie Rosario for the next ten years. Beyond that, if Aaron Hicks can take another step forward, as he did this season, he’s the centerfielder. Byron Buxton was brought up prematurely when Hicks was hurt and the team was floundering; he needs, and deserves, a year at AAA (which he’s never had) learning how to hit breaking balls. Should the Twin bring back Torii Hunter? It depends on who else is available. As of now, I’d say yes. I don’t know if Max Kepler, the Twins’ minor league player of the year, is ready to start in the majors. I’d certainly take Hunter over this year’s fourth outfielder, Shane Robinson.

That’s what I’d do with the present roster. Maybe the Twins can trade Plouffe or Hughes for a catcher, reliever or outfielder, and I have no idea what free agents will be on the market. That’s what will make the winter interesting, that – more than the Timberwolves or Wild – will keep me turning to the Strib’s sports pages. And in only four months spring training will begin…

[/fusion_text]

A Stupid Rule

/0 Comments/in /by

[fusion_text]

When I think of stupid rules in sports, I usually land on the golf course, where plenty of rules designed to add strokes to my score – usually involving the ball hitting a foreign object – are a mystery, both as to scope and necessity. This week, however, the NFL introduced us to a rule in football that seems to exist for no good reason, which seemingly no one knew about, yet which, if enforced, would have changed the outcome of a game. Briefly put: when a Lions receiver fumbled on the one-foot line, the loose ball was punched out of the end zone by a Seahawk player, resulting, per the officials, in a touchback with the ball going over to Seattle on the 20. Game over, Seahawk victory. What the game officials, coaches, players and TV announcers did not know was a rule prescribing a 10-yard penalty against a team that intentionally knocks a live ball out of bounds. If understood and applied, this rule would have resulted in the Lions’ retaining possession on the six-inch line, with a high probability of scoring a touchdown on the next play, for Detroit’s first win of the year.

After the game, ESPN’s officiating analyst pointed out the rule and said it had been on the books for the 26 years he had been an official. This resulted in much gnashing-of-teeth by Detroit fans and much incredulity by the players involved, who had never heard of this rule, but complaints by coaches and players and national outrage was rather muted because, I submit, everyone realizes what a stupid rule this is. In fact, the hubbub would have been significantly greater, I have to believe, if an official had, in fact, called the penalty and the Lions gone on to a victory that most would feel was not deserved.

What is the reason for such a rule? It’s not player safety – the reason behind so many recent rule changes. Punching the ball out of bounds avoids unnecessary physical contact. Does it give the offending team an unfair advantage? It does eliminate the need to control a loose ball, so maybe it eliminates an act of skill that should be required? And maybe it interferes with the other team’s chances of recovering the fumble.

(At this point, I should admit that I do not know the various permutations of the rule in question. Does it matter which team bats the ball out of bounds? How does batting it out of bounds on the sidelines compare to batting it out in the end zone? Is change-of-possession affected only when it is the defense doing the batting – and if so, is that fair? Or is possession affected only when the bat occurs in the end zone?)

In the incident in question, there was no Detroit player in the vicinity when the ball was batted, and the Seahawk defender could just as easily have caught the ball or fallen on it. Why reward Detroit? Perhaps there is room for a rule that says, if in the referee’s judgment a player’s batting the ball out of bounds prevented the other team from recovering it, that player’s team shall be penalized ten yards. There is already room for the referee’s judgment in the current rule, as the official has to determine that the batting was intentional, not inadvertent; so adding judicial discretion is not new.

The important thing for the rule – for any rule – is that it not change the game 180 degrees from what would have happened if the act precipitating the penalty had not occurred. Rules should facilitate the normal flow of the contest, not reverse it.

[/fusion_text]

Rule Change at Second Base

/0 Comments/in /by

[fusion_text]The playoff-bound Pittsburgh Pirates lost their star rookie shortstop for the season when his leg was hit by the base runner’s slide. Even though the shortstop was several feet away from the base, the slide was legal because the runner reached the bag with his outstretched hand while his feet were colliding with the shortstop. This is traditionally known as “breaking up the double play” and is equally traditionally applauded in the dugout as a hustle play. There is already some talk that this kind of slide should be prohibited. To me, the decision to implement a rule change accomplishing this is a no-brainer.

Unlike football, going after an opponent’s body is not part of the game of baseball. Making a runner slide directly at the base, unless he is trying to avoid a tag, takes nothing away from the offense. A well-turned double play is one of the prettiest defensive plays in baseball and deserves facilitation, not obstruction. And the most important argument for a change is to reduce the chance of serious injury. This was deemed reason enough to institute a rule eliminating most collisions at home plate, and this rule would be much easier to enforce than that one.

A secondary benefit of such a rule could be the elimination of the so-called “neighborhood” rule, in which the pivot man does not need to be in contact with second base when he catches the ball on a double play. This is a terrible rule, because it leaves so much to the umpire’s discretion: how far off second can the fielder be, no one knows or is saying. The main reason for this rule is to allow the pivot man to avoid injury from the onrushing runner. If the runner is prohibited from going after the fielder, there is less reason for this questionable protection. Before instant replay, it was often difficult to know for sure that the fielder’s foot had left the bag before the ball reached his glove; but with replay now available, that can be determined beyond argument.

In sum, I see no reason – other than the hoary one of “tradition” – to continue allowing baserunners to slide into fielders who are away from the bag, and I expect that the owners and union will quickly come to the same conclusion.[/fusion_text]

Golf and Twins

/0 Comments/in /by

[fusion_text]I have discovered a thread common to two of my hobbies: playing golf and watching the Twins. It is this: something always goes wrong, and what that is constantly changes. If I’m putting well, my driving is off; if my irons are good, my chipping lets me down. Etc. For the Twins, two weeks ago their starting pitching was horrible – an ERA around 6.00 – but their relievers, who had to pitch the majority of innings, held the opposition scoreless, giving the Twins chances to come back, which they sometimes did and sometimes didn’t. Last week, the starters found their groove again, but the relievers fell apart. One day Casey Fien, who had pitched 12 scoreless innings, turned a win into a loss by giving up a 3-run homer. The next day, formerly surprisingly good closer Kevin Jepsen gave up a home run and then loaded the bases before escaping with a 3-2 win. And for the series finale, Trevor May entered in the 7th with two outs and a 2-0 lead and left with the same two outs and a 5-2 deficit. Completing the picture, Neal Cotts gave up a three-run homer, making the Twins’ next three runs academic. It seems that when Escobar-Rosario-Suzuki hit, the top of the order flails, and vice versa. We know that this uncertainty is what makes baseball fun, and why the “better” team still loses one out of three, if they’re lucky. And I heard today the famous saying that “golf is not a game of perfect.” The above is fairly obvious, but it is just now that I have made this connection.[/fusion_text]

Twins Resurgent

/0 Comments/in /by

[fusion_text]Of all the times this year I have given up on the Twins, counted them out for the year, been resigned to their mediocrity, perhaps none was as premature as last night. After erupting for four runs against White Sox ace Chris Sale in the second inning, the Twins were coasting at home. Rookie starter Tyler Duffey had faced 14 batters and gotten 14 outs. He didn’t get another. His three straight walks were demoralizing; then a bloop double and home run off two different relievers in the sixth inning left the Twins suddenly trailing, 5-4, in a game they should have, and had to, win. Barely hanging onto the final wild-card berth, a loss here to start September would surely spell doom.

Then, like a bolt from Thor, the game turned back on one swing from Miguel Sano, the biggest reason these Twins may no longer be the fluke they have seemed for much of the summer. After tying the game in the seventh, the Twins broke it open with three runs in the eighth with a good bunt by Suzuki, baserunning by Buxton and even a “clutch” hit by Mauer. This presented Glen Perkins with another gift “save,” in which he allowed three hits and one run and didn’t miss a bat all night. The Twins are alive for one more day, playing “meaningful” games in September. Who would have thought?

The quotation marks above point me to three final thoughts. The resurgent Twins have been powered by their new players, Sano, Eddie Rosario and Eduardo Escobar, with admirable fill-in play from Eduardo Nunez. The veterans Dozier, Plouffe and Suzuki have been steady, although hitting a combined .240-something. The one player who hasn’t been leading is Joe Mauer, who is taking down more salary than the rest of the starting lineup combined. He chips in with singles and rbi’s and a .275 average that would be respectable for a catcher or a power hitter, but he is neither. Furthermore, he is under that contract for three more years, posing the question of what the Twins will do with him as their young stars mature. He is merely adequate as a first baseman, a position either Sano or Plouffe could fill with power.

Perkins’s save was too similar to almost all his outings since (and including) the All-Star Game. His first two blown saves crushed the team’s spirit – based on their play in the games that followed – and were both among the times I wrote them off for the year. Maybe his sore neck was responsible, but if he was healthy last night he didn’t look much better. By contrast, Yankees closer Andrew Miller struck out the side in his ninth inning, which is the kind of confidence-inspiring performance you want from a closer. Complicating, but perhaps helping, the situation is the emergence of both Trevor May and Kevin Jepsen as shut-down relievers. Jepsen fared well in Perkins’s absence, but what will allow Paul Molitor to use him in place of Perkins now that Perkins is back?

Finally, I should add some perspective to the meaningfulness of the Twins’ September. Yes, they could sneak into the wild-card game, although Texas, with Cole Hamels, should have an edge over Minnesota’s unpredictable starting staff. But is this any better than making the NBA Playoffs as the eighth seed from the Eastern Conference? The Twins don’t have an ace to play in the one-game wild-card playoff. And if they survive that – seemingly against the Yankees, who have dominated them – they would run into the Blue Jays, Astros or Royals, all of whom are playing on a different level. Still, it could be a good learning experience for the rookies to build on in 2016; so I will continue to watch and hope.

[/fusion_text]