Twins Stretch Run

/0 Comments/in , /by

Readers of earlier posts can imagine how little I ever expected to be writing about the Twins’ “stretch run” at the start of September 2017. Yet here they are, one game behind the faltering Yankees for the top wild-card spot in the American League, two games in the loss column ahead of the closest of six credible pursuers. While it would be fun to see them make the playoffs, that doesn’t really matter. One, because they would have little chance against either the Indians or the Red Sox, should they even get that far. But two, because their success so far augurs so well for 2018 and seasons to come, which was the rosiest timetable anyone realistically had when the year started.
The greatest cause for optimism is the almost-simultaneous turnaround in hitting by Jorge Polanco and Byron Buxton. Both were batting in the .200 neighborhood in May. Buxton was an automatic strikeout at the lineup bottom and Polanco would have been shipped to the minors if he had not been out of options. Now they are batting 3rd and 4th in the lineup, both with unexpected power. And Buxton even seems to have learned how to bunt! Eddie Rosario, Max Kepler and Brian Dozier have all been streak hitters, carrying the Twins at various points of the summer, all capable of multi-homer games. Joe Mauer, whom we had all but given up on, is now flirting with hitting .300 and has delivered clutch hits, although his home run swing still produces warning-track fly-outs to left more often than not. The part-timers – Eduardo Escobar, Robbie Grossman, Ehire Adrianza, Chris Gimenez – have all performed serviceably; the jury remains out on newer arrivals Kennys Vargas, Mitch Garver, and Zack Granite.
So far unmentioned is Miguel Sano. Perhaps it is a coincidence that the Twins have had so many offensive explosions recently with him on the disabled list. Yes, he still leads the team in home runs and rbi, but he was about to obliterate the Twins strikeout records, including most games with three or more Ks. More often than not, since the All-Star break Sano was a black hole at the middle of the lineup. He was dangerous, but he was also a rally-killer. It is possible, as one blogger suggested, that Sano’s absence has caused the Polancos and Rosarios to step up; no one is looking to Sano to hit the big fly, so everyone else is stepping up. But just as Buxton’s progress has shown that it is possible to develop as a hitter and cut down on strikeouts, we can hope that Sano in future years could in fact become the dominant force he has shown signs of in the past. It is this prospect of a more mature Sano with improvements from Buxton, Rosario, Kepler and Polanco that has Twins fans salivating.
Pitching, of course, is a problem, and the reason we would be nervous about the Twins’ playoff chances this year. Ervin Santana is pitching like an ace and Jose Berrios is showing signs of becoming an ace in the future. Relievers have been doing their job, and this year has shown that you never know where your stoppers will come from. At the moment, the top two in the Twins bullpen are Busenitz and Hildenberger, whom no one had heard of in April – or June. Before that it was Taylor Rogers and Matt Belisle. But a team needs five starters, and the Twins just have, for sure, those two. Kyle Gibson has been tempting for several years, but his only consistency has been his ability to disappoint. Bartolo Colon is now the number three guy, but he is 44 and not getting younger. So, one or two or preferably three new names will have to show up at spring training next year if the Twins are to become the complete team that can take its place among the elite and make another run at a World Series. I’m hoping.

The “Quality Appearance”

/0 Comments/in , /by

Baseball these days can seem overrun with statistics – Batting Average with Runners in Scoring Position and Two Outs, for example – yet records for pitchers all seem to me fundamentally flawed. Which is why I am proposing a new, more meaningful, one, which I will get to in a minute. First, however, a recap of some existing flaws.
For years, Won-Lost has been the gold standard for pitchers. The first problem, though, is that its validity is largely limited to starting pitchers, the only ones who routinely have some control over a game’s outcome. The emphasis, however, must be on “some.” We are all familiar with the “hard-luck loser,” who pitches eight innings, allows one measly run, yet suffers a 1-0 defeat. (Last night the Indians’ Josh Tomlin surrendered a first-pitch, first-inning opposite-field home run to the Twins’ Miguel Sano and suffered that fate.) The flip side is the lucky winner, who gives up five runs in five innings, yet records a win because his teammates have clobbered the opposing pitcher for more. Sometimes this averages out over the course of a season, but sometimes it doesn’t. Then there is the disparity among offenses. A pitcher for a hitting-starved team could give up three runs a game and finish with an 8-12 won-lost record; while his counterpart for a powerhouse could allow the same number of runs and wind up 12-8.
The next most recognized statistic is Earned Run Average, which would show the equivalence of the two pitchers in the above example. This statistic in theory should also work for relief pitchers as well as starters, and it has the advantage of not being dependent on the hitting success of the pitcher’s team. Its weakness, though, is its failure to account for situational pitching, which is crucial in evaluating a relief pitcher’s value. By “situation” I mean both the stage of the game – is the scored 7-2 in the eighth inning, or 3-2 in the ninth? – and the situation within the inning. A reliever who enters the game with two outs and the bases loaded and gives up a triple is a failure, yet his ERA will go down if he gets the next batter out. Conversely, the pitcher who let those three runners reach base while getting two outs will see his ERA soar, even though no one scored while he was pitching. The other problem with judging a reliever by his ERA is that one bad outing can skew it, because relievers pitch so few innings compared to starters. (Last night the Twins brought in Matt Belisle with one out, one on in the eighth inning of a 1-0 game despite an unheard-of ERA north of 11.00, precisely because that figure bore little connection to his perceived reliability.)
I have written elsewhere about the Save, the least useful number of all. 1) It only is relevant for the usually one pitcher per team who gets to pitch the ninth inning. 2) The number depends on his team’s success rate – only the winning team can record a save. 3) The criteria are too loose to be meaningful: a reliever can give up two runs in the only inning he pitches (an ERA rate of 18.00) and still get a save.
Because of the overemphasis on Saves, some baseball writers in 1986 came up with the Hold as a way of recognizing the effectiveness of middle relievers, who don’t get Save opportunities. Although routinely included in game box scores, the Hold is not an officially recognized statistic and there is some confusion as to what qualifies. The first prerequisite is the existence of a Save situation – so right there, it incorporates the weaknesses of that stat. The second requirement is that the reliever hand over pitching duties to the next reliever with his team still in the lead – which means, similar to the Save defect, that a reliever could load the bases while recording only one out and earn a Hold despite doing a lousy job.
So, what would be a more useful measure of a pitcher’s – specifically, a reliever’s – performance? Say ‘hello’ to the QA – the Quality Appearance. A reliever earns a QA by recording three or more outs without giving up a run, including the runners he inherits and the runners he puts on base. Alternatively, if he enters a game with two or more men on base, and he records two outs, ends an inning and no one scores. That, after all, is what really matters – keeping the other team from scoring. This statistic has the advantage of applying whether a team is ahead or behind. After all, when a team is behind 3-2 late in the game, it is crucial to their chances of winning that they not give up another run; and the pitcher who holds that margin is doing just as important a job as the pitcher who is credited with a Hold. Yes, there are some flaws: a pitcher could lose a QA by giving up a run in a second or third inning of work, although the rule could be refined to cover that, if desired. And what happens to runners that a pitcher puts on base before he is relieved will depend on the relievers who follow. Not every good relief effort will be recognized, but many more will, and more fairly than either the Save or the Hold currently does.

The Waste Pitch

/0 Comments/in , /by

Twins pitchers are apparently taught, or instructed, to waste a pitch whenever they get an 0-2 count. The theory, I’m guessing, is to see if the hitter, suddenly wary of striking out looking, will expand the strike zone and wave at an unhittable pitch. The 0-2 pitches that Twins hurlers deliver, however, tend to be so low, wide or high that no one ever swings. At best, the pitcher loses some of his advantage. The worst happened the other night to Tyler Duffey, who came on to relieve with the score tied, the bases loaded and no outs. His first two pitches made the Rangers’ Elvis Andrus look silly. Instead of trying to finish him off, his “waste pitch” bounced in the dirt and the lead run scored. Compounding the problem, the other runners advanced to second and third, so the infield “had to” play in. The next batter, with one out now, hit what would have been a double-play grounder, but it squirted just past the third baseman, playing in. Result of the “waste pitch”: three runs for the Rangers.
Speaking of strategy, I would also question the decision to have the corner infielders play in in that situation. Sano, especially, has quick reflexes and a gun for an arm; from his normal position he could throw out a runner going home a large percentage of the time. What is the counter-percentage, the number of times he doesn’t get to a ball because he is repositioned closer to home?
There is one more baseball orthodoxy I would question: when the Twins are leading in the 9th by two or more runs and an opposing batter gets to first base, they don’t hold him on and cede a free trip to second base. “The run means nothing,” we are told. But the chance to get an out at second base does have meaning. These days there are statistics for everything; so maybe my assumption can be rebutted. I feel, however, that I have seen many more times where an infielder could get an out at second but not at first than occasions where the first baseman made a play only because he was playing off the bag.
5/6/17 PS: Conversely, today a Twins pitcher with two outs and no one on threw an 0-2 slider that caught too much of the plate and ended up in the leftfield stands. Before a third out could be recorded, the Red Sox had eight runs and the game was effectively over. The Twins pitcher, Nick Tepesch, was making his first appearance with the Twins, so perhaps he hadn’t gotten the memo.

Twins in ’17

/0 Comments/in , /by

It is far better to enter the baseball season with no, or low, expectations than to have high expectations that are quickly dashed. SI was not alone in predicting that this year’s Twins would have the third-worst record in the AL and even the Minnesota writers were guarded, expressing doubts, especially, about the Twins’ pitching. So how much should we raise our hopes now that the Twins have swept the Royals in convincing fashion in the opening three-game series? Their starting pitching was good, their relief pitching excellent, defense flawless and late-inning clutch hitting impressive.
Granted, three games is a small sample and the season will be long, but there is room for optimism. For starters, much of athletic success depends upon confidence and the belief that you can and will win. When you start the season 0-9, as the Twins did last year, it is hard to get that losing mentality out of your minds. When losing is expected, it happens more often. By winning their first three games, the Twins have to be thinking, We can win, which in itself will breed success.
Now, as to the pitching. While there is no Clayton Kershaw on the staff, there are six pitchers who, to my mind, give the Twins a chance every day. Ervin Santana is a consummate professional who knows exactly what he’s doing. Hector Santiago gives us hits but limits damage and seems to win more than he should. Kyle Gibson can be very good or not, but when he’s good he’s a winner. It may take awhile to shake out the rest of the rotation, but Phil Hughes, Adelberto Mejia, Tyler Duffey and Jose Berrios is a sufficient field to work with.
No one can ever predict how relievers will fare in a given season: there are always surprise stars and proven closers who falter. Confidence and the ability to throw strikes are important, and in the first three games all the relievers except the retread Craig Breslow showed potential.
On offense, the best news is the re-emergence of Miguel Sano as a hitter to be feared. He was wondrous in 2015 then disappointed horribly in 2016 and Strib writers questioned his offseason preparation. This winter, apparently, he buckled down and he has the look of a mainstay cleanup hitter. Eddie Rosario and Max Kepler just have to show some progress from their first seasons to be more than acceptable as corner outfielders. The big surprises so far are new catcher Jason Castro and new shortstop Jorge Polanco. Castro, especially, was signed as a defensive upgrade but to date has been the star of the attack, walking six times and driving in go-ahead runs. Polanco is supposed to be a natural hitter, and if he slumps Eduardo Escobar can pick up any slack.
The two big question marks have, curiously, been batting 3rd and 4th in Paul Molitor’s lineup: Byron Buxton and Joe Mauer. Buxton is clearly not ready for Major League pitching, and one has to wonder (like Clark Griffith did) if he ever will be. He is extraordinary in centerfield, and putting him lower in the order may allow him to relax and find his stride. It’s exciting to see him run and I hope he will get over whatever hump is stopping him; but for now it is excruciating to see him always hitting with an 0-2 count and knowing that a swing and miss will follow. As for Mauer, how long will his reputation and huge salary protect him? He is no longer the hitter who can wait for the pitcher to throw two strikes before he starts to swing. Without power, without speed, and with defenses shifted to cover his inside-out stroke, there is so little margin for error. Will he comfortably slide down to the 6th hole, or 8th?
Anyway, these are the little dramas we will watch as they play out over the summer. It is the soap opera of personalities, not just the game itself, that makes baseball so intriguing. Who knows how the Vikings’ left guard is doing? And some games a receiver may hardly be thrown at. But we know, and can watch, every single baseball player and can judge him in isolation, live and die with every at bat.

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]

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]

Defensive Indifference

/0 Comments/in , /by

[fusion_text]When the Twins have a lead larger than one in the ninth and a baserunner reaches first, they routinely decline to hold him on, giving him a free run to second base but allowing the first baseman to play behind the runner in presumably a better defensive position. Rather than registeringing this a stolen base, baseball scores this a nullity,  calling it “defensive indifference.” There is one additional marginal benefit: it allows Twins closer Glen Perkins to focus all his attention on the batter.

I am waiting for the statheads to pronounce on the wisdom of this maneuver, but until I see the empirical evidence let me give my view: I hate it, and I shall now count the ways.

One: allowing the baserunner to move from first to second eliminates the force play at second. I have frequently seen the play – the ground ball up the middle, the ground ball in the shortstop hole – where an out was possible at second base but not at first. Rarer, in my experience, is the play where the first baseman could not get an out because he was holding the runner instead of playing behind him. Thus, defensively, the DI makes no sense.

Two: the pitcher’s ability to hold a runner on first atrophies. Perkins is the prime example. He so routinely allows the runner to take second that he has become terrible at holding on the runner when it is needed. You can look it up, but my sense is that he has one of the highest stolen-base percentages of any lefthanded pitcher. In his mind, all that is important is getting the batter out. Unfortunately, sometimes the batter gets a hit, and if a runner has stolen second that can mean a run and the lead.

Three: I don’t like to see “meaningless” runs. Sure, a 6-5 victory counts the same as 6-4, but it doesn’t feel the same. Someone has gotten an rbi and someone has scored a run they don’t deserve. The team gets credit for a “one-run win,” which some analysts down the line will use as a yardstick for clutch performance. And to the unwary distant observer, the game will look to have been closer than it actually was – just as an empty-net goal makes a hockey game appear more lopsided than it really was.

Four: Every athlete in professional sports should give full effort at all times. This is, admittedly, a moral view of sports that is subjective and personal. In club tennis we talk of giving a “courtesy game,” rather than winning 6-love, but no professional would expect, or probably want, such a courtesy. The extreme example was Brett Favre’s allowing Michael Strahan to tackle him at the end of a game so Strahan would set the sack record. Strahan’s record, as a result, is forever tainted. A run scored after DI is not as bad, but it’s in the same ballpark. Every run should be earned, is how I look at it.

My clincher on the inappropriateness of defensive indifference is this: baseball is a game of statistics, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. I have yet, however, to see a statistic relating in any way to DI (e.g., which team has given up the most). No one thinks of it as part of baseball, and it shouldn’t be.[/fusion_text][fusion_text]Click edit button to change this text.[/fusion_text]

Twins Report

/0 Comments/in , /by

[fusion_text]It’s still early in the season, so perhaps it is not surprising that this year’s Twins are still searching for an identity. No pitcher has emerged as a stopper; no hitter has stepped up as clutch. They have won many more games than I feared they would after their disastrous opening series against the Tigers, but without any pattern. Each win has had a different hero.

The biggest hole so far seems to be the lack of a power hitter. Kennys Vargas showed strength and potential as a late call-up last year but has been too cold to even play everyday. Oswaldo Arcia has been similarly erratic, and neither of them is an asset defensively. Worse, the big hope for the future, Miguel Sano, missed last year with injury and is doing nothing in the minors this year. Every team needs a cleanup hitter, which the Twins just don’t have.

The offense, therefore, depends on Suzuki here, Santana there and the occasional pop from Plouffe. Mauer will hit .300, but many of those will be harmless singles and when he goes for power he just reaches the warning track. A lot of the other averages are closer to .200 than .300, which should correct itself; but I suspect that .250 will be enough to keep you in the Twins lineup this year. All this is enough to win some games but, depending on pitching, won’t get you above .500.

Aah, the pitching. Phil Hughes, the putative stopper, has yet to win, but has pitched okay. Kyle Gibson continues to be tough at home, worthless on the road. Then there are Ricky Nolasco and Mike Pelfrey, previous busts who may or may not regain form from a couple years ago. Since I started writing this report, the fifth starter, Tommy Milone, has been sent to the minors and replaced by Trevor May. In other words, the starting rotation is still in flux, and the relief corps even more so. Their only All-Star in the past is closer Glen Perkins, and while he is racking up saves, he isn’t blowing hitters away like he has. The rest of the bunch is pretty anonymous.

So, we will see. We can’t count on anything yet – not the pitching, nor the hitting, nor the defense and certainly not the baserunning. Yet after sweeping a home series against the White Sox, the Twins are looking better, surprisingly, than two of their four division foes. They are competitive. Whether they will be anything more is an open question. The Byron Buxton watch continues.[/fusion_text]