PDA

View Full Version : Article: The Blizzard of Oz



mnfanforlife
02-24-2013, 01:34 PM
You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?r=1404-The-Blizzard-of-Oz

tjsyam921
02-24-2013, 05:36 PM
I am definitely a lot more excited to see what Arcia can do in the bigs than i am Hicks. Probably won't be a flashy defender, but his minor league stats would indicate a well rounded hitter. Sure he'll get the call after an injury or Morneau trade moving Parmelee to 1st.

Brad Swanson
02-24-2013, 08:00 PM
I am definitely a lot more excited to see what Arcia can do in the bigs than i am Hicks. Probably won't be a flashy defender, but his minor league stats would indicate a well rounded hitter. Sure he'll get the call after an injury or Morneau trade moving Parmelee to 1st.

I'm really looking forward to watching both players. Hicks might not put up statistical seasons that make your eyes pop out, but his defense is going to be fantastic.

Oldgoat_MN
02-26-2013, 12:28 AM
I have not been this excited about a Twins prospect since Morneau & Mauer.
If you haven't already, watch those clips on the link mnfanforlife provided.
This young man could really be something special.

mnfanforlife
02-26-2013, 10:39 AM
Yes Old Goat. We could have a 2015 lineup of.....

1. Hicks - CF
2. Rosario - 2B
3. Mauer - C
4. Sano - 3B
5. Arcia - RF
6. Parmalee or Vargas - 1B
7. Benson? - DH
8. Roberts - LF
9. Santana - SS

mnfanforlife
02-26-2013, 10:41 AM
I'm really looking forward to watching both players. Hicks might not put up statistical seasons that make your eyes pop out, but his defense is going to be fantastic.

Yeah man...Hicks is going to be special. He keeps getting better at the plate and on the bases, and should be a real nice Major-League centerfielder

ashburyjohn
02-26-2013, 11:29 AM
Hicks might not put up statistical seasons that make your eyes pop out, but his defense is going to be fantastic.

Basically echoing what others have said, the offensive bar for making my eyes pop is a lot lower for a centerfielder than for somebody on the corners. Span didn't have those numbers, but with 15-20 HR power he probably would have been around that threshold. Hicks could reach that, eventually.

mnfanforlife
02-26-2013, 04:37 PM
Basically echoing what others have said, the offensive bar for making my eyes pop is a lot lower for a centerfielder than for somebody on the corners. Span didn't have those numbers, but with 15-20 HR power he probably would have been around that threshold. Hicks could reach that, eventually.

If Hicks just gets a little bit better...you can imagine these offensive stats: .290 hitter, 100 Runs, 160 hits, 35 doubles, 10 triples, 25 homers, 35 stolen bases. Nice lead-off hitter with power. Think Shannon Stewart or better as a hitter, and Gold Glove potential defender.

mnfanforlife
02-26-2013, 04:39 PM
Back to "The Blizzard of Oz" - - - I envision a stat line like this in Minnesota: .300 hitter, 90 Runs, 45 doubles, 25 homers, 100+ RBI. Great 3-hole or 5-hole hitter.

FrodaddyG
02-26-2013, 04:48 PM
If Hicks just gets a little bit better...you can imagine these offensive stats: .290 hitter, 100 Runs, 160 hits, 35 doubles, 10 triples, 25 homers, 35 stolen bases. Nice lead-off hitter with power. Think Shannon Stewart or better as a hitter, and Gold Glove potential defender.
That is significantly more than a "little bit" better than Hicks' best year.

kab21
02-26-2013, 07:44 PM
If Hicks just gets a little bit better...you can imagine these offensive stats: .290 hitter, 100 Runs, 160 hits, 35 doubles, 10 triples, 25 homers, 35 stolen bases. Nice lead-off hitter with power. Think Shannon Stewart or better as a hitter, and Gold Glove potential defender.

I think you just make stuff up when you do your projections. Hicks is a .271 career hitter with 30 HR's in 3.5 full season ball seasons.

drjim
02-26-2013, 07:44 PM
If Hicks just gets a little bit better...you can imagine these offensive stats: .290 hitter, 100 Runs, 160 hits, 35 doubles, 10 triples, 25 homers, 35 stolen bases. Nice lead-off hitter with power. Think Shannon Stewart or better as a hitter, and Gold Glove potential defender.

I would temper the bombs and steals a bit but the rest is probably within range in a couple of years.

mnfanforlife
02-26-2013, 10:10 PM
Yeah, Hicks is getting better....slowly. He will hit for power, but maybe 25 HR's is a high projection for him. Every other number is pretty much what he did at NB. His hit/at-bat ratio was good last year, even though he has moved up a level after hitting .242

mnfanforlife
02-26-2013, 10:12 PM
I think you just make stuff up when you do your projections. Hicks is a .271 career hitter with 30 HR's in 3.5 full season ball seasons.

That's kind of how projections work...you make them up. The only number that was a reach was the 25 HR's.

kab21
02-26-2013, 11:32 PM
That's kind of how projections work...you make them up. The only number that was a reach was the 25 HR's.
.290 isn't a reach despite the FACT that he has NEVER hit .290 in full season ball?

Your projections are nothing more than looking at a players ultimate upside and then adding some to it.

The only time that Hicks has posted halfway decent BA's were in seasons where he had high BAPIP's. Typically those high BAPIP's go away in the majors due to better defenders and field conditions. Hicks is more likely a .260's hitter since BA's in the majors are typically lower than the minors. This year I'm just hoping he hits .250 and I'm not very optimistic.

mnfanforlife
02-27-2013, 12:15 AM
.290 isn't a reach despite the FACT that he has NEVER hit .290 in full season ball?

Your projections are nothing more than looking at a players ultimate upside and then adding some to it.

The only time that Hicks has posted halfway decent BA's were in seasons where he had high BAPIP's. Typically those high BAPIP's go away in the majors due to better defenders and field conditions. Hicks is more likely a .260's hitter since BA's in the majors are typically lower than the minors. This year I'm just hoping he hits .250 and I'm not very optimistic.

Hicks hit .286 last year, and .290 isn't exactly "off-the-charts" as conceivable for Hicks in the big-leagues. I believe Hicks will have more hits/at-bats as he gets in to his late-20's and through his 30's....I stand by my projections, and I'm not afraid to be bold with my predictions. If you discredit my projections, then that is your right. I'm sorry that you're not very optimistic.

mnfanforlife
02-27-2013, 12:18 AM
Another prospect, Miguel Sano, hit .258 last year....Yet, many pro-scouts project him to hit for a high average as he matures. Hicks' situation is not identical, but I like how he handled AA last year. Made a huge jump in hit/at-bat ratio from A+ to AA...why not expect him to maintain those numbers in AAA, and ultimately in MLB??

FrodaddyG
02-27-2013, 02:34 AM
Hicks hit .286 last year
He was also two levels below MLB.

Brock Beauchamp
02-27-2013, 08:02 AM
Hicks hit .286 last year, and .290 isn't exactly "off-the-charts" as conceivable for Hicks in the big-leagues. I believe Hicks will have more hits/at-bats as he gets in to his late-20's and through his 30's....I stand by my projections, and I'm not afraid to be bold with my predictions. If you discredit my projections, then that is your right. I'm sorry that you're not very optimistic.

Hicks hasn't hit .290 since rookie ball and isn't particularly young for his level. Is it impossible for him to hit .290? No, but it's extremely unlikely.

And that's fine. The guy has a bag full of tools, it's okay if one is slightly deficient. It's not about lack of optimism, it's about blind faith and near impossibilities. Hicks will be just fine at .275 or .280 because he gets on base all the friggin' time. No one is saying he'll be a bad player, they're just keeping their expectations reasonable.

Badsmerf
02-27-2013, 08:10 AM
.Yet, many pro-scouts project him to hit for a high average as he matures.
3359

kab21
02-27-2013, 09:46 AM
It's pretty clear that you haven't followed hardly any prospects from the minors to the majors. BA usually drops and it usually drops a lot. Throwing out a projection that is 4 pts higher than his best season ever is WAY over optimistic.

Why is Sano's scouting report at all relevant to Hicks? Sano has struggled to hit for average for one season and he actually is a special prospect. Hicks has struggled to hit for average for 3.5 seasons and that is a relevant sample size. At the very least do you have a scouting report that suggests that Hicks will hit for average?

Here are career MiLB and MLB BA's of most of the Twins that have succeeded at the MLB level in the last decade. I hope I don't need to tell you what the trend is.
Mauer MiLB BA = .330 and MLB BA = .323
Kubel .320 - .268
Cuddyer .291 - .271
Morneau .311 - .280
Span .286 - .284
Hunter .270 - .277 - the only player whose average went up
Koskie .288 - .275
Bartlett .299 - .271
Jones .295 - .277
Lecroy .290 - .260
Ortiz .310 - .285
Guzman .278 - .271
Hicks career MiLB .271

Do you have any idea how much of a statistical outlier it would be for Hicks to hit .290 in the majors? Like I said before .260's is what Hicks will likely hit and it could be much worse based on how much BA typically drops for MLB hitters.

CDog
02-27-2013, 10:36 AM
BA usually drops and it usually drops a lot.

Here are career MiLB and MLB BA's of most of the Twins that have succeeded at the MLB level in the last decade. I hope I don't need to tell you what the trend is.
Mauer MiLB BA = .330 and MLB BA = .323
Kubel .320 - .268
Cuddyer .291 - .271
Morneau .311 - .280
Span .286 - .284
Hunter .270 - .277 - the only player whose average went up
Koskie .288 - .275
Bartlett .299 - .271
Jones .295 - .277
Lecroy .290 - .260
Ortiz .310 - .285
Guzman .278 - .271
Hicks career MiLB .271

Do you have any idea how much of a statistical outlier it would be for Hicks to hit .290 in the majors? Like I said before .260's is what Hicks will likely hit and it could be much worse based on how much BA typically drops for MLB hitters.

While your point may be correct, if you're projecting ceiling, wouldn't it be more informative and accurate to look at the BEST season of the players on that list? Most of them had at least one major league season with a BA better than the overall minor league average listed. Some by quite a margin, and some did it several times. Maybe best major league average compared to best minor league is an even better way to go?

kab21
02-27-2013, 11:11 AM
Why would I be interested in BEST MLB season? If I'm projecting someone then I'm projecting what you can expect him to do EVERY season and not just one flukey high BAPIP season. Hicks has .260's (or maybe even .250's) hitter written all over him. Luckily he walks a lot, plays great defense and has some (not 25 HR) power. Putting up a .700-.750 OPS with good CF defense is a very valuable player. Putting up mnfanforlife's numbers not only make him an all star but he's also an MVP candidate. That's how ridiculous those numbers are for a player of Hicks' track record.

kab21
02-27-2013, 11:35 AM
I now understand your comment. Ceiling doesn't equal Best season. Ceiling is what kind of player the prospect becomes for his career (or at least his 5 yr peak).

CDog
02-27-2013, 11:38 AM
Why would I be interested in BEST MLB season? If I'm projecting someone then I'm projecting what you can expect him to do EVERY season and not just one flukey high BAPIP season. Hicks has .260's (or maybe even .250's) hitter written all over him. Luckily he walks a lot, plays great defense and has some (not 25 HR) power. Putting up a .700-.750 OPS with good CF defense is a very valuable player. Putting up mnfanforlife's numbers not only make him an all star but he's also an MVP candidate. That's how ridiculous those numbers are for a player of Hicks' track record.

Because the projection you were responding to was a one-season line.

mnfanforlife
02-27-2013, 02:30 PM
"Throwing out a projection that is 4 pts higher than his best season ever is WAY over optimistic" - sounds like a contradiction to me. Four pts on a batting average is insignificant. There is no doubt in my mind Hicks can hit.290 in the major leagues someday. Its not WAY over-optimistic. .260 is more likely, but I don't give a crap about your practical visions. Thanks for reading my posts. They must be good since you feel the need to inject and infect them with boredom.

PseudoSABR
02-27-2013, 03:05 PM
Thanks for reading my posts. They must be good since you feel the need to inject and infect them with boredom.I think you're confused about how your posts are coming off.

TheLeviathan
02-27-2013, 03:42 PM
Because the projection you were responding to was a one-season line.

....being used to project what we can expect of his career. I guess you could argue he was saying that was going to be his career-year, but then it leaves us all hanging on what a typical season would look like. I think it's far more rational to believe that projection was of a typical year. Otherwise that original post had even less merit than kab is arguing it has.

You could be right, but it's highly unlikely that's what he meant.

nicksaviking
02-27-2013, 04:25 PM
I'm sure Hicks will have a year (probably several) that he hits over his career minor league BA, but like most everyone else, his career MLB average likely will not be higher than his career MiLB average.

However, seeing as his MiLB average is low likely due to his high strikeout totals, and if those totals are high because he is being too selective (unlike most MiLB'ers who have high K% because they chase evey breaking ball thrown), that may be something he can adjust if the team asks him to. In that situation I could see his average remain what it is at the MiLB level. Of course by asking him to be less selective, you also have to expect his BB% and by proxy his OBP to decrease, so is that really a trade off we should advocate the team to make?

CDog
02-27-2013, 04:42 PM
....being used to project what we can expect of his career. I guess you could argue he was saying that was going to be his career-year, but then it leaves us all hanging on what a typical season would look like. I think it's far more rational to believe that projection was of a typical year. Otherwise that original post had even less merit than kab is arguing it has.

You could be right, but it's highly unlikely that's what he meant.

Based on subsequent posts, it seems more like he meant the best he could be. Also based on subsequent posts, it seems like he may think he can do it for years and years. So I really have no idea.

TheLeviathan
02-27-2013, 04:55 PM
Based on subsequent posts, it seems more like he meant the best he could be. Also based on subsequent posts, it seems like he may think he can do it for years and years. So I really have no idea.

So then perhaps rather than criticizing kab's reply, you should be seeking clarification from the original poster. Rationally, kab's interpretation is the only one that makes sense.

mnfanforlife
02-27-2013, 05:12 PM
Ceiling projection or a "career-year" is what I had in mind with the numbers that have caused such sour moods. Sorry everyone. People will believe what they want. Including myself. I encourage all posters on TD to believe what they want as well. Go ahead and disagree, it makes this site more fun. Thank you. Have a good night.

TheLeviathan
02-27-2013, 07:16 PM
Ceiling projection or a "career-year" is what I had in mind with the numbers that have caused such sour moods.

That's not at all how your post came across. Having conversations about prospects isn't very productive if we've sprinkled them with magic prospect dust to make them well beyond reasonable projections.

mnfanforlife
02-27-2013, 07:21 PM
That's not at all how your post came across. Having conversations about prospects isn't very productive if we've sprinkled them with magic prospect dust to make them well beyond reasonable projections.

Haha! Sprinkled them with magic dust. Love it. Yeah, its fun to imagine the best in prospects. Sorry if I am wrong. I just am not afraid to be disappointed about this kind of stuff. It really is a gamble with no consequences for losing...for me. Not for everyone.

diehardtwinsfan
02-27-2013, 07:53 PM
It strikes me more as unjustifiable optimism. That project was an MVP season. I like the guys coming through, but you have to be reasonable about what they may be. Kab's numbers showed it, and those numbers would look like that for most team's players. On that list, only Morneau was one where I kind of wonder if his would have been different had the concussion not happened.

kab21
02-27-2013, 08:21 PM
The reason it bothers me is that a lot of people read the site and when they start seeing projections like this then they start believing that Hicks can be that type of player. And then they are disappointed when Hicks is hitting .265 with 14 HR's. He's a damn good player if he does that.

mnfanforlife
02-27-2013, 08:22 PM
It strikes me more as unjustifiable optimism. That project was an MVP season. I like the guys coming through, but you have to be reasonable about what they may be. Kab's numbers showed it, and those numbers would look like that for most team's players. On that list, only Morneau was one where I kind of wonder if his would have been different had the concussion not happened.

.290 with 25 HR's and 35 Sb's is not an MVP season, in my opinion. All-Star yes, but honestly, its not that crazy of a projection. He is still just 23 and getting stronger. He can do it. But please...believe what you want. If that right is taken away from us, we are screwed.

mnfanforlife
02-27-2013, 08:27 PM
Hunter .270 - .277 - the only player whose average went up
.

Thank you for providing an example of how there are exceptions to nearly every statistical trend. Hicks may not have a better comparison as a player, than Torii Hunter.

mnfanforlife
02-27-2013, 08:30 PM
Hunter never hit .300 in a full minor league season. He has since had seasons of .299 and .313 at age 33 and 36, respectively. I really like comparing Hunter to Hicks. Hunter never hit for power until about 24...so we will see if Hicks follows suit

TheLeviathan
02-27-2013, 08:31 PM
If that right is taken away from us, we are screwed.

What? No one is knocking down your door to take your rights. We're explaining why your projection isn't very realistic. Like if I predict 2013 will be a 50 homerun season for Mauer. COULD it happen? Sure, but it's so unrealistic that it's clownish. If you wish to project clownish numbers, no one is taking that right from you. It's just going to be pointed out that it's clownish.

Now, if we see some changes in his approach (ala Hunter) then we can start to alter projections. But it's going to be some major changes to reach your projection. And the thing is, he could be a DAMN good player at significantly less than your projection.

mnfanforlife
02-27-2013, 09:38 PM
What? No one is knocking down your door to take your rights. We're explaining why your projection isn't very realistic. Like if I predict 2013 will be a 50 homerun season for Mauer. COULD it happen? Sure, but it's so unrealistic that it's clownish. If you wish to project clownish numbers, no one is taking that right from you. It's just going to be pointed out that it's clownish.

Now, if we see some changes in his approach (ala Hunter) then we can start to alter projections. But it's going to be some major changes to reach your projection. And the thing is, he could be a DAMN good player at significantly less than your projection.

No. I disagree. But I wont stoop to calling anything you have said clownish. I had 15 extra minutes: Worm Hunting - Blogs - Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum (http://twinsdaily.com/blogs/mnfanforlife/2566-worm-hunting.html)

mnfanforlife
02-27-2013, 09:39 PM
What? No one is knocking down your door to take your rights. We're explaining why your projection isn't very realistic. Like if I predict 2013 will be a 50 homerun season for Mauer. COULD it happen? Sure, but it's so unrealistic that it's clownish. If you wish to project clownish numbers, no one is taking that right from you. It's just going to be pointed out that it's clownish.

Now, if we see some changes in his approach (ala Hunter) then we can start to alter projections. But it's going to be some major changes to reach your projection. And the thing is, he could be a DAMN good player at significantly less than your projection.

I don't think my projection is clownish at all. Please read: Worm Hunting - Blogs - Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum (http://twinsdaily.com/blogs/mnfanforlife/2566-worm-hunting.html)

mnfanforlife
02-27-2013, 10:01 PM
He was also two levels below MLB.

Worm Hunting - Blogs - Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum (http://twinsdaily.com/blogs/mnfanforlife/2566-worm-hunting.html)

FrodaddyG
02-27-2013, 10:16 PM
Worm Hunting - Blogs - Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum (http://twinsdaily.com/blogs/mnfanforlife/2566-worm-hunting.html)
If you post that link enough will the content eventually change to where it has a point?

mnfanforlife
02-27-2013, 10:20 PM
If you post that link enough will the content eventually change to where it has a point?

Haha! Well, it does have a point. Its "Hope."

Your posts also have a point. Its "Hate"

CDog
02-27-2013, 10:58 PM
So then perhaps rather than criticizing kab's reply, you should be seeking clarification from the original poster. Rationally, kab's interpretation is the only one that makes sense.

Well that's gotta be pretty embarrassing. On the other hand, interpreting what people write has never been your strongest suit.

TheLeviathan
02-27-2013, 11:04 PM
Well that's gotta be pretty embarrassing. On the other hand, interpreting what people write has never been your strongest suit.

Huh? Again, you went after kab's very rational, factually-backed approach to a poorly articulated, overzealous projection. And then backpeddled to state you had no idea what he meant. As is clear from this thread, the poster in question cannot be interpreted rationally. kab gave his argument far more credit than it deserves. As I'm doing to your "thoughts" now.

mnfanforlife
02-27-2013, 11:12 PM
Huh? Again, you went after kab's very rational, factually-backed approach to a poorly articulated, overzealous projection. And then backpeddled to state you had no idea what he meant. As is clear from this thread, the poster in question cannot be interpreted rationally. kab gave his argument far more credit than it deserves. As I'm doing to your "thoughts" now.

Dude chill. Kab can stand up for his/herself. I know. Rosario won't play in Minnesota this year. Its in the original post/thread. I wasn't arguing anything. I was stating my opinion (would rather see Rasario struggle than the AAA guys struggle). It is a perfectly rational idea. I even disclaimed that IT WONT HAPPEN. So you can stop pretending like youre "above" anyone else on here. Because you ARE NOT

TheLeviathan
02-27-2013, 11:14 PM
Rosario won't play in Minnesota this year.

This is the Hicks thread. I'm not surprised you're having trouble keeping track of your posts that are being criticized.

mnfanforlife
02-27-2013, 11:20 PM
Huh? Again, you went after kab's very rational, factually-backed approach to a poorly articulated, overzealous projection. And then backpeddled to state you had no idea what he meant. As is clear from this thread, the poster in question cannot be interpreted rationally. kab gave his argument far more credit than it deserves. As I'm doing to your "thoughts" now.

Kab can speak for his or herself. If you hate my posts so much, just stop reading them! It really is your choice to ignore or to become involved. Kab's facts support the Hicks-Hunter comparison very well. Thank you Kab

mnfanforlife
02-27-2013, 11:21 PM
This is the Hicks thread. I'm not surprised you're having trouble keeping track of your posts that are being criticized.

Oh yes, can hardly keep them straight! Its still fun though.

BTW...this is actually the Oswaldo Arcia thread!!! So you CAN be wrong! Amazing

ashburyjohn
02-27-2013, 11:30 PM
Your posts also have a point. Its "Hate"

It's amazing what a change in Avatar can do.

Oldgoat_MN
02-28-2013, 12:03 AM
I think that mnfanforlife's projection was optimistic. However...
indeed Torii Hunter's progress, with all the raw talent he had as a kid, has been in some ways mirrored by Hicks.
It may be useful to point out that Hicks was 22 years old at New Britian. Only Arcia was 21 years old for the season.
Hicks is young for AA ball.
Arcia is otherworldly.

kab21
02-28-2013, 12:09 AM
Kab can speak for his or herself. If you hate my posts so much, just stop reading them! It really is your choice to ignore or to become involved. Kab's facts support the Hicks-Hunter comparison very well. Thank you Kab

If you'll notice that Hunter's 7pt BA improvement is a far cry from the 20 pt improvement that you projected by Hicks. Additionally there are dozens of examples where BA's fell by 10-30 pts. It's not like I cherry picked these examples to make my argument. If I had I wouldn't have included Hunter even though I knew you would latch onto the Hicks-Hunter without acknowledging just how rare it is for someone to do what Hunter did. Your analysis and projections continue to focus on the very unlikely scenarios while others live in a world of reality.

Actually I did cherry pick the examples. I only included those that succeeded at the MLB level. That list would look far worse if I included the Restovich's and other AAA flameouts.

Nobody is defending me. they are simply agreeing that your projections, analysis and thoughts are not very good.

PseudoSABR
02-28-2013, 12:34 AM
@mnfanforlife

they are simply agreeing that your projections, analysis and thoughts are not very good.
kab21 is right. Look, it stinks, but no one is going to be convinced by your gut-level optimism. It defies not only Hicks track record, but it also ignores the context and history of prospect development. While everyone has a right to an opinion, not every opinion is valid--that is, not every opinion is as hard-won--some research more, can put stats in better context, have a greater familiarity with development, knows well the difference between ceiling and career year, etc.

Rather than suggest that those who don't agree with you are haters, while it takes some humility, accept that you could probably do a better job of projection and analyst. After all, witness again how you responded to Leviathan in one post:
Haha! Sprinkled them with magic dust. Love it. Yeah, its fun to imagine the best in prospects. Sorry if I am wrong. I just am not afraid to be disappointed about this kind of stuff. It really is a gamble with no consequences for losing...for me. Not for everyone. You can't really expect anyone to take you seriously, when an optimism without consequences underpins your point of view, can you?

Good luck, and I hope you have the courage to refine your approach.

mnfanforlife
02-28-2013, 01:00 AM
@mnfanforlife

kab21 is right. Look, it stinks, but no one is going to be convinced by your gut-level optimism. It defies not only Hicks track record, but it also ignores the context and history of prospect development. While everyone has a right to an opinion, not every opinion is valid--that is, not every opinion is as hard-won--some research more, can put stats in better context, have a greater familiarity with development, knows well the difference between ceiling and career year, etc.

Rather than suggest that those who don't agree with you are haters, while it takes some humility, accept that you could probably do a better job of projection and analyst. After all, witness again how you responded to Leviathan in one post: You can't really expect anyone to take you seriously, when an optimism without consequences underpins your point of view, can you?

Good luck, and I hope you have the courage to refine your approach.

Wow. We will see who is right or wrong about Hicks. As for your little "group think" session. Be careful what you're all so sure about...The vast majority of people at NASA believed the Challenger mission was "good to go" that fateful day, despite one engineer that was "crazy" enough to predict an O-ring failure. Obviously, these baseball projections mean nothing compared to the loss of human life. But its a good example of everyone going along with what the group thinks, even though they were all wrong.

Hunter is a perfect comparison for Hicks. And I continue to assert that Hicks could very well have a career year of .290 with 25 HR's and 35 Sb's. I apologize for any confusion about the intentions of my "Hicks projection."

Individuality is a good thing. Monotony of opinion is not. Be open-minded and allow positive things to enter your life.

mnfanforlife
02-28-2013, 01:07 AM
I think that mnfanforlife's projection was optimistic. However...
indeed Torii Hunter's progress, with all the raw talent he had as a kid, has been in some ways mirrored by Hicks.
It may be useful to point out that Hicks was 22 years old at New Britian. Only Arcia was 21 years old for the season.
Hicks is young for AA ball.
Arcia is otherworldly.

You are always a quality human being. Thank you. No emotions. Just baseball.

mnfanforlife
02-28-2013, 01:17 AM
While everyone has a right to an opinion, not every opinion is valid--that is, not every opinion is as hard-won--some research more, can put stats in better context, have a greater familiarity with development, knows well the difference between ceiling and career year, etc.

Please teach me everything you know! I want to learn from the best - - The TD "Experts" - - they are always correct about every prospect. And they never stray from low-to-moderate projections! I can't wait for my first lecture. Its about how to squash your imagination by being overly-concerned with statistics.

mnfanforlife
02-28-2013, 01:47 AM
It defies not only Hicks track record, but it also ignores the context and history of prospect development.

Hicks minor league career is very similar statistically to Hunter's. And Hicks has been compared to Hunter since draft day. Hicks could very well hit .300 in MLB someday..like Hunter did twice in his 30's....It is not out of the question to assert that Hicks will develop into a very similar player. So what are you talking about here?

mnfanforlife
02-28-2013, 02:12 AM
If you'll notice that Hunter's 7pt BA improvement is a far cry from the 20 pt improvement that you projected by Hicks. Additionally there are dozens of examples where BA's fell by 10-30 pts. It's not like I cherry picked these examples to make my argument. If I had I wouldn't have included Hunter even though I knew you would latch onto the Hicks-Hunter without acknowledging just how rare it is for someone to do what Hunter did. Your analysis and projections continue to focus on the very unlikely scenarios while others live in a world of reality.

Actually I did cherry pick the examples. I only included those that succeeded at the MLB level. That list would look far worse if I included the Restovich's and other AAA flameouts.

Nobody is defending me. they are simply agreeing that your projections, analysis and thoughts are not very good.

Look, thank you for the statistical breakdown you provided to try and convince me that Hicks cannot ever hit .290 in MLB. But, I have the right to project whatever I want. If you don't think its good, then dont post on the thread. And yes, they were defending you. There is a little support group of posters that like to be very modest with projections and never risk any criticism. Don't be afraid to make mistakes! This is baseball...have some fun! Your stats proved absolutely nothing about Hicks. However, I do appreciate the effort.

You cannot prove anything about Hicks' future right now. Time will prove that. I understand your thinking, but I will never think like that. I'm not afraid to make mistakes about prospects and I invite criticism. Go ahead and tell me the problems you have with this post...I promise to be respectful.

kab21
02-28-2013, 02:21 AM
Continue to cling to the player development exception instead of the norm.

And again Torii Hunter isn't a .300 hitter because he did it (almost did it) twice in a 15 yr career. Players have lucky seasons all the time and Hunter had a .389 BAPIP (really lucky) last year. Do you also consider Kubel a .300 hitter?

mnfanforlife
02-28-2013, 02:30 AM
Continue to cling to the player development exception instead of the norm.

And again Torii Hunter isn't a .300 hitter because he did it (almost did it) twice in a 15 yr career. Players have lucky seasons all the time and Hunter had a .389 BAPIP (really lucky) last year. Do you also consider Kubel a .300 hitter?

You mean a "career-.300-hitter" right?...and No. Kubel nor Hunter qualify for that since both are under .280 for their respective MLB careers. But Hicks could have a said "lucky" season in MLB where he finishes the year over .290...pretty reasonable statement as I think the original was taken out of context. My bad for not clarifying.

I will probably cling to the hope that Hicks will resemble Hunter statistically until I am proven wrong. This year in AAA will be very telling. I honestly wouldn't be shocked if Hicks duplicated his numbers from AA. Would you be? If Hicks accomplishes this, what would you project his career-year stat-line to look like? (which is what my Hicks projection was intended to be)

kab21
02-28-2013, 09:45 AM
I don't even bother trying to predict lucky or unlucky seasons. Pretty much every hitter in the MLB aside butera, Dunn, Uggla and similar is capable of hitting .290. I see Hicks as a .260's hitter and would allow for a +/- 30-40 pt swing in peak lucky/unlucky BA's making it possible for him to hit anywhere from .230-.300 in any given season. Because that huge range I dislike bothering with peak projections. I'm significantly more interested in what a hitter is going to do each season.

mnfanforlife
02-28-2013, 10:12 AM
I don't even bother trying to predict lucky or unlucky seasons. Pretty much every hitter in the MLB aside butera, Dunn, Uggla and similar is capable of hitting .290. I see Hicks as a .260's hitter and would allow for a +/- 30-40 pt swing in peak lucky/unlucky BA's making it possible for him to hit anywhere from .230-.300 in any given season. Because that huge range I dislike bothering with peak projections. I'm significantly more interested in what a hitter is going to do each season.

So, you're more interested in what their "average" season may look like? I am more interested in what their "best" season may look like. Nothing wrong with either interest, is there?

CDog
02-28-2013, 11:25 AM
Huh? Again, you went after kab's very rational, factually-backed approach to a poorly articulated, overzealous projection. And then backpeddled to state you had no idea what he meant. As is clear from this thread, the poster in question cannot be interpreted rationally. kab gave his argument far more credit than it deserves. As I'm doing to your "thoughts" now.

I'm curious how many times you'll be willing to reply to my posts in this thread with a self-righteous tone while being completely wrong. We're up to three now. I gotta say, it takes some balls to continue to get high-handed even after you've been proven unequivacolly wrong. Good for you.

As long as I'm here, my pointing out how embarrassed you should be about just how wrong you were wasn't my biggest moment. Sometimes softballs right down the middle are too tempting to pass up. I apologize for that, especially given the multiple threads recently about improving the tone. Those threads led to my attempt at a light, concilliatory response to your first post. I won't make that mistake again, but I was probably a little (or a lot) too gleeful and snarky when things took the predictable turn they did. Again, my apologies to the forum.

TheLeviathan
02-28-2013, 11:31 AM
Congrats, you are making less sense than the guy with the Hicks-Rodman comp.

mnfanforlife
02-28-2013, 11:35 AM
Congrats, you are making less sense than the guy with the Hicks-Rodman comp.

It takes a nimble mind to wrap your head around that one! But if you read the entire post, it makes perfect sense. The other comp was Torii Hunter....Did you even catch that? Or was your "reading" too selective?
What problems do you have with comparing Hunter to Hicks?

John Bonnes
02-28-2013, 12:09 PM
I'm sorry I didn't check in on this thread before today.

The Twins Daily community prides itself on the respectful way it treats fellow members of the community. Starting on the second page of this thread, a few condescending comments violated that statndard of behavior, and it's led to increasingly personal attacks. I suspect some of these comment are meant to help police the site, but you can't attack other members, even if it's not vulgar.

We can't have the board operate like that. It only leads to additional attacks, both by the attacked and by others who view it as the way the board works. If, instead, you want to flag the initial post for the moderators, please do so.

If you can't trust yourself to comment in that way, then please remove yourself from the conversation. (There are plenty of other threads and topics which you can enjoy.) I've already sent out a few warnings, and bans are next. Thank you for your understanding.

FrodaddyG
02-28-2013, 09:08 PM
I'm sorry I didn't check in on this thread before today.

The Twins Daily community prides itself on the respectful way it treats fellow members of the community. Starting on the second page of this thread, a few condescending comments violated that statndard of behavior, and it's led to increasingly personal attacks. I suspect some of these comment are meant to help police the site, but you can't attack other members, even if it's not vulgar.

We can't have the board operate like that. It only leads to additional attacks, both by the attacked and by others who view it as the way the board works. If, instead, you want to flag the initial post for the moderators, please do so.

If you can't trust yourself to comment in that way, then please remove yourself from the conversation. (There are plenty of other threads and topics which you can enjoy.) I've already sent out a few warnings, and bans are next. Thank you for your understanding.
If you want to tailor the site rules to exclusively the lowest common denominator, guess what you'll be left with.

kab21
02-28-2013, 09:19 PM
So, you're more interested in what their "average" season may look like? I am more interested in what their "best" season may look like. Nothing wrong with either interest, is there?

I clearly stated this in response to CDog on page 2 and yet you continued to argue.


I now understand your comment. Ceiling doesn't equal Best season. Ceiling is what kind of player the prospect becomes for his career (or at least his 5 yr peak).

mnfanforlife
02-28-2013, 10:01 PM
If you want to tailor the site rules to exclusively the lowest common denominator, guess what you'll be left with.

hundreds of decent people?

mnfanforlife
02-28-2013, 10:06 PM
I clearly stated this in response to CDog on page 2 and yet you continued to argue.

Yeah I believe I missed that comment entirely, my fault.

Badsmerf
02-28-2013, 10:25 PM
I'm sorry I didn't check in on this thread before today.

The Twins Daily community prides itself on the respectful way it treats fellow members of the community. Starting on the second page of this thread, a few condescending comments violated that statndard of behavior, and it's led to increasingly personal attacks. I suspect some of these comment are meant to help police the site, but you can't attack other members, even if it's not vulgar.

We can't have the board operate like that. It only leads to additional attacks, both by the attacked and by others who view it as the way the board works. If, instead, you want to flag the initial post for the moderators, please do so.

If you can't trust yourself to comment in that way, then please remove yourself from the conversation. (There are plenty of other threads and topics which you can enjoy.) I've already sent out a few warnings, and bans are next. Thank you for your understanding.
With regards to this thread, I think it has been pretty civil. With as large as TD is, there is going to be quarrels. As long as it doesn't get too messy why interject? Discussions like this are how people learn the intricacies of this sport. I don't think anyone has purposefully tried to attack another with no tact. I realize that this site was not set-up to be rube-chat, but at the same time it is an internet forum and must be policed carefully.

TheLeviathan
02-28-2013, 10:27 PM
Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one utterly confused by that.

mnfanforlife
02-28-2013, 10:44 PM
TheLeviathan, could I please start a gentlemanly discussion with you?

Do you believe the Hicks - Hunter comp to be valid? Why or why not?

glunn
02-28-2013, 10:48 PM
If you want to tailor the site rules to exclusively the lowest common denominator, guess what you'll be left with.

It takes intelligence and wisdom to utterly destroy a person's position without attacking the person.

There are plenty of boards out there where people can engage in personal attacks. If someone likes reading such attacks or feuding, there are other places to do this. Here is a link to one of such sites.
(http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/teams/page/MIN/minnesota-twins)
TD was conceived as a place where you can argue as passionately as you wish. You are perfectly free to tell someone that you believe that they are "absolutely wrong" then explain why you think that. But nothing good will ever come from characterizing someone's positions as "idiotic", "ridiculous", "stupid", or "clownish". This only leads to feuds. Again, there are other sites (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/teams/page/MIN/minnesota-twins) to go to for feuding and personal insults. In my opinion, those other sites are closer to a lowest common denominator than TD.

Frodaddy, you are clearly a very intelligent person. I urge you to give some thought to the benefit of having a place where we can disagree as much as we want, but we fight using logic instead of personal attacks. I have noticed a positive change in your posts and the posts of some other members, so I remain hopeful that you will gradually come to see the policy in a more positive light.

If it seems like I am lecturing, I apologize. But it seems important to make it as clear as possible why we are trying to reduce the personal attacks.

TheLeviathan
02-28-2013, 10:55 PM
But nothing good will ever come from characterizing someone's positions as "idiotic", "ridiculous", "stupid", or "clownish".

How about "makes no sense"? I'm now under the impression that such a reference is also not acceptable.

As for "clownish" - it was intended as "not to be taken seriously" - a bit more harsh than that, no disagreement. But I didn't refer to the individual at all - I was clearly referencing the projection. And I made that clear multiple times. This entire post by you is lost in the fact that what is being accused of being poor discourse was in no way a personal attack.

mnfanforlife
02-28-2013, 10:58 PM
It takes intelligence and wisdom to utterly destroy a person's position with attacking the person.


Change the "with" to "without" and I could not agree more. I love debating about prospects, and I have been guilty of posting instigating comments in the past. I promise to debate respectfully with anyone from now forward.

glunn
02-28-2013, 11:00 PM
Change the "with" to "without" and I could not agree more. I love debating about prospects, and I promise to do so respectfully with anyone on this site.

Thanks for calling my attention to that grievous typo -- I have now fixed it.

mnfanforlife
02-28-2013, 11:08 PM
What? No one is knocking down your door to take your rights. We're explaining why your projection isn't very realistic. Like if I predict 2013 will be a 50 homerun season for Mauer. COULD it happen? Sure, but it's so unrealistic that it's clownish. If you wish to project clownish numbers, no one is taking that right from you. It's just going to be pointed out that it's clownish.

Now, if we see some changes in his approach (ala Hunter) then we can start to alter projections. But it's going to be some major changes to reach your projection. And the thing is, he could be a DAMN good player at significantly less than your projection.

I completely agree with the second paragraph. But my projection was not nearly as wild as your example projection.
How can my projection not be viewed as a probable career-year for Hicks in MLB? (.290 with 25 HR's and 35 Sb's)
I am very sorry if I did not clarify the context of my projection better. But now you know.
It is perfectly realistic, and I require that you explain why I should not hope for this....

glunn
02-28-2013, 11:08 PM
How about "makes no sense"? I'm now under the impression that such a reference is also not acceptable.

As for "clownish" - it was intended as "not to be taken seriously" - a bit more harsh than that, no disagreement. But I didn't refer to the individual at all - I was clearly referencing the projection. And I made that clear multiple times. This entire post by you is lost in the fact that what is being accused of being poor discourse was in no way a personal attack.

It seems to me that telling someone that what he's saying "makes no sense" is an invitation to feud. But telling someone that what he's saying "makes no sense to me" is an invitation to engage in further discussion. And if the response is not persuasive, then you can completely disagree and explain why you still believe that they are totally wrong.

You are clearly very articulate. I have no doubt that you can adjust enough to say all that you want to say without violating the policy. Indeed, I think that you may eventually come to love the challenge of totally destroying an idiotic position while showing the greatest possible respect for your fellow Twins fans who you believe are mistaken.

TheLeviathan
02-28-2013, 11:13 PM
So, I can say "makes no sense to me" but not "makes no sense" without a threat to be banned? Yeah, wow.

In any case, I'll just repeat it again: There was never a personal attack in here for this to start with. I'm deeply troubled by this seemingly new standard that is required. I went out of my way, three times, to clarify there was no personal attack. If the test is "not to start a feud" - I'm baffled.

It's one thing to avoid personal attacks, totally understandable. This, whatever this garbled mess you're passing off as a standard, is not. So guess I'll just expect random threats for references to poor arguments that are...too mean? Not sensitive enough? I'm not sure how to refer to it.

mnfanforlife
02-28-2013, 11:52 PM
I'm deeply troubled by this seemingly new standard that is required.

It's one thing to avoid personal attacks, totally understandable. This, whatever this garbled mess you're passing off as a standard, is not. So guess I'll just expect random threats for references to poor arguments that are...too mean? Not sensitive enough? I'm not sure how to refer to it.

Maybe you never intended to attack me personally, but I would understand either way and promise to respect you moving forward, but I have to ask....

Deeply troubled? By the rules of a baseball fan forum?

What is so incomprehensible about a "standard of respect" for others?

kab21
03-01-2013, 12:03 AM
It seems to me that telling someone that what he's saying "makes no sense" is an invitation to feud. But telling someone that what he's saying "makes no sense to me" is an invitation to engage in further discussion. And if the response is not persuasive, then you can completely disagree and explain why you still believe that they are totally wrong.

You are clearly very articulate. I have no doubt that you can adjust enough to say all that you want to say without violating the policy. Indeed, I think that you may eventually come to love the challenge of totally destroying an idiotic position while showing the greatest possible respect for your fellow Twins fans who you believe are mistaken.

The problem is that this nonsense from him has popped up regarding nearly every prospect this winter. Berrios should absolutely be in Ft Myers this year. Rosario is MLB ready offensively right now. I can't remember all of his exact quotes but these are just a few of the other examples. Not only allowing him to post this crap but allowing him to write articles is sinking the credibility of this site. That sucks because this is becoming a very popular site.

I also believe that I only attacked the analysis and never made a personal comment while showing substantial research and facts regarding how poor the analysis was. The thread did turn a little ugly but mnfanforlife has been dishing out just as much crap as anyone else in this thread and he acts innocent. This is completely uncalled for by someone complaining about people attacking him.



http://twinsdaily.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by FrodaddyG http://twinsdaily.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://twinsdaily.com/farm/5327-article-blizzard-oz-4.html#post87676)

If you want to tailor the site rules to exclusively the lowest common denominator, guess what you'll be left with.
hundreds of decent people?

mnfanforlife
03-01-2013, 12:22 AM
The problem is that this nonsense from him has popped up regarding nearly every prospect this winter. Berrios should absolutely be in Ft Myers this year. Rosario is MLB ready offensively right now. I can't remember all of his exact quotes but these are just a few of the other examples. Not only allowing him to post this crap but allowing him to write articles is sinking the credibility of this site. That sucks because this is becoming a very popular site.

I also believe that I only attacked the analysis and never made a personal comment while showing substantial research and facts regarding how poor the analysis was. The thread did turn a little ugly but mnfanforlife has been dishing out just as much crap as anyone else in this thread and he acts innocent. This is completely uncalled for by someone complaining about people attacking him.

Just to be fair, I have to present this from my Berrios article you "quoted" :

"So the real question now is this: Will the organization fast-track this kid in 2013, and allow him to move multiple levels? I am sure his performance will determine this, but the guy will only be 19. So, perhaps the organization will play it safe and limit his innings and appearances? Berrios has been described as physically mature beyond his age (whatever that means), so maybe he gets a heavier workload than someone else his age."

Is this "way off base"? Is this "crap" as you have suggested? No where in the entire article are the words "Berrios should absolutely be in Ft Myers this year" as you suggested.

mnfanforlife
03-01-2013, 12:31 AM
I stand by my opinion that Rosario is an advanced hitter capable of moving multiple levels in 2013. He has no shot of playing in MN this year, but I stand by my opinion that I would be more entertained by his rookie-struggles than by the usual suspects.

PseudoSABR
03-01-2013, 01:44 AM
...Hey, glunn, delete some PMs in your inbox, because I can't reply to the PM you sent me!

Badsmerf
03-01-2013, 08:20 AM
TheLeviathan, could I please start a gentlemanly discussion with you?

Do you believe the Hicks - Hunter comp to be valid? Why or why not?
Invalid. These are two completely different players other than the ability to play elite CF. Offensively, they are nothing alike. Torii has and always will be a free swinger. Hicks has much better plate discipline and SB potential. While Hunter developed into a pretty good basestealer, it is more a reflection of his baseball IQ and personality as a no-holds-barred type of player. I'm really not convinced about Hicks's power potential. Torii developed his as he grew into his frame, its yet to be seen if Hicks will do the same. I'm not convinced about Hicks hitting in the least. He is terrible against RHP and strikes out too much. Hunter wasn't a sure thing either, but he also reached the majors at 22 and didn't post his best numbers until he was 33 in Anaheim. Also, he OPS'd 1.130 in 209 AB's as a 24 yo in AAA. You can't predict or expect a player to develop from a career .751 OPS in the minors to a career .801 OPS in the majors. It just doesn't happen very often which is why Torii is so special. Hicks currently has a career .801 OPS in the minors (helped by his lucky 2012 season and BABIP of .379 which is waaaay high). If you'd like I'm sure people can throw out much more reasonable comparisons... except they will be ones that struggled to hit and OPS as well as they did in the minors. I am much more skeptical of Hicks than most, so I've found this thread fun to read.

glunn
03-01-2013, 01:14 PM
Hey, glunn, delete some PMs in your inbox, because I can't reply to the PM you sent me!

Sorry about that -- I have now freed up some space.

mnfanforlife
03-06-2013, 12:21 AM
If you'd like I'm sure people can throw out much more reasonable comparisons... (for Hicks)

Please do. I am all eyes.

drjim
03-07-2013, 08:34 AM
Did anyone catch Molitor's comments on Arcia?

He restated the concern about him showing up a little out of shape. But what really caught my attention was how Molitor broke down his approach. He said Arcia does most his damage early in counts and panics a little as he gets deeper in the count. That strikes me as a big deal and something that might take more time than we appreciate strictly from Arcia's numbers. He has clear talent but might be a little further away than I thought.

Brock Beauchamp
03-07-2013, 09:07 AM
Did anyone catch Molitor's comments on Arcia?

He restated the concern about him showing up a little out of shape. But what really caught my attention was how Molitor broke down his approach. He said Arcia does most his damage early in counts and panics a little as he gets deeper in the count. That strikes me as a big deal and something that might take more time than we appreciate strictly from Arcia's numbers. He has clear talent but might be a little further away than I thought.

If anyone would be able to make that distinction, it'd be Molitor. A little concerning but not entirely unexpected given Arcia's stats and his rapid advance through the system at a young age.

twinsnorth49
03-07-2013, 11:05 AM
Damn, I can't believe I missed this thread. For what it's worth I think we're going a little overboard on the whole civil obedience thing, if someone can't take having their feet held to the fire for making fairy tale projections that can't logically be substantiated then they should think twice about posting such things.

I've read every post in here and really can't define much that could be interpreted as "personal attacks". I agree with some posters here that it is important to maintain the credibility of the site with properly researched and substantiated projections and ideas. Tossing out fantastic, fanboy predictions and trying to justify them as legitimate projections doesn't lend itself to this site being a place for reasoned, in-depth baseball analysis, it's just making stuff up.

kab21
03-07-2013, 11:39 AM
I thought there was a chance that Arcia could struggle with over aggressiveness in his first go around in the majors. These comments aren't necessarily the same but similar. On the other hand I have a feeling that Hicks will struggle with under aggressiveness and frustrate Twins fans. both should be good players eventually though.

diehardtwinsfan
03-07-2013, 12:38 PM
Damn, I can't believe I missed this thread. For what it's worth I think we're going a little overboard on the whole civil obedience thing, if someone can't take having their feet held to the fire for making fairy tale projections that can't logically be substantiated then they should think twice about posting such things.

I've read every post in here and really can't define much that could be interpreted as "personal attacks". I agree with some posters here that it is important to maintain the credibility of the site with properly researched and substantiated projections and ideas. Tossing out fantastic, fanboy predictions and trying to justify them as legitimate projections doesn't lend itself to this site being a place for reasoned, in-depth baseball analysis, it's just making stuff.

I'll add to this. I get that personal attacks need to be monitored as it can drive away people. On the same token, reaction to that (i.e. the word police) can accomplish the same thing. I am not a mod here, and if I'm overstepping my bounds I apologize, but the offense in this thread struck me as more as people being too thin skinned when it came to their opinions being criticized than personal attacks.

TheLeviathan
03-07-2013, 04:26 PM
FWIW guys, the issue I was being threatened with bans for was dropped very quickly after a few finer points were made. I like to believe the moderating police realized their error, hence the silence after this. If nothing else, this was a fine lesson in going too far in policing dialogue. So maybe something positive came out of it.

glunn
03-08-2013, 01:37 AM
I'll add to this. I get that personal attacks need to be monitored as it can drive away people. On the same token, reaction to that (i.e. the word police) can accomplish the same thing. I am not a mod here, and if I'm overstepping my bounds I apologize, but the offense in this thread struck me as more as people being too thin skinned when it came to their opinions being criticized than personal attacks.

Believe it or not, he monitors spend considerable time discussing among themselves how best to minimize feuds and personal attacks while not impeding passionate debate. But let's be absolutely clear that you can be as forceful as you wish as long as you are attacking a wrong idea, without personally attacking another member. Example -- "I believe that Member X's position on Issue X is completely wrong,because ...." Then you can destroy the other poster's position point by point. This approach makes for interesting baseball reading, and leaves open the possibility that you may change people's minds. But if you refer to another poster's position as idiotic, then the possibility that he/she will be open to your point of view becomes nil, because you have suggested that he/she is an idiot. Even worse, the other poster will then be tempted to suggest that you are the idiot, then things often get out of hand.

This is not about policing words -- it's about keeping the focus on baseball and avoiding feuds that distract from that focus. There are plenty of places on the internet where people can shout at each other. TD is a place where we can passionately disagree, but we battle using evidence and reasoning.

Obviously, we had a situation in this thread where a poster was being irrational and it annoyed some folks. And for the most part, other members showed admirable restraint. But there were a couple of instances in which we sent out polite private messages in the hope of alerting members to our concerns. Some people may think of us as word police, but to the extent that such characterization is accurate, then we are the most tolerant police on the planet. We issue a few very polite warnings by way of private messages, and I have yet to encounter a situation where I have even considered threatening to ban someone.

Moderating is not an easy job. Like basketball referees, we don't want to call fouls unless we feel that we have to. We don't want to slow down the game. Fortunately, we are blessed with great members. Violations have been few and far between. And the overall quality of the posts has been excellent. So please feel free to tell us how you think that we could do better, taking into account that no one paid for us to go to moderator school.

Celebrity Weddings!
03-08-2013, 07:02 AM
The irritating thing about people associated with the team telling writers that a minor leaguer showed up out of shape is that it's too easy to make jumps about a player's attitude or diligence. Arcia got nearly 200 plate appearances in Venezuela this winter and slugged .475, so it's not like he decided that a good AA season meant there wasn't any more work to be done so he could sit around and get a headstart spending his future MLB earnings on cheeseburgers. It means he's a pretty big 21 year old who's still figuring out how his body works.

TheLeviathan
03-08-2013, 07:54 AM
All well and good Glunn but no matter how politely a threat is issued it is still a threat:


Again, please try and be respectful to other members, even those you feel are morons. (We'll trust the morons to weed themselves out eventually.) Otherwise, we will need to ban you.

All, mind you, for a non-violation. If calling a position (note: not the person) "clownish" is somehow a violation and (far worse still) saying someone is "not making sense" are ban-able offenses is a far cry from the posted policy and more than a bit ridiculous. If you are going to allow " not makingsense to me" as some bastion of higher debate form you are guaranteed of only two things: lower quality posting (by way of driving off adults who can handle it) and constant moderating hypocrisy by way of this completely obscure standard. You will NOT eliminating feuding, nor should this be a goal. Debates, at their essence, are feuds. Your role should be preventing them from becoming personal. Which, I will repeat, did not happen here.

glunn
03-08-2013, 01:33 PM
All well and good Glunn but no matter how politely a threat is issued it is still a threat:



All, mind you, for a non-violation. If calling a position (note: not the person) "clownish" is somehow a violation and (far worse still) saying someone is "not making sense" are ban-able offenses is a far cry from the posted policy and more than a bit ridiculous. If you are going to allow " not makingsense to me" as some bastion of higher debate form you are guaranteed of only two things: lower quality posting (by way of driving off adults who can handle it) and constant moderating hypocrisy by way of this completely obscure standard. You will NOT eliminating feuding, nor should this be a goal. Debates, at their essence, are feuds. Your role should be preventing them from becoming personal. Which, I will repeat, did not happen here.

So if I were to call your position "absolutely ridiculous, poorly thought out and insincere", you would not view this as a personal attack, or disrespectful?

Levi, you are one of our most intelligent members and I appreciate your ability to articulately question the enforcement of the policy. Please reconsider what I wrote above and feel free to private message me to discuss this further. Or if you want to debate this publicly, let's do it in the sticky thread that states the policy. I do not agree that debates are essentially the same as feuds, and would happily debate this with you in the relevant thread.

TheLeviathan
03-08-2013, 02:37 PM
I responded privately to these "not reasonable ideas to me" (and most any other sane poster here). I will leave it there and let this silly injustice end here.

jokin
03-08-2013, 08:31 PM
Another prospect, Miguel Sano, hit .258 last year....Yet, many pro-scouts project him to hit for a high average as he matures. Hicks' situation is not identical, but I like how he handled AA last year. Made a huge jump in hit/at-bat ratio from A+ to AA...why not expect him to maintain those numbers in AAA, and ultimately in MLB??

I'm confident that Hicks will be an impactful player once he finally sticks. While it's exciting to see what he did last year, albeit in AA and is certainly the #1 topic this spring, it's important to remember that a "toolsy" Herman Hill was once the talk of spring training before he ended up on a likely 4th OF track before his tragic demise. Not saying that Hicks is Hill, just that thus far this spring Hick's numbers have come against an average pitcher experience level of AAAA, at best. The Twins should handle this potentially huge asset carefully to maximize his value. Is he capable of a Hunter-esque career? Absolutely. Should he be annointed as such now? Definitely not. The body of evidence is simply not there to label him as "can't miss" and applying the label could damage his development. The Twins would be wise to continue to monitor his progression carefully. I hope he makes it North in the opening day lineup and hits the ground running, ala Harper. If the Twins don't bring him up right away, or demote him shortly after an early season failed tryout, it's no reason to panic and every reason to continue the Twins steady and patient course with Hicks.

The unbiased, and unemotionally attached, "projection experts" (ZIPS, Oliver, Steamer) certainly aren't expecting what you have practically deemed as the gospel outcome. You also failed to note his unrealistically sustainable recent minor league BABIP numbers. Based on their 2013 predictions of around .236/.317/.370/.687, I think realistic enthusiasm for Hicks in his first year would be .250/.330/.395/.725 (his OBP could be even better with the right guy batting #2):

http://www.fangraphs.com/fanpdetails.aspx?playerid=sa454371&position=OF

mnfanforlife
03-12-2013, 09:14 AM
Thank you. I do not wish to "annoint" anyone as anything. But, I agree that Hicks could have a similar career to Hunter. Its a reasonable comparison, since they are both elite defenders and have seen their share of minor league struggles. Time will tell. Thank you for your research and opinion on Hicks. (somehow this thread got derailed from Oswaldo Arcia, but I am enjoying the discussion none the less)

mnfanforlife
05-21-2013, 12:53 AM
I'm confident that Hicks will be an impactful player once he finally sticks. While it's exciting to see what he did last year, albeit in AA and is certainly the #1 topic this spring, it's important to remember that a "toolsy" Herman Hill was once the talk of spring training before he ended up on a likely 4th OF track before his tragic demise. Not saying that Hicks is Hill, just that thus far this spring Hick's numbers have come against an average pitcher experience level of AAAA, at best. The Twins should handle this potentially huge asset carefully to maximize his value. Is he capable of a Hunter-esque career? Absolutely. Should he be annointed as such now? Definitely not. The body of evidence is simply not there to label him as "can't miss" and applying the label could damage his development. The Twins would be wise to continue to monitor his progression carefully. I hope he makes it North in the opening day lineup and hits the ground running, ala Harper. If the Twins don't bring him up right away, or demote him shortly after an early season failed tryout, it's no reason to panic and every reason to continue the Twins steady and patient course with Hicks.

The unbiased, and unemotionally attached, "projection experts" (ZIPS, Oliver, Steamer) certainly aren't expecting what you have practically deemed as the gospel outcome. You also failed to note his unrealistically sustainable recent minor league BABIP numbers. Based on their 2013 predictions of around .236/.317/.370/.687, I think realistic enthusiasm for Hicks in his first year would be .250/.330/.395/.725 (his OBP could be even better with the right guy batting #2):

http://www.fangraphs.com/fanpdetails.aspx?playerid=sa454371&position=OF





























Thanks for your awesome, unemotional projection that you ripped off of some number crunching site. So exciting. I never anointed anyone with any "gospel." I did project what Hicks' career year may look like, which is still reasonable, despite what you think is statistically possible.
Believe what you want, I will too. And I am not "in the least" persuaded to lose my passion and emotion for baseball and baseball prospects.