PDA

View Full Version : Mackey: Twins lack innovation



Parker Hageman
10-01-2013, 12:06 PM
The Minnesota Twins need outside ideas.

That's the two-second abridged version of 1500ESPN.com's Phil Mackey's column (http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Mackey_Once_a_model_team_Twins_now_lack_innovation _outside_ideas093013) regarding the right way to fix the Twins. While numerous people decried the retention of manager Ron Gardenhire as the reason the team is failing on the field, Mackey takes aim at the organization in general and how the once-model franchise has fallen behind the front-runners.

It is a must-read.

Mackey cites several organization -- St Louis Cardinals, Oakland A's, Tampa Bay Rays, Pittsburgh Pirates and the Cleveland Indians -- who have taken measures to push envelope in all aspects of the game, from the front office decision-making to the field management, and have been rewarded with winning baseball for it.

Of course, there are several organizations that have robust statistical departments and analytical emphasis who have also been this year unsuccessful too. San Francisco Giants have Yeshayah Goldfarb running their statistics and analytics and his decisions were given plenty of credit for the 2012 World Series title (http://m.nbcsports.com/content/if-you%E2%80%99re-painting-giants-some-sort-anti-moneyball-team-you%E2%80%99re-delusional). This year, they lost 86 games. The Yankees are rumored to have not just the most money but some of the best minds in the game working for their analytics department. The Cubs and Astros are just getting their houses in order but have a long way to go to be competitive. Over the long term, those teams should have a competitive advantage over other teams.

The thing is it is a slow burn in order to get some of the ideas (1) implemented and (2) working.

Consider the Pirates. When the Nutting ownership group took over in 2007 they hired Neal Huntington as GM. The following year, Huntington hired Dan Fox to take over the analytics for the team (http://triblive.com/sports/pirates/4661618-74/fox-baseball-computer#axzz2gOs9jUb6). It took five years before the team was able to capitalize on Fox’s handy work, most notably because of the defensive shifts.

There are other examples of this across the league.

The Blue Jays hired (http://www.thestar.com/sports/baseball/2011/02/22/sartori_adds_beautiful_mind_to_jay_equation.html) Joe Sheehan**, in 2010 after he had a stint with the Pirates for two years. It may have been Sheehan’s information that encouraged manager John Gibbons to move Jose Bautista from the third spot to the second spot in the order. Also worth noting is the fact that the Jays have progressively finished worse (for various reasons) since Sheehan’s arrival.

Does this mean the losing is Sheehan’s fault? Absolutely not. So many factors go into winning that go beyond just the stat culture. Credit and blame cannot be dished out solely to Fox or Sheehan’s efforts. Both organizations are better for having minds like Fox and Sheehan’s in the fray but they cannot control the investment in player development or scouting efforts in the Dominican.

The Twins have their guy (now guys, plural) (http://twinsdaily.com/1278-where-twins-statistical-analysis.html) as well. His influence has been part of the decision-making process as well as having some input behind Joe Mauer’s move from third to second in the batting order this year. Behind the curtain, the Jack Goin-led Twins research team has plenty of efforts underway which, if harnessed correctly, could give the team an edge. But it just does not happen overnight.

Beyond the analytics, the Twins have also made strides to improve the development system. The Pirates had invested money into to their player development side, improving their Florida spring training grounds. The Twins, meanwhile, have recently broke ground on their expansion plans (http://twinsdaily.com/2297-twins-break-ground-spring-training-upgrades.html) for their spring training facility. Like the Pirates before them, the Twins hope this provides dividends on the player development side.

The fact is the Twins will never be a Tampa or Oakland. Mackey’s 100 percent correct that Ron Gardenhire is far from the team’s problem. The Twins need to focus on gaining that competitive advantage after being lapped by other teams – there is no reason they cannot match Pittsburgh or Cleveland – but you have to jog before you sprint.

***CORRECTION: I had erroneously reported it was Baseball Prospectus' Joe Sheehan. Completely different Sheehan.***

JB_Iowa
10-01-2013, 12:20 PM
Gardenhire isn't the team's problem in and of himself but he is a big reflection of the team's problem.

Too much inbreeding. Too much complacency. Too much "old boys club". Too little innovation. Too few hires from outside the organization. Too little accountability. Too much "resting on their laurels".

Mackey isn't saying anything that you can't read in the other threads on this topic -- many of us are talking about the need for changes.

But extending Gardenhire for 2 years and keeping his coaching staff intact for at least another year is a big indication that the Twins are change-adverse.

This franchise is in the death throes. It needs an infusion of new ideas, perspective and leadership. That's why some of us feel that Gardenhire needed to go -- we knew it was unlikely that Ryan would go so the managerial spot was a place where, perhaps, a breath of life could have been brought into this franchise.

Mackey sums it up well: "If you are only hiring and promoting from within, it's hard to see outside of your own ecosystem - an ecosystem that, despite the emergence of Miguel Sano and Byron Buxton, is lagging far behind the top teams in baseball."

mike wants wins
10-01-2013, 12:22 PM
So the Yankees missing the playoffs for the first time in like 2 decades shows they are not well run? The fact that a team won the WS, then lost 86 games the next year shows they are not well run? I don't get those arguments.

I agree with Mackey, the Twins are stuck in 1971.

Parker Hageman
10-01-2013, 12:29 PM
So the Yankees missing the playoffs for the first time in like 2 decades shows they are not well run? The fact that a team won the WS, then lost 86 games the next year shows they are not well run? I don't get those arguments.

Nope, not an argument. Not saying they are not well run. Saying that all teams have analytics departments to various degrees. We hear more about the Pittsburgh Pirates' efforts when they have been successful in the season. Before this year, there was little talk about their efforts.

nicksaviking
10-01-2013, 12:43 PM
"I don't want to be flippant about (that) approach (more analytics), but I'll tell you one thing - we were the team that everybody patterned themselves after for a decade," Ryan said in an interview with 1500 ESPN on Monday. "So, with that being said, we've got 25 guys who are analytical, sabermetric-type people, and they're called scouts. Every one of them should be responsible, should be able to decipher some of the sabermetrics, which I do and have done, and we've done it for about 25 years here. And we've got a (statistical) department, as you know."

No kidding Terry, you successfully held on to your prospects and flipped modest veterans for minor leaguers with much more value. But now every club looks to do that and the game is played out. It was a nice move and everyone rightfully applauded you for it, but the manuever was copied and you lost your advantage. It's over, if you refuse to adapt to new ideas that are successful with other clubs it is imperative that you hang it up and let others do the thinking for this club.

For the record, the second half of that quote is quite sickening. He actually thinks that his scouts are his Sabrmatricians? It doesn't work that way. Each of them should be able to "decifer" some Sabrmetrics? Not even close to good enough. These other teams don't "decifer some" of these stats, they are putting them to work and utilizing them both on and off the field. It is a full time job, they don't spend 90% of their day scouting. This is not acceptable.

amjgt
10-01-2013, 01:10 PM
Cleveland is the worst thing that's ever happened to Terry Ryan.

ThePuck
10-01-2013, 01:12 PM
"I don't want to be flippant about (that) approach (more analytics), but I'll tell you one thing - we were the team that everybody patterned themselves after for a decade," Ryan said in an interview with 1500 ESPN on Monday. "So, with that being said, we've got 25 guys who are analytical, sabermetric-type people, and they're called scouts. Every one of them should be responsible, should be able to decipher some of the sabermetrics, which I do and have done, and we've done it for about 25 years here. And we've got a (statistical) department, as you know."

No kidding Terry, you successfully held on to your prospects and flipped modest veterans for minor leaguers with much more value. But now every club looks to do that and the game is played out. It was a nice move and everyone rightfully applauded you for it, but the manuever was copied and you lost your advantage. It's over, if you refuse to adapt to new ideas that are successful with other clubs it is imperative that you hang it up and let others do the thinking for this club.

For the record, the second half of that quote is quite sickening. He actually thinks that his scouts are his Sabrmatricians? It doesn't work that way. Each of them should be able to "decifer" some Sabrmetrics? Not even close to good enough. These other teams don't "decifer some" of these stats, they are putting them to work and utilizing them both on and off the field. It is a full time job, they don't spend 90% of their day scouting. This is not acceptable.

Well, Mackey did a pretty good job deservedly slamming Ryan for what he said...well as much as anyone does slam Ryan.

mike wants wins
10-01-2013, 01:19 PM
The arrogance of the first part is disturbing. The "scouts are statisticians" part is depressing in its lack of understanding.

Willihammer
10-01-2013, 01:33 PM
The arrogance of the first part is disturbing. The "scouts are statisticians" part is depressing in its lack of understanding.

Radar gun and a stopwatch?

I think he knows exactly how this sounds. Again, Terry Ryan: media troll.

LaBombo
10-01-2013, 01:33 PM
The arrogance of the first part is disturbing. The "scouts are statisticians" part is depressing in its lack of understanding.
It's reaching the point where I sort of hope that he'll just stop talking to the media, which I normally hate.

Alex
10-01-2013, 01:34 PM
I'm glad that someone in the media has started to champion this opinion (though I'll say up until that article, he'd seemed far more supportive of the Twins approach).

It's frustrating to me to continually hear the arrogance that comes from Ryan and others when asked about a change in philosophy (ie they aren't having it) when the team has had three straight losing seasons and looks headed to a fourth.

To extend the discussion from Seth's article: If the employee I had had failed at three projects in a row, they better "get after" doing something different on the fourth.

Alex
10-01-2013, 01:36 PM
Radar gun and a stopwatch?

I think he knows exactly how this sounds. Again, Terry Ryan: media troll.

Terry Ryan was recently quoted as saying he's "not a velocity guy" so I don't think he'd bother.

drivlikejehu
10-01-2013, 01:50 PM
Every time you think Ryan can't possibly troll any harder, he outdoes himself.

Analytics is important, but it's completely beside the point when it comes to the Twins. They flat-out do not care about competing, period, end of story. The front office is 100% committed to the "Twins Way" as they see it and will never change their approach under any circumstances.

Ryan has been crystal clear on this point. No amount of losing will change his thinking in any way whatsoever. He's just utterly convinced that he's right and everyone else is wrong, a perception that he seems to enjoy.

Winston Smith
10-01-2013, 01:54 PM
In all this talk did anyone ever hear Terry, Gardy or any other Twin employee say we want to win a World Series? The commitment to be the best is not there. All they ever say is we want to compete. We want to play meaningful games in September. By that standard this was a good year.

Jim Crikket
10-01-2013, 01:54 PM
First, if I were Terry Ryan, I'd throw a million dollars more a year on advanced analytics, even if I weren't convinced myself of the value. At some point, you have to recognize most other teams are doing it, so it's value to you simply as "opposition research" is pretty critical. When I talk trades with an opposing GM, it would be worth a lot for my guys to have told me what kind of player that other GM values.

That said, I think a lot of people seem to be guilty of exactly what they accuse others of. The Giants won in 2012 so look at what they do with their advanced analysis and give those guys the credit. But if a team loses, then it can't possibly be the analysis that's to blame. It must have been injuries or underperformance or bad decisions or FO not heeding the analysts. Conversely, a team that wins despite doing little advanced analysis just lucked in to their success despite doing it wrong.

Ryan's staunch opposition to giving any sort of credence to advanced analytical research is frustrating to me. So is the staunch insistence, by some, that anyone who doesn't bow at the SABR alter doesn't know anything about evaluating baseball talent.

old nurse
10-01-2013, 02:20 PM
I do not know why people would doubt that Ryan would have the scouts learn metrics. It actually makes sense as they are the ones evaluating players. It is not impossible to figure out. The math is no harder than algebra. The concept is baseball, that is the part they are supposed to understand.

TheLeviathan
10-01-2013, 02:21 PM
Thank you Mackey....Ryan has had a series of maddening quotes lately. This organization is going to start feeling some serious heat for this arrogant, flippant garbage.

mike wants wins
10-01-2013, 02:25 PM
First, if I were Terry Ryan, I'd throw a million dollars more a year on advanced analytics, even if I weren't convinced myself of the value. At some point, you have to recognize most other teams are doing it, so it's value to you simply as "opposition research" is pretty critical. When I talk trades with an opposing GM, it would be worth a lot for my guys to have told me what kind of player that other GM values.

That said, I think a lot of people seem to be guilty of exactly what they accuse others of. The Giants won in 2012 so look at what they do with their advanced analysis and give those guys the credit. But if a team loses, then it can't possibly be the analysis that's to blame. It must have been injuries or underperformance or bad decisions or FO not heeding the analysts. Conversely, a team that wins despite doing little advanced analysis just lucked in to their success despite doing it wrong.

Ryan's staunch opposition to giving any sort of credence to advanced analytical research is frustrating to me. So is the staunch insistence, by some, that anyone who doesn't bow at the SABR alter doesn't know anything about evaluating baseball talent.

Excellent exaggeration and straw man at the end there. Who has ever said that?

And, one year does not a trend make, if SF continues to struggle, it won't be because of analytics, it will be because they applied them and the scouting both incorrectly.

Brandon
10-01-2013, 02:45 PM
I am going to go on record as a big Terry Ryan supporter. First of all THe Twins are innovative. They were the first to take advantage of defense and bullpen strength as an inexpensive advantage to add wins. Another trademark is to limit walks and throw strikes. The problem right now is too many prospects aren't making it the way we hoped. Plouffe hasn't hit, Gibson hasnt made it yet, Hicks slumped badly, and Arcia strikes out way too much. Plus the Veterans this year didnt contribute as liked either Morneau, Willingham, and Doumit each had down season. However the Twins offseason moves all worked out to some degree. (Worely would be the exception but May has made incremental improvements). Corriea made the move to the AL way better than we expected, Pelfry was ok after the beginning of the season, the bullpen was stellar, Dedunno worked out till he was injured. The bottom line is this is a well run organization and hopefully the Twins will sign a piece or 2 over the winter and some of our prospects step up and develop and if there is a good platoon situation for 1B next season they do that (Colabello, Plouffe, Mauer, Parmelee). Somewhere within those 4 players is 2 that combine to make a good 1B and bat off the bench.

howieramone
10-01-2013, 02:54 PM
Thank you Mackey....Ryan has had a series of maddening quotes lately. This organization is going to start feeling some serious heat for this arrogant, flippant garbage.Sticks and stones. Winning takes care of everything and winning is not that far off. The Pirate and Royal Faithful waited forever, our wait will be much shorter and the ensuing success just as well deserved.

Alex
10-01-2013, 02:57 PM
I am going to go on record as a big Terry Ryan supporter. First of all THe Twins are innovative. They were the first to take advantage of defense and bullpen strength as an inexpensive advantage to add wins. Another trademark is to limit walks and throw strikes. The problem right now is too many prospects aren't making it the way we hoped. Plouffe hasn't hit, Gibson hasnt made it yet, Hicks slumped badly, and Arcia strikes out way too much. Plus the Veterans this year didnt contribute as liked either Morneau, Willingham, and Doumit each had down season. However the Twins offseason moves all worked out to some degree. (Worely would be the exception but May has made incremental improvements). Corriea made the move to the AL way better than we expected, Pelfry was ok after the beginning of the season, the bullpen was stellar, Dedunno worked out till he was injured. The bottom line is this is a well run organization and hopefully the Twins will sign a piece or 2 over the winter and some of our prospects step up and develop and if there is a good platoon situation for 1B next season they do that (Colabello, Plouffe, Mauer, Parmelee). Somewhere within those 4 players is 2 that combine to make a good 1B and bat off the bench.

I'm not convinced they were the first to capitalize on the value of defense, and would argue the other way, that they value(d) defense too much (consistently trotting out no-hit middle infielder, getting rid of Hardy, who btw is a good defender AND could hit).

I also think they've over-valued the bullpen and especially the closer role (Ramos for Capps?).

As for platoon situations, well, did you get the chance to read the article where neither the manager nor general manager really believe in them?

S.
10-01-2013, 02:58 PM
They were the first to take advantage of defense and bullpen strength as an inexpensive advantage to add wins. Another trademark is to limit walks and throw strikes.
I'm sorry, but utilizing a cheap bullpen, playing defense and trying to throw strikes and limit walks do not even remotely count as innovative. There are no teams in baseball who do not want to play good defense or avoid walks. There really are no teams spending an inordinate amount of money on their bullpen. Basically you just listed some things that every single team in baseball does, and the Twins don't even do those things very well.

ThePuck
10-01-2013, 03:01 PM
Sticks and stones. Winning takes care of everything and winning is not that far off. The Pirate and Royal Faithful waited forever, our wait will be much shorter and the ensuing success just as well deserved.

And why will our wait be much shorter? You state it as fact, so why? Because of our farm system? Pitt and KC both had great farm systems for quite some time, especially KC. In fact, KC was the cool pick preseason after preseason to finally be relevant. They FINALLY were this year.

It's different with us because we're the Twins?

Alex
10-01-2013, 03:03 PM
And why will our wait be much shorter? You state it as fact, so why? Because of our farm system? Pitt and KC both had great farm systems for quite some time, especially KC. In fact, KC was the cool pick preseason after preseason to finally be relevant. They FINALLY were this year.

It's different with us because we're the Twins?

I get how our prospects can create some hope, but with such a reliance on them and only one (maybe two) really good pitchers in the system I just don't see how anyone can be so confident the Twins will be winning anytime soon if that is all they rely on.

Right now the major league roster boasts one all-star, one promising player (Arcia), one who had a good September (Pinto) and a couple of decent relief pitchers. That's it. That leaves a ton of holes to fill before you get "winning" again.

ThePuck
10-01-2013, 03:05 PM
I get how our prospects can create some hope, but with such a reliance on them and only one (maybe two) really good pitchers in the system I just don't see how anyone can be so confident the Twins will be winning anytime soon.

Blind faith. I don't understand how someone's blind faith can somehow be stated as fact though. Have blind faith, just don't try to pass it off as fact....that's all I'm sayin'.

Shane Wahl
10-01-2013, 03:24 PM
This organization is totally insular and there is something just plain wrong with the obsession over promoting from within and retaining guys even though they are now proven failures.

nicksaviking
10-01-2013, 03:50 PM
Ryan's staunch opposition to giving any sort of credence to advanced analytical research is frustrating to me. So is the staunch insistence, by some, that anyone who doesn't bow at the SABR alter doesn't know anything about evaluating baseball talent.

I don't think it's bowing to the SABR alter as much as it is being frustrated that the GM seems to willfully disregard it. The question isn't really whether SABR is good or bad for the Twins, the arguement is why wouldn't you at least put it to use like the rest of the league if this informational resource is available to you? The only harm in putting an effort into it is the pretty modest paycheck you need to pay the dataheads. It's like telling your teenager to wear his seatbelt and his reply is "Why, I'm a good driver and I don't need it?" Despite what some will say, stubborness is not a virtue, it inhibits evolution and inovation.

LaBombo
10-01-2013, 03:54 PM
Sorry. No offense intended.
http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003119615/4351321193_Meet_linus_big_xlarge.gif

LaBombo
10-01-2013, 04:08 PM
the argument is why wouldn't you at least put it to use like the rest of the league if this informational resource is available to you? The only harm in putting an effort into it is the pretty modest paycheck you need to pay the dataheads.
Even if the Twins were to totally disregard advanced metrics in evaluating their own talent, they'd be doing themselves a disservice if they didn't get at least a better grasp of them just to understand how other organizations evaluate and therefore value their own players, and to predict how they will approach free agency and the draft.

John Bonnes
10-01-2013, 04:23 PM
I'm always hesitant to get too high on my horse about this issue, because the chasm between reality and perception is just so far apart. We're reading tea leaves here, people. I'll give an example.

If the Twins wanted to end this sort of article for good, the solution would be fairly easy - just go out and hire a high profile guy from Baseball Prospectus to serve as a consultant to their analytics area.

Instantly the perception would change. There would be a flood of stories about the Twins figuring things out. Better yet, hire that person as a spokesperson for what they're trying to accomplish, giving very little information but toeing the sabrmetric line on how important strikeouts are or how fx data can be used or catcher framing or the next hot topic. But it wouldn't necessarily change anything but the perception.

And my second point....

As I read this, I wondered if most of the teams mentioned - the Rays, Indians, Pirates, A's - also had something else in common: they went through a dry spell. And in each case, it lasted a lot longer than three years. And that includes the Twins back when they were getting rave reviews a half dozen years ago; they had success after a long dry spell too.

Perhaps success in MLB is just plain cyclical, and after a decade of success, there is going to be a dry spell while an organization reloads. That doesn't mean they shouldn't investigate ways to improve like Mackey is suggesting. They should. That's part of what losing teams should be doing that makes them better. But I'm hesitant to attach too much importance to visible hires of sabrmetric darlings.

Winston Smith
10-01-2013, 04:30 PM
http://murmolka.com/img/l/s46.radikal.ru/i114/0807/ab/c1d2cf87cb41.jpg

TheLeviathan
10-01-2013, 05:14 PM
Sticks and stones. Winning takes care of everything and winning is not that far off. The Pirate and Royal Faithful waited forever, our wait will be much shorter and the ensuing success just as well deserved.

And talk is cheap. Until the results happen its hot air you are spewing, it is irrelevant to evaluating the present.

Alex
10-01-2013, 05:28 PM
I'm always hesitant to get too high on my horse about this issue, because the chasm between reality and perception is just so far apart. We're reading tea leaves here, people. I'll give an example.

If the Twins wanted to end this sort of article for good, the solution would be fairly easy - just go out and hire a high profile guy from Baseball Prospectus to serve as a consultant to their analytics area.

Instantly the perception would change. There would be a flood of stories about the Twins figuring things out. Better yet, hire that person as a spokesperson for what they're trying to accomplish, giving very little information but toeing the sabrmetric line on how important strikeouts are or how fx data can be used or catcher framing or the next hot topic. But it wouldn't necessarily change anything but the perception.

And my second point....

As I read this, I wondered if most of the teams mentioned - the Rays, Indians, Pirates, A's - also had something else in common: they went through a dry spell. And in each case, it lasted a lot longer than three years. And that includes the Twins back when they were getting rave reviews a half dozen years ago; they had success after a long dry spell too.

Perhaps success in MLB is just plain cyclical, and after a decade of success, there is going to be a dry spell while an organization reloads. That doesn't mean they shouldn't investigate ways to improve like Mackey is suggesting. They should. That's part of what losing teams should be doing that makes them better. But I'm hesitant to attach too much importance to visible hires of sabrmetric darlings.

Whie I understand your point, it's more than just analytics where the organization is stuck in traditional thought patterns (platoons being our latest example). The sabermetric piece is certainly a notable element, especially as it's now a pretty basic element of scouting, but hiring from within, rehiring the same coaching staff, etc...it all gives the appearance of a stagnant organization.

howieramone
10-01-2013, 05:29 PM
John made a very good point and not unlike an article I read in BA sometime ago. A mid-market team needs to reload at some point in time by getting high draft choices. They can not afford to buy their way out of it long term like the Yankees, Red Sox etc. Once there, the key is to stick to the 5 year plan and not succumb to more immediate pressures.

ThePuck
10-01-2013, 05:33 PM
John made a very good point and not unlike an article I read in BA sometime ago. A mid-market team needs to reload at some point in time by getting high draft choices. They can not afford to buy their way out of it long term like the Yankees, Red Sox etc. Once there, the key is to stick to the 5 year plan and not succumb to more immediate pressures.

So, we're on a 5 year rebuild plan? I thought earlier you said Ryan has only rebuilt once...and he was successful. Didn't that take closer to 10 years? How is this plan a five year plan? Has he put that out there...said he has a 5 year plan? Where does that number come from?

Major Leauge Ready
10-01-2013, 05:42 PM
Perhaps success in MLB is just plain cyclical, and after a decade of success, there is going to be a dry spell while an organization reloads. That doesn't mean they shouldn't investigate ways to improve like Mackey is suggesting. They should. That's part of what losing teams should be doing that makes them better. But I'm hesitant to attach too much importance to visible hires of sabrmetric darlings.

This is a pretty pragmatic view but Mackey's point here is pretty sweeping. I do this type of thing for a living and it is essential to benchmark the organization and make adjustments. And, while there is definetly merit in a policy of hiring from within, it is also essesntial to bring in new talent with a fresh perspective. Their contribuition goes beyond their individual contribution. They can make everyone better. For example, we have been exceptionally poor at developing SPs for quite some time. IMO, this is the number one contributor to our futility over the past few years. At some point you have to either replace or supplement the staff that has proven to be ineffective in this specific area. I would be recruiting hard from the teams that have been effective and offering a handsome salary to
attract those people.

I would love to know what the twins have done in terms of melding scout with analytics. It is not much of a leap to believe arming scouts by training in quantitative analysis would make for a better scouting dept. These things don't cost much and the bottom line is competing against big market teams requires more production per dollar of salary.

Pius Jefferson
10-01-2013, 06:14 PM
According to Phil Mackey the Twins 'sabremetrics' guy is consulted in every potential trade the Twins make. He didn't say how much influence actually exists, but I thought it was an interesting bit of information.

drivlikejehu
10-01-2013, 06:52 PM
Success in baseball in not cyclical. That argument gets trotted out a lot with respect to the Twins but it is not really an accurate way of looking at what happens.

Now, it is hard for teams with limited resources to win indefinitely. The margin for error is much lower than with the Yankees. Once a few things go wrong, it can knock the franchise out of immediate contention and precipitate a rebuild. But it isn't really cyclical so much as it reflects the fact that winning is difficult in a competitive environment. Organizations might 'sell out' to win in the short-term at the expense of future years, which again appears to be cyclical but really is just an inter-period transfer of resources.

In any case, the Twins have been exceptionally bad in the past 3 seasons - far worse than even most rebuilding teams. Oakland never sunk to such depths during their 5-year rebuilding period (Beane has been GM since '98 and has never had a single season as bad as the Twins last 3). Rebuilding is hard enough, but many fans are in denial about how far the Twins have fallen, and how unlikely it is they can recover in this decade.

Dman
10-01-2013, 07:26 PM
I think Ryan simply believes the team has a talent problem. When Gardy had some good pitching and decent players the Twins were successful. In general teams that have good to great pitching will be successful. I think he just likes to keep it simple and doesn't believe sabermetrics and FA and other things are as relevant as just getting good to great players on your team. Oh and they have to be cheap as well.

That being said there were some fairly huge errors or bad luck in player development while we were winning which I blame Ryan for to the point we pretty much had depleted our farm system and now we need to be in rebuild mode and replenish the talent level. Who really knows how long that will take?

It would be nice if Ryan would use sabermetrics more and be less old school, but I still believe in the guy and I think this team will be just fine in the next few years. Hopefully around 2017 the young pitchers we have will be up and be dominant and we can make another run for 6 to 8 years.

USAFChief
10-01-2013, 07:29 PM
If the Twins wanted to end this sort of article for good, the solution would be fairly easy - just go out and hire a high profile guy from Baseball Prospectus to serve as a consultant to their analytics area.

Instantly the perception would change. There would be a flood of stories about the Twins figuring things out. Better yet, hire that person as a spokesperson for what they're trying to accomplish, giving very little information but toeing the sabrmetric line on how important strikeouts are or how fx data can be used or catcher framing or the next hot topic. But it wouldn't necessarily change anything but the perception.

I don't care much if they hire a name or two or ten. I care that they are actively trying to use every method at their disposal to put a better team on the major league field.

Changing perceptions isn't the problem, IMO. Changing a culture in which Rob Antony doesn't know what the acronym BABIP stands for IS a problem. I can accept "we've looked at this or that pretty thoroughly and here's what we don't like about it." Heck, I'm pretty skeptical of many things SABREmetric myself. But it strikes me as pretty arrogant for people in charge of an organization to be so sure of themselves that they haven't even bothered to look into industry developments enough to even know what a pretty basic acronym stands for, much less how it might be of use.

And it further strikes me as unlikely that "the stats guy" is paid much attention in that environment.

Note: I'm too lazy to go find it, but referenced interview was published a couple years ago on another Twins site, which I won't name.

CharacterGroove
10-01-2013, 07:31 PM
I'm sorry, but utilizing a cheap bullpen, playing defense and trying to throw strikes and limit walks do not even remotely count as innovative. There are no teams in baseball who do not want to play good defense or avoid walks. There really are no teams spending an inordinate amount of money on their bullpen. Basically you just listed some things that every single team in baseball does, and the Twins don't even do those things very well.

I don't share Brandon's unimpeachable support for Terry Ryan and the "Twins Way," but I don't think you're reading his post fairly.

The "innovation," if you can call it that, is the Twins focus on the personnel that exhibit the small-ball qualities, not a desire for the results. Yes, everybody wants hitters that get on base and hit home runs (and pitchers that avoid walks and strike batters out), but with limited resources, you often can't have players that do both.

To the larger point, I want the Twins to be flexible in their approach based on changing circumstances; and more to this article, for them to put themselves in a situation where they can control their own destiny through the most thorough player evaluation available.

Alex
10-01-2013, 08:16 PM
I don't share Brandon's unimpeachable support for Terry Ryan and the "Twins Way," but I don't think you're reading his post fairly.

The "innovation," if you can call it that, is the Twins focus on the personnel that exhibit the small-ball qualities, not a desire for the results. Yes, everybody wants hitters that get on base and hit home runs (and pitchers that avoid walks and strike batters out), but with limited resources, you often can't have players that do both.

To the larger point, I want the Twins to be flexible in their approach based on changing circumstances; and more to this article, for them to put themselves in a situation where they can control their own destiny through the most thorough player evaluation available.

The irony, of course, is that while the Twins did have elements of their lineups on winning teams that were "small ball" and get a lot of credit for that they certainly weren't bereft of sluggers and OBP guys. The more small ball type teams, that were winning teams, had trouble getting anywhere in the playoffs. The teams that did do deep were some of the best hitting teams in the organizatio

Alex
10-01-2013, 08:29 PM
John made a very good point and not unlike an article I read in BA sometime ago. A mid-market team needs to reload at some point in time by getting high draft choices. They can not afford to buy their way out of it long term like the Yankees, Red Sox etc. Once there, the key is to stick to the 5 year plan and not succumb to more immediate pressures.

If you want to continue to a) say it is a five year plan and b) indicate this is normal for mid market teams in this situation, please feel free to give evidence so we can discuss it further.

For example, the Twins have recently been compared to more mid-market teams like the Cardinals and Braves How many 90 loss seasons have the Cards had since 1990? 1, and they've only been below .500 a handful of times. How about Atlanta? 2 90 loss seasons.

This cyclical idea just doesn't hold water, folks, at least to the point where you have to bottom out like the Twins have.

There are teams (not named the Yankees or Red Sox) that have been good or competitive for a long time without bottoming out multiple years in a row. Sure there are teams that have been bad that whole time, but to say this isn't doable or is normal if just false. Look up some records, please.

Edit: Oh, and the A's who are in a worse situation than the Twins financially without a doubt haven't had to bottom out either. They had two 90 loss seasons (1993 and 1997). Yes, they've had several losing seasons. but they've had a lot of successful ones, too and are typically winning 45% of their games or more.

So, that makes three exceptions to the rule so far of teams in situations currently similar (and one worse) to the Twins that have not even had 3 90 loss seasons in 23 years, much less three in a row (and probably a fourth).

old nurse
10-01-2013, 08:34 PM
According to Phil Mackey the Twins 'sabremetrics' guy is consulted in every potential trade the Twins make. He didn't say how much influence actually exists, but I thought it was an interesting bit of information.
IIRC Ryan said he runs everything past the stats guy as a sort of veto if it is a bad idea stats wise.

LaBombo
10-01-2013, 08:36 PM
And it further strikes me as unlikely that "the stats guy" is paid much attention in that environment.

Almost everything I've read of what little is known about Goin tells me that he's the public relations and due diligence equivalent of a kid's toothbrush splashed with water and put back in its place to give the appearance of having brushed their teeth.

ThePuck
10-01-2013, 08:38 PM
"We had plenty going around down there in that Nashville suite (at the Winter Meetings)," Ryan said. "(It was) 'OK, Jack, what do you think?' He gives us his input, and some guys don't believe it and some do. But he is an integral part of this baseball operation. I don't think I'd do a thing on a trade scenario or a free agent acquisitionhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-01-16/news/sns-rt-bbo-twins-team-reportsx34f84a1-20130116_1_minnesota-twins-wrist-surgery-terry-ryan#) without giving him his due on exactly what he thinks."

He's never, ever, said Jack Goin has veto power...

QUOTE TO NOTE: "Back when I was over at the Metrodome in '07, we did a lot of stat work, but it wasn't with the depth that he certainly provides for us. It's different. And he's got some statistical things that I don't believe in, and he's got a lot of things that I do believe in." -- General manager Terry Ryan, on the team's work with advanced statistics and the influence of Jack Goin, the team's director of baseball research.

old nurse
10-01-2013, 09:03 PM
"We had plenty going around down there in that Nashville suite (at the Winter Meetings)," Ryan said. "(It was) 'OK, Jack, what do you think?' He gives us his input, and some guys don't believe it and some do. But he is an integral part of this baseball operation. I don't think I'd do a thing on a trade scenario or a free agent acquisitionhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-01-16/news/sns-rt-bbo-twins-team-reportsx34f84a1-20130116_1_minnesota-twins-wrist-surgery-terry-ryan#) without giving him his due on exactly what he thinks."

He's never, ever, said Jack Goin has veto power...

One I said SORT OF veto power. SORT OF. Not has. Sort of. Do you think if Ryan is told the trade is bad he would do it anyway? Yes, there are those here who would say yes.

ThePuck
10-01-2013, 09:05 PM
One I said SORT OF veto power. SORT OF. Not has. Sort of. Do you think if Ryan is told the trade is bad he would do it anyway? Yes, there are those here who would say yes.

I added another quote, here it is: QUOTE TO NOTE: "Back when I was over at the Metrodome in '07, we did a lot of stat work, but it wasn't with the depth that he certainly provides for us. It's different. And he's got some statistical things that I don't believe in, and he's got a lot of things that I do believe in." -- General manager Terry Ryan, on the team's work with advanced statistics and the influence of Jack Goin, the team's director of baseball research.

And I don't know what sort of veto power is or where it's been said Jack Goin has it. Having said that, yes, I do think Ryan is going to, in the end, go with his own judgement. As he said in the quote above, there are things he doesn't believe in that Goin shows him. If one of the things Ryan doesn't believe in is why Goin is saying it's a bad personnel move, Ryan is going to do it anyway...since he's the boss.

old nurse
10-01-2013, 09:55 PM
I added another quote, here it is: QUOTE TO NOTE: "Back when I was over at the Metrodome in '07, we did a lot of stat work, but it wasn't with the depth that he certainly provides for us. It's different. And he's got some statistical things that I don't believe in, and he's got a lot of things that I do believe in." -- General manager Terry Ryan, on the team's work with advanced statistics and the influence of Jack Goin, the team's director of baseball research.

And I don't know what sort of veto power is or where it's been said Jack Goin has it. Having said that, yes, I do think Ryan is going to, in the end, go with his own judgement. As he said in the quote above, there are things he doesn't believe in that Goin shows him. If one of the things Ryan doesn't believe in is why Goin is saying it's a bad personnel move, Ryan is going to do it anyway...since he's the boss.

As your quote is from last winter that would be considered a long time ago. The front office could have learned in the past 10 months.

Shane Wahl
10-01-2013, 09:58 PM
Cyclical? Sure it can be cyclical if a team relies almost exclusively on the draft. A team that pursues free agents, spends some money, uses those free agents or flips them for more youth like the Twins do . . . oh wait. They don't do that. And now Terry Ryan is essentially a Supreme Court justice for this organization. So that cycle . . . it gonna last 10 years total?

Cyclical? How many teams have had three 96+ seasons in a row in MLB?

JB_Iowa
10-01-2013, 10:03 PM
A little off the subject but Howard Sinker was tweeting about the Season Ticket Holder phone call with Ryan, Gardenhire, St. Peter (I think) and others.

Someone apparently asked about this article by Mackey and here's what Howard tweeted:

"Ryan asked about excellent (my opinion) @PMac21 (https://twitter.com/PMac21) column on innovation and ends reply with, "sometimes I think he wants a job here."

​Anybody know what Ryan's entire response was?

ThePuck
10-01-2013, 10:04 PM
As your quote is from last winter that would be considered a long time ago. It is called learning. Some may do very little in a lifetime, others do more.

So you have no actual proof he has 'sort of veto power' based on any quotes, you discard actual quotes I do provide, and you can't explain what 'sort of veto power' entails based on situations where it happened? What makes you believe he has sort of veto power?

Riverbrian
10-01-2013, 10:26 PM
Almost everything I've read of what little is known about Goin tells me that he's the public relations and due diligence equivalent of a kid's toothbrush splashed with water and put back in its place to give the appearance of having brushed their teeth.

lol... I don't agree with that you said... But it was very amusing... I tip my hat. I'm going to steal that line from you and use it when appropriate at work.

old nurse
10-01-2013, 10:27 PM
Cyclical? Sure it can be cyclical if a team relies almost exclusively on the draft. A team that pursues free agents, spends some money, uses those free agents or flips them for more youth like the Twins do . . . oh wait. They don't do that. And now Terry Ryan is essentially a Supreme Court justice for this organization. So that cycle . . . it gonna last 10 years total?

Cyclical? How many teams have had three 96+ seasons in a row in MLB?

Atlanta 1987 to 1990,
Houston the last 3 years
KC 04-06
Mets 77-79, never mind 4 of the first 5 years.
Those were the first 4 bad teams I could think of. Oakland was probably that bad after all their players left in the 70's
Drop your demand to 3 90+ loss seasons and you would find almost all team would have that kind of down cycle at some point. I don't think there is a whole lot of difference between 90 and 96 losses, your team is bad.

Shane Wahl
10-01-2013, 10:50 PM
Two since 1990. I know there are bound to be others.

Yeah, just a cycle!!!!

Shane Wahl
10-01-2013, 10:53 PM
This "cycle" stuff takes the cake. I think I am going to have to leave Twins Daily for a few days to get my flabbergasted head in order. This was the last straw in the tortured defense of the status quo.

Alex
10-01-2013, 10:58 PM
Atlanta 1987 to 1990,
Houston the last 3 years
KC 04-06
Mets 77-79, never mind 4 of the first 5 years.
Those were the first 4 bad teams I could think of. Oakland was probably that bad after all their players left in the 70's
Drop your demand to 3 90+ loss seasons and you would find almost all team would have that kind of down cycle at some point. I don't think there is a whole lot of difference between 90 and 96 losses, your team is bad.

Did you read my post? Three teams I checked didn't have three 90+ in the last two decades. Sure, maybe somewhere in their history, but that's no evidence of a cycle, which should be repeatable.

My hunch, based on teams I've looked at, is that only organizations deemed "terrible" would have multiple 90 loss seasons in a half decade --- those that have a history of losing. Please, share them if you have them.

It's one thing to say winning/drafting talent is cyclical, but to say the three horrific seasons of the Twins is a common occurrence and pattern for any/all decent organizations just isn't true.

I'm tempted to go team by team, but I might have more luck chasing down Bigfoot.

Alex
10-01-2013, 11:09 PM
This "cycle" stuff takes the cake. I think I am going to have to leave Twins Daily for a few days to get my flabbergasted head in order. This was the last straw in the tortured defense of the status quo.

Some examples would be nice, wouldn't they? At some point a bad team is a bad team. The more I look the more I struggle to find a team that has been as awful as the Twins for as long that hasn't been terrible for a very long time (Royals, Pittsburgh, etc...)

This cycle narrative has no merit until someone produces some solid evidence to the contrary. I've already shown several teams that are in situations similar to the Twins and could add others (like the Giants) that avoid the rock bottom the Twins are in.

LaBombo
10-01-2013, 11:11 PM
This "cycle" stuff takes the cake. I think I am going to have to leave Twins Daily for a few days to get my flabbergasted head in order. This was the last straw in the tortured defense of the status quo.
Can't 'like' this because it might imply that we don't want you around for more fun discussing the Twins' future...
http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2013/02/misery-kathy-bates-1.jpg

jokin
10-01-2013, 11:12 PM
Did you read my post? Three teams I checked didn't have one in the last two decades. My hunch is that only organizations deemed "terrible" would have them --- those that have a history of losing. Please, share them if you have them.

it's one thing to say winning is cyclical, but to say the three horrific seasons of the twins is a common occurrence for any decent organization just isn't true.



Some examples would be nice, wouldn't they? At some point a bad team. The more I look the more I struggle to find a team that has been as awful as the Twins for as long that hasn't been terrible for a very long time (Royals, Pittsburgh, etc...)

This cycle narrative has no merit until someone produces some solid evidence to the contrary. I've already shown several teams that are in situations similar to the Twins and could add others (like the Giants) that avoid the rock bottom the Twins are in.


Even moreso with a club basking in the glow and revenue-super-boost from a new stadium.....ie, the Orioles had a 6-year run of W-L success coinciding with the opening of Camden Yards....the Giants with a 5-year run after AT&T opened. Does anyone wish to defend the lack of linkage between team success and the extraordinary increase in revenue streams and quantum jump in the franchise's net worth with the advent of TF? Seems more than just cyclical......

glunn
10-02-2013, 12:17 AM
And talk is cheap. Until the results happen its hot air you are spewing, it is irrelevant to evaluating the present.

Moderator note -- please tone down the rhetoric.

Kwak
10-02-2013, 12:37 AM
Innovation? Why would they innovate? They have "the best minor league system in MLB"--all because Terry Ryan resumed duties as GM. This despite multiple statements through the years that Ryan "defers to the scouts" when it comes to drafting. His wizardly trades will produce the talent to win--just like in the previous decade. I'm curious about the following: is the plan to produce a division winner, a World Series winner, or just a team that wins more than it loses? Oh, and what is the schedule of this plan and how was it determined?

glunn
10-02-2013, 12:45 AM
I believe that the cyclical theory explains part of the lack of success of the last 3 seasons, but my gut tells me that if the Twins had hired Billy Beane 10 years ago, there would have been a lot more success.

Even if I am completely wrong about Beane being far more effective than Ryan/Smith, it seems short-sighted to me not to pursue every possible avenue of improvement, particularly hiring some people from organizations that have produced better results with less revenues. For example, it seems to me that the A's almost always have better pitching than the Twins. Why not try to hire a couple of their scouts and minor league coaches? If they bring good ideas, keep them. If not, then don't renew their contracts.

I will be a Twins fan until I die, even if they lose 100 games per season forever. I spend a lot of energy and karma hoping that they will win. I buy their merchandise, watch their Menards commercials and attend their games. I feel that they owe us fans their best efforts, and that includes trying new things when the old things are producing record levels of TID (Twins Induced Depression).

I also don't see how management can ignore the fact that other teams are doing new things and enjoying far greater success than the Twins. Yes, the innovation and the success MIGHT be purely coincidental, but it seems to me that it would be arrogant not to at least try the new things.

Many of us fans give 110% of our hearts rooting for the Twins. After 3 years of TID, I think that we deserve 110% from the FO, and that includes being willing to admit that outsiders may know better.

old nurse
10-02-2013, 05:41 AM
I believe that the cyclical theory explains part of the lack of success of the last 3 seasons, but my gut tells me that if the Twins had hired Billy Beane 10 years ago, there would have been a lot more success.

Even if I am completely wrong about Beane being far more effective than Ryan/Smith, it seems short-sighted to me not to pursue every possible avenue of improvement, particularly hiring some people from organizations that have produced better results with less revenues. For example, it seems to me that the A's almost always have better pitching than the Twins. Why not try to hire a couple of their scouts and minor league coaches? If they bring good ideas, keep them. If not, then don't renew their contracts.

I will be a Twins fan until I die, even if they lose 100 games per season forever. I spend a lot of energy and karma hoping that they will win. I buy their merchandise, watch their Menards commercials and attend their games. I feel that they owe us fans their best efforts, and that includes trying new things when the old things are producing record levels of TID (Twins Induced Depression).

I also don't see how management can ignore the fact that other teams are doing new things and enjoying far greater success than the Twins. Yes, the innovation and the success MIGHT be purely coincidental, but it seems to me that it would be arrogant not to at least try the new things.

Many of us fans give 110% of our hearts rooting for the Twins. After 3 years of TID, I think that we deserve 110% from the FO, and that includes being willing to admit that outsiders may know better.

How would you have expected Billy Beane to have run the Twins any differently if he would have taken over in 07?

ChiTownTwinsFan
10-02-2013, 07:19 AM
Even moreso with a club basking in the glow and revenue-super-boost from a new stadium.....ie, the Orioles had a 6-year run of W-L success coinciding with the opening of Camden Yards....the Giants with a 5-year run after AT&T opened. Does anyone wish to defend the lack of linkage between team success and the extraordinary increase in revenue streams and quantum jump in the franchise's net worth with the advent of TF? Seems more than just cyclical......

Everyone ... please let's leave out the labels 'apologists' and 'haters' in our discussions. There are always two sides to every issue and people have the right to disagree, but stop with the labels.

Celebrity Weddings!
10-02-2013, 07:49 AM
I'm comfortable with a desire for innovation, but thought this piece was pretty contentless. Mr. Hageman's rundown above (but for his charitable refusal to blame Joe Sheehan, who I'm sure deserves blame for something) added a helpful curtain-pulling context to this article's weirdly unironic "the Indians are twitter" conclusions. The Indians were distinctly non-brilliant until they started winning, and outside of a manager change it's not clear that things are any different there than they were a couple years ago.

I guess the difficulty is that there's too many things to name when a team has been this bad for three consecutive years. Something with a bit more grit to it, like "the Twins need to play more extreme defensive shifts" would seem sort of hopelessly deck-chair-on-the-Titanic. But since I agree with it then at least one fewer person would be harping on Mr. Mackey here.

Whatever. It sounds like he thinks the Twins would win more if Terry Ryan got some Malcolm Gladwell books for Christmas. I've kind of come to expect better from this author than traditional grouchy columnist pieces, but I suppose he did impressively blend old school grumping with new school hobby horses on this one

John Bonnes
10-02-2013, 08:25 AM
Note: I'm too lazy to go find it, but referenced interview was published a couple years ago on another Twins site, which I won't name.

For future reference, please feel free to name and even link stories form other sites, including TwinkieTown.com. We want TwinsDaily to be a gateway to Twins discussion, no matter whether people view them as a competitor or not.

USAFChief
10-02-2013, 08:29 AM
For future reference, please feel free to name and even link stories form other sites, including TwinkieTown.com. We want TwinsDaily to be a gateway to Twins discussion, no matter whether people view them as a competitor or not.
The interview was published at Twinkietown.com. :p

Seth Stohs
10-02-2013, 08:30 AM
That said, I think a lot of people seem to be guilty of exactly what they accuse others of. The Giants won in 2012 so look at what they do with their advanced analysis and give those guys the credit. But if a team loses, then it can't possibly be the analysis that's to blame. It must have been injuries or underperformance or bad decisions or FO not heeding the analysts. Conversely, a team that wins despite doing little advanced analysis just lucked in to their success despite doing it wrong.

Ryan's staunch opposition to giving any sort of credence to advanced analytical research is frustrating to me. So is the staunch insistence, by some, that anyone who doesn't bow at the SABR alter doesn't know anything about evaluating baseball talent.

Well said, Mr. Crikket!!!

ThePuck
10-02-2013, 08:53 AM
Ryan's staunch opposition to giving any sort of credence to advanced analytical research is frustrating to me. So is the staunch insistence, by some, that anyone who doesn't bow at the SABR alter doesn't know anything about evaluating baseball talent.

I don't know of anyone around here, or anyone period, who believes: 'that anyone who doesn't bow at the SABR alter doesn't know anything about evaluating baseball talent.'

I think what many people believe is that it shouldn't be tossed aside, used as an afterthought, or belittled, but rather utilized like any other way of evaluating talent.

ND-Fan
10-02-2013, 12:43 PM
Three loosing season's there's a lot of blame to go around for whole organization. The mistakes have happened years ago and were seeing the results of these mistakes now. To turn this organization around is going to take money, revaluation of how they do things, and some luck in next few years. When Bill Smith was let go 2 years ago some of stories were that for Twins to compete he was stated that Twins would need to use free agency to build a team for immediate time. I think ownership wasn't on that page yet but I think that they have also have had a change of heart on that with reason articles about ownership. The big q

ND-Fan
10-02-2013, 01:17 PM
Three loosing seasons you can spread blame around to a lot of people organization from top to bottom. The mistakes and poor decisions were made years ago and results of this is shown in records we experienced this past couple year. When Bill Smith who made his fair share of mistakes also said when he was let go that Twins would need to depend on free agency to remain competitive in near future but ownership didn't feel that way and that's why we have terry Ryan. I think ownership now see's he may have been right with there recent statements on free agency. I just wonder if there in for sticker shock of what its going to cost because now its going to take over normal price to get free agents to come to Twins and rebuild this organization.

The Twins need to revaluate how too draft and choose pitching because in last 20 some years the Twins pitchers they have drafted were not close to being a big time pictcher. Even ones Twins have developed were either traded or acquired by twins not through the draft. With a track record of this sample size means that Twins philosophy needs to be changed. Also Twins have not had a lot of success in shortstops and third baseman this area needs to be looked at.

Guardy needs to look at his managerial style too and his coaching staff wondering how to develop most out of talent he was given. It may mean managing differently than he has and not style of baseball he was taught but may be necessary to gain a few wins. Pitching coaching needs definitely to be looked at the talent hasn't been there but pitchers seem to improve when they go some place else. We can't have pitchers that are not striking people out were at absolute bottom of major leagues and yet we seem to have pitchers with enough velocity and pitches to get more strikeouts than we have been getting.

Terry Ryan I think will have difficult time this coming year he's going to have stretch as general manager he's going to have spend money on free agents and even in case or two spend more than going market to get them come to the Twins. He's from old school and has patience to rebuild a team by draft picks but times have changed and money lost from not competing is to big that innovation in improving quicker is needed.

twinsfan34
10-02-2013, 05:35 PM
I plan on writing an article, er, I mean blog on Billy Beane. I will break down his success as a GM. Trades, through the Draft, Salary cap management (through trading arbitration eligible players vs talent payback), and the team's success with players he was directly responsible for.

I have a feeling y'all will be very surprised when the facts are put out there.

I will say, this guy is a trader jack, and that has made connecting the strings a lot more work.

I also plan on putting forth a very compelling Byron Buxton article that I have yet to find in circulation.

Just takes a lot of statistical analysis.

As always, love the discussions you guys bring.

TRex
10-02-2013, 09:06 PM
I am a little late to the party, but...

I like the Mackey article, and think it is 'our' job to challenge the teams' status quo (or at least those who can write coherently). However, I think his comparison of the Twins as 'Blackberry' and the Rays as 'Apple' is quite off. The Twins did not invent some new toy and fail to acknowledge it's limitations and the progress of their competitors. Instead, the Twins excellence resulted from several 'time honored' baseball truisms. Therefore, I think the the more fitting comparison would be that the Twins are IBM while the Rays are Apple. And I think the last 20 years have shown that, no matter how hard they try, IBM will never be Apple. In fact, NO ONE else (not even new, start-up companies) have been able to reproduce 'Apple'... and no one has been able to reproduce Billy Beane. But on the other hand, IBM (and IBM wannabe's) still maintain the lion's share of the market and they may be better off honing their own product rather than trying to re-create WYSIWYG (always wanted to type that, hope I wasn't supposed to use *******).

Finally, however, I hope that the Twins at least acknowledge their operating system is a little clunky and they learn to mimic some of the functionality of their competitors (i.e. maybe have more than just 1 or 2 guys in their analytics department)! I also hope that they let their scouts be scouts and don't try to get them to develop new statistical analytics... baseball scouts/brilliant mathematicians are hard to come by!

And in case the Twins are willing to hire Mackey... he is my favorite Twins writer, and I could be hired away from my current job without much ado!

jokin
10-02-2013, 10:28 PM
Everyone ... please let's leave out the labels 'apologists' and 'haters' in our discussions. There are always two sides to every issue and people have the right to disagree, but stop with the labels.

Labels can become a problem in civil debate. Variations on Godwin's Law have been thoroughly demonstrated to be examples of one side not having sufficient evidence on their side and having to resort to name-calling one's opponents by way of the Pejorative, calling their rhetorical oppositie, a commie, a nazi, or even a "hater".

But the term "apologist" doesn't fall under that heading at all, it is, in fact, perfectly descriptive use of the English language that successfully seeks to fully construe a certain set of behaviors. One side of this debate acts as an apologist for the status quo, the other is an apologist for the need for change.

From Merriam-Free Dictionary-Websters-American Heritage, et al:

Apologist-


a·pol·o·gist (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-phttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/obreve.giflhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-jhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifst) n. A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company (http://www.eref-trade.hmco.com/). All rights reserved.

apologist [əˈpɒlədʒɪst] n a person who offers a defence by argument


Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged (http://twinsdaily.com/_/misc/HarperCollinsProducts.aspx?English) © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

a•pol•o•gist (əˈpɒl ə dʒɪst)

n. a person who defends an idea, faith, cause, or institution.
[1630–40]
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
apologist a person who defends, in speech or writing, a faith, doctrine, idea, or action.

Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms


Noun

1.

http://img.tfd.com/wn/86/68B64-apologist.jpgapologist - a person who argues to defend or justify some policy or institution; "an apologist for capital punishment"

justifier (http://twinsdaily.com/justifier), vindicator (http://twinsdaily.com/vindicator)
advocate (http://twinsdaily.com/advocate), advocator (http://twinsdaily.com/advocator), exponent (http://twinsdaily.com/exponent), proponent (http://twinsdaily.com/proponent) - a person who pleads for a cause or propounds an idea








Ryan's staunch opposition to giving any sort of credence to advanced analytical research is frustrating to me. So is the staunch insistence, by some, that anyone who doesn't bow at the SABR alter doesn't know anything about evaluating baseball talent.

I agree with most of what this poster said and would always defend his right to say it, and yet........his final sentence is far more inflammatory than merely using a label- a tool of language that in and of it self, used nonpejoratively, merely sorts out the opposing camps for a particular point of view. And yet, this clearly inflammatory sentence by TD standards, apparently isn't worth one bit of space with a warning for toning down the rhetoric.

cmb0252
10-02-2013, 10:43 PM
Labels can become a problem in civil debate. Variations on Godwin's Law have been thoroughly demonstrated to be examples of one side not having sufficient evidence on their side and having to resort to name-calling one's opponents by way of the Pejorative, calling their rhetorical oppositie, a commie, a nazi, or even a "hater".

But the term "apologist" doesn't fall under that heading at all, it is, in fact, perfectly descriptive use of the English language that successfully seeks to fully construe a certain set of behaviors. One side of this debate acts as an apologist for the status quo, the other is an apologist for the need for change.

From Merriam-Free Dictionary-Websters-American Heritage, et al:

Apologist-


a·pol·o·gist (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-phttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/obreve.giflhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-jhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifst) n. A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company (http://www.eref-trade.hmco.com/). All rights reserved.

apologist [əˈpɒlədʒɪst] n a person who offers a defence by argument


Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged (http://twinsdaily.com/_/misc/HarperCollinsProducts.aspx?English) © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

a•pol•o•gist (əˈpɒl ə dʒɪst)

n. a person who defends an idea, faith, cause, or institution.
[1630–40]
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
apologist a person who defends, in speech or writing, a faith, doctrine, idea, or action.

Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms


Noun
1.
http://img.tfd.com/wn/86/68B64-apologist.jpgapologist - a person who argues to defend or justify some policy or institution; "an apologist for capital punishment"

justifier (http://twinsdaily.com/justifier), vindicator (http://twinsdaily.com/vindicator)
advocate (http://twinsdaily.com/advocate), advocator (http://twinsdaily.com/advocator), exponent (http://twinsdaily.com/exponent), proponent (http://twinsdaily.com/proponent) - a person who pleads for a cause or propounds an idea








This seems completely unnecessary....

If I agree with certain things Terry Ryan does I'm an "apologists" but if I disagree with things Terry Ryan does I'm a "hater"? What if i agree with certain things he does and certain things he doesn't? Does that make me a apologist hater? Wait that doesn't sound right. Am I a hater apologist? That doesn't sound right either... Bah! I'm confused!

glunn
10-03-2013, 12:21 AM
How would you have expected Billy Beane to have run the Twins any differently if he would have taken over in 07?

I was expressly talking about a gut feeling. And in the next paragraph I admitted that this might be completely incorrect.

That said, my sense is that Beane almost always comes up with more wins per dollar of payroll than almost any other GM, and that he generally comes up with a competitive team despite a relatively meagre budget. I wonder what he could do with $100 million per year of payroll.

glunn
10-03-2013, 12:22 AM
I plan on writing an article, er, I mean blog on Billy Beane. I will break down his success as a GM. Trades, through the Draft, Salary cap management (through trading arbitration eligible players vs talent payback), and the team's success with players he was directly responsible for.

I have a feeling y'all will be very surprised when the facts are put out there.

I will say, this guy is a trader jack, and that has made connecting the strings a lot more work.

I also plan on putting forth a very compelling Byron Buxton article that I have yet to find in circulation.

Just takes a lot of statistical analysis.

As always, love the discussions you guys bring.

I look forward to reading these blogs.

ChiTownTwinsFan
10-03-2013, 12:38 AM
Labels can become a problem in civil debate.








You hit the nail on the head with your first sentence. While I appreciate the vocabulary lesson, these words are not being used in a civil manner, despite their meanings, and we have received complaints to that regard. So, I am asking once again, to please refrain from such usage to keep the discussions on target.

glunn
10-03-2013, 12:42 AM
So is the staunch insistence, by some, that anyone who doesn't bow at the SABR alter doesn't know anything about evaluating baseball talent.




I agree with most of what this poster said and would always defend his right to say it, and yet........his final sentence is far more inflammatory than merely using a label- a tool of language that in and of it self, used nonpejoratively, merely sorts out the opposing camps for a particular point of view. And yet, this clearly inflammatory sentence by TD standards, apparently isn't worth one bit of space with a warning for toning down the rhetoric.




I think that you make a fair point about that sentence at the end being inflammatory, and I wish that I had issued another warning to tone down the rhetoric.

On the other hand, having been a moderator for a while, I don't know which is worse -- labeling and personal attacks versus inflammatory statements and trolling. They are all against the rules and we are going to continue to enforce all of the rules.

We moderators have been instructed to enforce the rules and we are trying our best to enforce all of them. The goal is intelligent, respectful debate. Passion is good, but it must be tempered with respect. Otherwise, the ideas get drowned out by the personal squabbling.

We are trying our best to strike a balance here, and every one of your moderators talks with the other moderators almost every day about how to promote civil debate without squashing the passion that most fans feel for their positions.

jokin
10-03-2013, 12:46 AM
You hit the nail on the head with your first sentence. While I appreciate the vocabulary lesson, these words are not being used in a civil manner, despite their meanings, and we have received complaints to that regard. So, I am asking once again, to please refrain from such usage to keep the discussions on target.

Do you have an opinion on the above-referenced clearly inflammatory and absurdist absolutist sentence (based on TD policy guidelines) that seems more "egregious" an "offense" in the mods never-ending pursuit of civil debate :

"So is the staunch insistence, by some, that anyone who doesn't bow at the SABR alter doesn't know anything about evaluating baseball talent."

jokin
10-03-2013, 12:48 AM
I think that you make a fair point about that sentence at the end being inflammatory, and I wish that I had issued another warning to tone down the rhetoric.

On the other hand, having been a moderator for a while, I don't know which is worse -- labeling and personal attacks versus inflammatory statements and trolling. They are all against the rules and we are going to continue to enforce all of the rules.

We moderators have been instructed to enforce the rules and we are trying our best to enforce all of them. The goal is intelligent, respectful debate. Passion is good, but it must be tempered with respect. Otherwise, the ideas get drowned out by the personal squabbling.

We are trying our best to strike a balance here, and every one of your moderators talks with the other moderators almost every day about how to promote civil debate without squashing the passion that most fans feel for their positions.

Of course, in this instance, moderators and TD contributors collectively liked and congratulated the poster for his efforts. Leaves a lot of us confused.

glunn
10-03-2013, 01:31 AM
Do you have an opinion on the above-referenced clearly inflammatory and absurdist absolutist sentence (based on TD policy guidelines) that seems more "egregious" an "offense" in the mods never-ending pursuit of civil debate :

"So is the staunch insistence, by some, that anyone who doesn't bow at the SABR alter doesn't know anything about evaluating baseball talent."


Let's at least put the inflammatory language in context and with a different emphasis:

"Ryan's staunch opposition to giving any sort of credence to advanced analytical research is frustrating to me. So is the staunch insistence, by some, that anyone who doesn't bow at the SABR alter doesn't know anything about evaluating baseball talent."

I am not saying that the post is not inflammatory. Indeed, I am wondering if we need a new rule about deleting any post that uses the word "bow" or "bowing". We are seeing those words too often, and they are not helping.

glunn
10-03-2013, 01:37 AM
Of course, in this instance, moderators and TD contributors collectively liked and congratulated the poster for his efforts. Leaves a lot of us confused.

I see that one moderator liked the post. I suspect that he liked the non-inflammatory portions and was too tired from dealing with other, clearer violations to give this the level of attention that we have just given it.

Like umpires, we are not perfect. And you probably have no idea how hard we work and how much we talk to each other about how to promote intelligent debate without killing the passion.

old nurse
10-03-2013, 06:11 AM
Labels can become a problem in civil debate. Variations on Godwin's Law have been thoroughly demonstrated to be examples of one side not having sufficient evidence on their side and having to resort to name-calling one's opponents by way of the Pejorative, calling their rhetorical oppositie, a commie, a nazi, or even a "hater".

But the term "apologist" doesn't fall under that heading at all, it is, in fact, perfectly descriptive use of the English language that successfully seeks to fully construe a certain set of behaviors. One side of this debate acts as an apologist for the status quo, the other is an apologist for the need for change.

From Merriam-Free Dictionary-Websters-American Heritage, et al:

Apologist-


a·pol·o·gist (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-phttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/obreve.giflhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-jhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifst) n. A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company (http://www.eref-trade.hmco.com/). All rights reserved.

apologist [əˈpɒlədʒɪst] n a person who offers a defence by argument


Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged (http://twinsdaily.com/_/misc/HarperCollinsProducts.aspx?English) © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

a•pol•o•gist (əˈpɒl ə dʒɪst)

n. a person who defends an idea, faith, cause, or institution.
[1630–40]
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
apologist a person who defends, in speech or writing, a faith, doctrine, idea, or action.

Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms


Noun
1.
http://img.tfd.com/wn/86/68B64-apologist.jpgapologist - a person who argues to defend or justify some policy or institution; "an apologist for capital punishment"

justifier (http://twinsdaily.com/justifier), vindicator (http://twinsdaily.com/vindicator)
advocate (http://twinsdaily.com/advocate), advocator (http://twinsdaily.com/advocator), exponent (http://twinsdaily.com/exponent), proponent (http://twinsdaily.com/proponent) - a person who pleads for a cause or propounds an idea







I agree with most of what this poster said and would always defend his right to say it, and yet........his final sentence is far more inflammatory than merely using a label- a tool of language that in and of it self, used nonpejoratively, merely sorts out the opposing camps for a particular point of view. And yet, this clearly inflammatory sentence by TD standards, apparently isn't worth one bit of space with a warning for toning down the rhetoric.




How you phrase things can set it up as inflammatory. Making a statement and coming across as a challenging someone to have an idea that is different. Labeling that person into a group so as to divide them away from what you are. It also sets up an expectation of negativity like trolling.

Example The shy is blue. I can't wait for the gloom and doom people say.

BTW, The response I have had from some people in regards to the use of statistics and other comments makes me not disagree with the underlined statement.

nicksaviking
10-03-2013, 09:54 AM
How would you have expected Billy Beane to have run the Twins any differently if he would have taken over in 07?

My guess is Beane would have started flipping the young pitchers when they peaked instead of waiting until their nadir and when their service time became a salary burden. Think about how nice it would have been to actually get something of a return for Blackburn instead of being saddled with that rediculous contract. Garza may still have been traded, but Beane surely wouldn't have taken back a return of the OBP-phobic Delmon Young.

As Beane has had a history of moving pitchers at their peak, or at least not when they are in the basement, I think it would also be a reasonable assumption he would have moved Liriano after his successful, but red flagged, 2010 season. Either that or hire a pitching coach and manager who didn't insist on an approach that naturally led to more balls being put into play.

Of course that last sentance speaks a lot. Beane would have wanted a coaching staff more ameniable to new age baseball ideas.

Shane Wahl
10-03-2013, 12:45 PM
I really like the term "OBP-phobic" a lot.

Jim Crikket
10-03-2013, 01:06 PM
I haven't spent much time on TD the last couple of days and I'm disappointed to return and find one sentence of a comment I made a couple days ago has caused such consternation.

I apologize to those who were offended.

Even more so, I apologize to the moderators who have had to devote more time than they should have had to on my account.

My frustration comes largely because I find myself defending advanced statistical analysis and old school scouting from what I consider to be extreme viewpoints of one side or the other. I don't think anyone knows the degree to which the Twins and Terry Ryan listen to Jack Goin. What we do know is that the Twins have lost way too much the last three years and that's not acceptable to us, as fans.

It seems to me that arguing over this kind of thing is counterproductive anyway and I'm sorry I weighed in at all.

Again, I apologize.

P.S. Shane: I like the term "OBP-phobic" as applied to DY, too, even if it is a label.

Shane Wahl
10-03-2013, 01:15 PM
Wait, JC and I have brought about this melee? I am honored to be in such company. I am way more guilty though.

old nurse
10-03-2013, 01:42 PM
My guess is Beane would have started flipping the young pitchers when they peaked instead of waiting until their nadir and when their service time became a salary burden. Think about how nice it would have been to actually get something of a return for Blackburn instead of being saddled with that rediculous contract. Garza may still have been traded, but Beane surely wouldn't have taken back a return of the OBP-phobic Delmon Young.

As Beane has had a history of moving pitchers at their peak, or at least not when they are in the basement, I think it would also be a reasonable assumption he would have moved Liriano after his successful, but red flagged, 2010 season. Either that or hire a pitching coach and manager who didn't insist on an approach that naturally led to more balls being put into play.

Of course that last sentance speaks a lot. Beane would have wanted a coaching staff more ameniable to new age baseball ideas.

SO that lack of talent on the current team then could be traced back to the inability of Smith to make trades and get value for his players when he could. You knock the Garza trade but not the Santana one.
You really think he could have got something back for a back of rotation pitcher like Blackburn? With only one good season do you think Liriano would have fetched what Gio Gonzales did? If you spotted red flags, wouldn't the other geaneral managers?
What specifically has Art Howe, Ken Macha, Bon Green, or Bob Melvin done that is new age baseball as they are Beane's hires?

mike wants wins
10-03-2013, 01:46 PM
No, sigh. The lack of talent is laid on the fact there are no guys in their prime from the farm system. The last good SP developed from the farm systems is from a decade ago. It is not about Smith not making two good trades.

mike wants wins
10-03-2013, 02:21 PM
I don't care what Beane did, I care why the Twins are bad.....they are bad because they don't have players. They don't trade guys at their peak, like Beane, they don't sign a cuban for big bucks like Beane, but I don't care.....

They are bad because they have no players in their prime, they have zero starting pitchers they have drafted and developed in a long, long time. That is why they are bad. You can come up with whatever explanation you want for why that happened, but it is what it is. And, now that Smith regimes' good moves will start paying off next year, Ryan will get credit for Sano, Gibson, Rosario....

ThePuck
10-03-2013, 02:21 PM
No, sigh. The lack of talent is laid on the fact there are no guys in their prime from the farm system. The last good SP developed from the farm systems is from a decade ago. It is not about Smith not making two good trades.

Oakland has also been willing to trade guys at their peaks for other players. I think that helps them stay competitive....kind of like what TB did with Shields. Your thoughts?

Riverbrian
10-03-2013, 05:09 PM
I don't think anyone knows the degree to which the Twins and Terry Ryan listen to Jack Goin.



I will be completely honest. I think this sentence from Jim Crikket completely hits the nail exactly on the head dead center.

Goin is on the payroll... He obviously serves some purpose. We don't know the level of his influence.

Terry Ryan is a General Manager... He has a staff that works for him. He listens to all I would assume and the minute that he stops listening to someone... I would imagine that the person he stopped listening to would no longer be useful and would dry up and float away.

Is Terry Ryan old school? Probably... Is the entire staff? Probably Not. Odds would suggest probably not. But most importantly... Who Knows?

I thought that Jim's original post needed no apology. I think it was directed at everyone as a valid point and not directed at anyone specifically. I thought it was a balanced "Here's what I wish... Here's what I think" post... I for one... thought it was thought provoking.

I guess that just shows how we can all interpret posts differently... Personally... I can read a post on Tuesday and be pissed about it. If I would have read the same post on Wednesday instead... I might see no problem at all. That isn't on the poster... It's on the reader.

Personal Note to Jim Crikket... I read your posts and I appreciate your posts. Please continue for my benefit.

Can we just... as a group.. be tolerant... self deprecating... Respectful of others... and passionate at the same time.

Calling someone an apologist doesn't hurt me at all. If Snepp would make me a badge... I'll put it on my sleeve. Even while I hang out and enjoy the company of the Hell in a Handcart crowd. Both sides are going to be necessary for a site like this to operate. There is such a thing as too sensitive. Moderators are forced to moderate when labels are thrown around because we've noticed that they tend to take the train off the tracks.

Let's not call people idiots. That includes... Posters, Players and the idiots(;)) who run the front office. This makes us moderate.

Let's not make an extra effort to twist small points and sentences from larger points and use it against posters. This makes us moderate.

Let's not shout anyone down. People on the sidelines will not want to participate if someone is going to shout them down. Let everyone be heard. Encourage participation... Don't cripple it. As hard as it is to believe... There are some people in this world that don't want to post in that environment. Some People who are not as confident in their convictions or ability to express those convictions and may not want to post for fear of someone tearing them apart. This makes us moderate.

Don't take yourself so seriously... Labels won't matter if you do. Whatever people are going to think about you... They probably already have formed that opinion and it isn't going to change. Might as well just roll with it.

And finally... Always consider... That it is possible... no matter how strongly or passionate you feel about something... No matter how seemingly obvious the facts you have... Always consider the slight possibility that you might... might... might... be wrong.

As moderators... We just want to keep the train on the tracks. Our understanding of the guidelines are no more refined than everyone else. We all have different levels of interpretation of the guidelines and we discuss it internally to try and become more uniform. But... Without a doubt... We all want to keep the train on the tracks. The Goal is the same.

jokin
10-03-2013, 05:58 PM
I see that one moderator liked the post. I suspect that he liked the non-inflammatory portions and was too tired from dealing with other, clearer violations to give this the level of attention that we have just given it.

Like umpires, we are not perfect. And you probably have no idea how hard we work and how much we talk to each other about how to promote intelligent debate without killing the passion.


Originally posted by Riverbrian

As moderators... We just want to keep the train on the tracks. Our understanding of the guidelines are no more refined than everyone else. We all have different levels of interpretation of the guidelines and we discuss in internally. But... Without a doubt... We all want to keep the train on the tracks. The Goal is the same.

And additionally, one of the founding partners congratulated him for his efforts in a successive post.

Again, it's head-scratching to see micro-managing and guessing at what one poster is thinking is "bad", and what another poster is thinking is "good." As an aside, I was appalled, but not surprised or offended, that there was an element amongst some members, managment and moderator-level that expressed the notion that reacting with both physical intimidation and actual violence in response to Carlos Gomez's lunacy was acceptable behavior. Just seems ironic for a place we all seek to be a source for civil, but impassioned debate. Look, as I previously stated, nothing in what JC stated bothered me or offended me one iota- and most of his content I agreed with wholeheartedly. I enjoy impassioned, intelligent debate. "Inflammatory" doesn't bother me. I am bothered a little that the idea that proper and civilly-expressed use of the English language in conveying an idea automatically connotes inflammatory intent and must be immediately censored- while a much clearer inflammatory content based on TD guidelines is not only brushed aside, but congratulated by those seeking to "tone down the rhetoric."

I do appreciate the efforts put in by all of you-I've been in communication with a number of you, and I do realize it's painstaking, time-consuming, and your motivations as volunteer moderators to take on this task can only be because it's a labor of love. I think we all pretty much want what you want--the "Goal", as RB so eloquently stated. Thanks for hearing me out and taking the time to address the issue, Glunn and RB.

Riverbrian
10-03-2013, 06:36 PM
And additionally, one of the founding partners congratulated him for his efforts in a successive post.

Again, it's head-scratching to see micro-managing and guessing at what one poster is thinking is "bad", and what another poster is thinking is "good." As an aside, I was appalled, but not surprised or offended, that there was an element amongst some members, managment and moderator-level that expressed the notion that reacting with both physical intimidation and actual violence in response to Carlos Gomez's lunacy was acceptable behavior. Just seems ironic for a place we all seek to be a source for civil, but impassioned debate. Look, as I previously stated, nothing in what JC stated bothered me or offended me one iota- and most of his content I agreed with wholeheartedly. I enjoy impassioned, intelligent debate. "Inflammatory" doesn't bother me. I am bothered a little that the idea that proper and civilly-expressed use of the English language in conveying an idea automatically connotes inflammatory intent and must be immediately censored- while a much clearer inflammatory content based on TD guidelines is not only brushed aside, but congratulated by those seeking to "tone down the rhetoric."

I do appreciate the efforts put in by all of you-I've been in communication with a number of you, and I do realize it's painstaking, time-consuming, and your motivations as volunteer moderators to take on this task can only be because it's a labor of love. I think we all pretty much want what you want--the "Goal", as RB so eloquently stated. Thanks for hearing me out and taking the time to address the issue, Glunn and RB.

Thanks Jokin... You are correct... Speaking for myself... I wish it was different...

However... We have noticed a pattern. Certain words... Labels... Whatever you want to call it... Rightly or wrongly... Lead to a tough responses at times and everything going off the rails. Its a "we've seen it before" type thing. Sometimes we will be wrong but sometimes we are right but we always discuss it afterwards. The best advice I can give is "don't worry about it". It's just a post. It's just a moderation.

Based on what we have learned. We recognize the buzz words and we try to step in. We'd rather it just roll off everyone's backs but sometimes it doesn't and we've seen it before.

As as for any implication of a double standard. If there is... It isn't intentional.

Sometimes things are not addressed for the simple reason that no moderator was available to address it. That's why more moderators have been brought in.

Sometimes the moderator that gets there first handles it differently than the guy who would have arrived second.

Sometimes it simply doesn't seem that bad and we let it slide collectively.

Sometimes we decide to discuss it privately first before acting on it.

It's that simple and there isn't a consistent reason nor us there a master plan to suppress one side of an argument.

I tend to be more "Apologist" and Chief tends to be more "Hell in a handcart" Both sides are represented amongst the moderators. Once again... The best advice is... Don't worry about it. :th_alc:;)

There are smart people on this site... This is the only place where I can congregate with fellow baseball freaks that can match my interest level. I've tried to talk about merits of Eddie Rosario at 2B with my wife and she tells me to learn how to fix the car instead.

We are just working together... Admins, mods, everyone to keep this site healthy.

The Wise One
10-04-2013, 06:18 AM
Twins lack innovation. In stating what they believe to be innovation they completely miss the glaring fact that the Twins right now do not have the kind of talent to make those "innovations" work. I have yet to see one of the stat heavy guys show me with statistics of the Twins players how any of this would make a difference.

The Wise One
10-04-2013, 06:30 AM
No, sigh. The lack of talent is laid on the fact there are no guys in their prime from the farm system. The last good SP developed from the farm systems is from a decade ago. It is not about Smith not making two good trades.

Sigh, All Ryan's fault from before. There are 4 avenues in adding talent as you know. I am having a little trouble recalling, from 07-11 what FA, traded for player, Rule 5 or waiver claim has stuck with the team and contributed? There may not have been many players from the 06 draft stick around, but college players drafted in 08-10 could be in their prime.

mike wants wins
10-04-2013, 07:58 AM
I never said it was all Ryan's fault, never, not once. Smith made bad trades, teh scouts didn't draft well, the minor league coaches didn't teach well. What I want is for people not to blame Smith, and leave Ryan blame free. Perhaps I should just give up on that.

The Wise One
10-04-2013, 08:54 AM
I never said it was all Ryan's fault, never, not once. Smith made bad trades, teh scouts didn't draft well, the minor league coaches didn't teach well. What I want is for people not to blame Smith, and leave Ryan blame free. Perhaps I should just give up on that.

Ryan doesn't get much credit for building what he did before, why would he get any credit for anything now? It is, well they lost in the playoffs, Ryan didn't do enough. Ryan had overseen plenty of good drafts. Unfortunately 07 was the worst at producing talent. The 06 draft produced 7 players that spent some time in the majors. The 05 draft produced 3 pitchers that were major league starters. One very good, one good for a couple of years, and one soft tossing lefty. In an inexact science, he came darn close to having great drafts.

mike wants wins
10-04-2013, 09:00 AM
the issue is, if you are going to ignore big time or even mediocre free agents, and you wont' trade prospects for proven players, you have to BETTER than the other teams at drafting. You have to win the draft, year after year. Otherwise, you end up with at least three years of 95 loss teams.

Ryan does get a ton of credit for what he did before. Certainly some dont' give him any credit.....some don't give Gardy credit, some used to rip on Kriby for hitting into too many double plays. Not sure what any of that has to to do with acknowledging that part of the issue is that this team has not drafted and developed enough good players. Whatever the reason, it is true. And, that isn't all on Smith. That's all my post was about, this isn't all Smith's fault, like some people keep posting.

Brandon
10-04-2013, 09:04 AM
I am going to chime in on a minor point made earlier in this post. The Santana trade while not great wasn't that bad. We were handcuffed by his no trade clause so we didn't have a lot of options on where we could trade him. We should have just kept him and let him leave after the season but we did flip some pieces of that trade for Rauch and Hardy. Gomez did provide value while he was here. Yes we lost on the trade. The Delmon Young Garza trade was more of a loss for the team.

Also Liriano is more likely to get injured throwing more sliders again. That's how he blew his arm out his rookie season.

Willihammer
10-04-2013, 09:12 AM
Ryan doesn't get much credit for building what he did before, why would he get any credit for anything now? It is, well they lost in the playoffs, Ryan didn't do enough. Ryan had overseen plenty of good drafts. Unfortunately 07 was the worst at producing talent. The 06 draft produced 7 players that spent some time in the majors. The 05 draft produced 3 pitchers that were major league starters. One very good, one good for a couple of years, and one soft tossing lefty. In an inexact science, he came darn close to having great drafts.



If the Twins drafted well despite picking in the 20s all those years, and yet the well dried up, what more evidence do you need that the strategy is flawed?

You need to keep acquiring impact players. Easier said than done, I realize. What is a near certainty is that if you rely on the draft for those talents when you're picking in the 20s for back to back years then you're setting yourself up for a long dry spell.

TheLeviathan
10-04-2013, 09:28 AM
Twins lack innovation. In stating what they believe to be innovation they completely miss the glaring fact that the Twins right now do not have the kind of talent to make those "innovations" work. I have yet to see one of the stat heavy guys show me with statistics of the Twins players how any of this would make a difference.

Part of being innovative is in talent acquisition as well as how you employ it. My issue with people on the opposite side of Mackey is that they basically adore this "Twins Way" and shun new and different ideas. Would you accept or endorse this kind of insulated, non-progressive resistance o new ideas from other professionals? Do you want your kids teacher ignoring new and better ideas to help your kid? How about your doctor?

The Twins are basically using leeches (which have some value) and convincing some its the best and only method with limited attempts to modernize or look at other possibilities.

It should be an unacceptable mentality.

mike wants wins
10-04-2013, 09:32 AM
I've been thinking, the Twins are the US car manufacturers of the 1970s.....

this new thinking of small cars, nobody wants that
no one will buy a japanese car, they are bad and will never improve
we've won doing what we did before, why change now

......for those that have studied business, you probably recognize a lot of what is going on with the Twins right now as things that 3rd generation private companies go through, that large prevously successful companies go through, a lot of things you studied in school and have experienced at work that indicate possible problems in the future.....

Major Leauge Ready
10-04-2013, 09:49 AM
the issue is, if you are going to ignore big time or even mediocre free agents, and you wont' trade prospects for proven players, you have to BETTER than the other teams at drafting. You have to win the draft, year after year. Otherwise, you end up with at least three years of 95 loss teams.

Ryan does get a ton of credit for what he did before. Certainly some dont' give him any credit.....some don't give Gardy credit, some used to rip on Kriby for hitting into too many double plays. Not sure what any of that has to to do with acknowledging that part of the issue is that this team has not drafted and developed enough good players. Whatever the reason, it is true. And, that isn't all on Smith. That's all my post was about, this isn't all Smith's fault, like some people keep posting.

The organization failed at drafting, development and trading for a few years and now we suck. Anyone that has ever done organzational consulting will suggest that none of us are remotely close enough to conclude who is to blame or exactly the core cause of the failure. Smith and Ryan are responsible by definition.


The question of why we are bad does not concern me as much as the question of if they have rectified the problems. They now have one of the best farm systems in all of baseball so I would be inclined to believe they have made some changes that are working. Part of that is their international signings. I certainly would not relax where drafting is concerned.

Yes, they must be better at drafting but not because they won't as you say draft bigtime FAs. They have to be better because half of the teams in baseball generate more revenue than the Twins. Actually, I really can't conclude what they will do going forward where FAs are concerned. Until 3 years ago, the twins were at the bottom of the revenue rankings and bigtime free agents simply were not feasible. Spending last year would have been futile. Ryan made the right call where this is concerned and is still criticized by the same people who came on here and insisted the FO was incompetent because they did not sign certain FA SPs who ended up being bad or horrible.

They also made a couple of agressive trades with Span and Revere. They also drafted heigher ceiling pitchers. Do I think the Twins management is perfect, not at all but alot of the things people won't stop complaining about have changed or are changing.

spycake
10-04-2013, 09:50 AM
I am going to chime in on a minor point made earlier in this post. The Santana trade while not great wasn't that bad. We were handcuffed by his no trade clause so we didn't have a lot of options on where we could trade him. We should have just kept him and let him leave after the season but we did flip some pieces of that trade for Rauch and Hardy. Gomez did provide value while he was here. Yes we lost on the trade. The Delmon Young Garza trade was more of a loss for the team.

Also Liriano is more likely to get injured throwing more sliders again. That's how he blew his arm out his rookie season.

Rauch was better than Mulvey, but he was and still is a very fungible commodity.

There was no need to trade Santana. Even after losing Hunter and trading Garza/Bartlett that team was still fully capable of contending. I suspect TR wouldn't have done it, certainly not for that package. Bill Smith's trades almost always followed the same obvious pattern: "what player do I have to replace?" That offseason, he needed a CF and RH power bat (losing Hunter), so he dealt two pitchers and a shortstop and got back Gomez, Young, plus an alleged replacements at SS (Harris) and pitchers (Humber and Mulvey). You can see similar patterns elsewhere: have a CF, need a SS? Gomez for Hardy. Have a catcher, lost a closer? Ramos for Capps. Lost a few relievers? Hardy for alleged relievers and sign an alleged replacement (Nishioka). To be fair, he had success in dealing low-level prospects (for Pavano, Cabrera, etc) but those were pretty low-risk moves (although maybe not low-risk enough for TR?).

It was all very maddening. Just thinking of it makes me glad TR is back, even if TR has his own maddening tendencies.

The Wise One
10-04-2013, 09:52 AM
the issue is, if you are going to ignore big time or even mediocre free agents, and you wont' trade prospects for proven players, you have to BETTER than the other teams at drafting. You have to win the draft, year after year. Otherwise, you end up with at least three years of 95 loss teams.

Ryan does get a ton of credit for what he did before. Certainly some dont' give him any credit.....some don't give Gardy credit, some used to rip on Kriby for hitting into too many double plays. Not sure what any of that has to to do with acknowledging that part of the issue is that this team has not drafted and developed enough good players. Whatever the reason, it is true. And, that isn't all on Smith. That's all my post was about, this isn't all Smith's fault, like some people keep posting.

Trades require one of two things. Somebody wants what you have, and you get a good return. Ryan did a good job with this. The other is somebody has something you want. Generally you lose in those trades. That is why Ryan doesn't make many of them. The Shannon Stewart trade comes to mind as a trade that worked in Ryan's favor. In general think of all the trades that involve prospects for established players. If the selling team can create a market, they win. People do not know what is discussed between teams, all we know is the outcome of conversations. When you talk of more than mediocre free agents then you have to have the budget debate. The Twins lost money or broke close to even for the Pohlads until 2004. You can argue the value of the franchise went up so they were not losing money, but Carl Pohlad didn't appear to operate that way. He was probably serious about contracting the team. Money upfront and lots of it. That environment meant that any Twins FO has a budget to work under. Yes there are reports that Ryan could go over. The caveat would be then the next year he would have to figure out how to get back to budget. That would restrict large investments (High quality) in free agents. It is not an apology for the FO, it is merely an observation on how things appear to work in the Twin's Way.

spycake
10-04-2013, 09:55 AM
Also Liriano is more likely to get injured throwing more sliders again. That's how he blew his arm out his rookie season.

I just don't get this. If the guy is incapable of being a quality major league starter without his slider, you're not doing him or yourself any favors by prolonging his career.

I've read this about Liriano before, and I have to believe it's just an over-simplification. Because even the risk-averse Twins shouldn't be THAT averse to pitching injuries, especially if they don't even have a long-term commitment to a guy.

spycake
10-04-2013, 10:18 AM
Part of being innovative is in talent acquisition as well as how you employ it. My issue with people on the opposite side of Mackey is that they basically adore this "Twins Way" and shun new and different ideas. Would you accept or endorse this kind of insulated, non-progressive resistance o new ideas from other professionals? Do you want your kids teacher ignoring new and better ideas to help your kid? How about your doctor?

I think the Twins front office, as much as they like to compete and win, also are fully aware this is a game and they are playing it. They want to play it with people they know and like. They don't like to play with a lot of outsiders like agents or even sometimes other GMs. They want to keep it low-stakes so they can continue playing it even if they lose. I think that's the "country club" atmosphere that others have mentioned. And it does have some appeal to fans -- no matter how much they suck, you know who the Twins are and who they have always been. This Twins organization has really maintained its old-school identity in the modern era better than most others.

Now, most of pro sports (and even many "amateur" sports) don't operate that way, and we all know many cases where teams take it to the other extreme and we generally don't like that. However, it would be nice to see the club be a little more aggressive about identifying and adopting quality "outsiders" into the club every once and while.

For example, Thome was a great guy -- but why weren't the Twins aggressive about acquiring him before age 40? Brad Radke was another great fit here -- have there really been no quality pitchers like him worth a free agent overpay? Australia and the Netherlands are fun, but why haven't the Twins tried being early adopters of other (better) emerging international baseball markets? The Legend of Tony Oliva has long expired...

JB_Iowa
10-04-2013, 10:35 AM
I think the Twins front office, as much as they like to compete and win, also are fully aware this is a game and they are playing it. They want to play it with people they know and like.

While I think this is true for the front office and staff, it certainly wasn't true this year when it came to the players as far as fans go. Unless you are someone who really follows the minor leagues, when the players didn't have names on their jerseys, you really had to pay attention to where they were in the line-up or most fans wouldn't recognize them.

My concern over "quality outsiders" is as much about bringing fresh perspectives to the front office and coaching staffs as it is to bringing in players from other organizations or countries.

nicksaviking
10-04-2013, 11:01 AM
SO that lack of talent on the current team then could be traced back to the inability of Smith to make trades and get value for his players when he could. You knock the Garza trade but not the Santana one.
You really think he could have got something back for a back of rotation pitcher like Blackburn? With only one good season do you think Liriano would have fetched what Gio Gonzales did? If you spotted red flags, wouldn't the other geaneral managers?
What specifically has Art Howe, Ken Macha, Bon Green, or Bob Melvin done that is new age baseball as they are Beane's hires?

You asked what Beane would have done differently. With his track record, trading pitchers at their peak was something he has done and the Twins generally have not. Nick Blackburn is not a good pitcher, but back in the day he was A) a top 100 prospect and B) a central cog in the stable but unspecatacular Twins rotation. His first couple of years look pretty close to Trevor Cahill's who Beane got a great of a return for.

Liriano may not have gotten what Gio Gonzalez did, though it surely would have been closer to that return than to what the Twins actually got for him.

As to the managers? Well they platoon the hell out of their lineups, the use defensive shifts. I don't know, what are you looking for? Are you trying to say Beane doesn't hire managers who will play Beane's style of baseball? Or are you trying to say Beene's teams don't actually play baseball with advanced statistics in mind?

I'm simply answering your question. I really don't think anyone would truely think Beane would have run the team the same why Ryan/Smith did.

Alex
10-04-2013, 11:09 AM
They also made a couple of agressive trades with Span and Revere. They also drafted heigher ceiling pitchers. Do I think the Twins management is perfect, not at all but alot of the things people won't stop complaining about have changed or are changing.

Yes, hopefully they are changing, but there won't be satisfactory evidence of the truth of that until the major league team stops losing 90 games a season.

spycake
10-04-2013, 11:44 AM
While I think this is true for the front office and staff, it certainly wasn't true this year when it came to the players as far as fans go.

No doubt. I guess I was thinking front office and coaching staff also (and ownership too). And those guys certainly prefer dealing with their "own" players.

I had hoped that recent lousy play and roster turnover would force them out of that comfort zone a little, but maybe the Revere/Span trades and Willingham/Correia signings are the extent of that? I guess this offseason will tell...

spycake
10-04-2013, 11:52 AM
His first couple of years look pretty close to Trevor Cahill's who Beane got a great of a return for.

Cahill was a second round draft pick out of high school, he was rated the #11 prospect prior to his rookie season, and his three years in Oakland were ages 21-23. And his K rate was double that of Blackburn in the minors, and it trending up at that time of his trade.

The "Blackburn mistake" was not passing on trading him, but rather signing him to that contract. I think Bill Smith thought he had another Joe Mays on his hands... and I guess he did. :)

nicksaviking
10-04-2013, 01:12 PM
Cahill was a second round draft pick out of high school, he was rated the #11 prospect prior to his rookie season, and his three years in Oakland were ages 21-23. And his K rate was double that of Blackburn in the minors, and it trending up at that time of his trade.

The "Blackburn mistake" was not passing on trading him, but rather signing him to that contract. I think Bill Smith thought he had another Joe Mays on his hands... and I guess he did. :)

That's all fine and true but my point simply was that Beane most likely wouldn't have extended either Blackburn or Mays but would have been more likely to have looked to move them. Whether he got stud players back in return is really immaterial, (though Beane has done great when moving pitchers) the point is that he would have been more likely to flip these guys at their peak.

howieramone
10-04-2013, 02:13 PM
Part of being innovative is in talent acquisition as well as how you employ it. My issue with people on the opposite side of Mackey is that they basically adore this "Twins Way" and shun new and different ideas. Would you accept or endorse this kind of insulated, non-progressive resistance o new ideas from other professionals? Do you want your kids teacher ignoring new and better ideas to help your kid? How about your doctor?

The Twins are basically using leeches (which have some value) and convincing some its the best and only method with limited attempts to modernize or look at other possibilities.

It should be an unacceptable mentality.IMO showing support for your local team has nothing to do with shunning new and different ideas, or wanting the best education possible for your children or the finest medical care.

ThePuck
10-04-2013, 02:38 PM
Showing support for your team doesn't need to include just accepting everything your team's management says or does as the right thing, either. I support our President, because he's our President, but I don't particularly care for him or think he's doing a great job. Still support him though.

chopper0080
10-04-2013, 03:19 PM
What I find most amusing is that in the steroid era the Twins were at the bottom of power hitting and in the recent turn to the pitching era the Twins are in the bottom of strikeouts. Some things don't seem to change I guess. We are still trailing behind the rest of baseball because we choose to go an alternative direction. we couldn't beat the Yankees because we couldn't keep up with their hitting and now we can't keep up with the Tigers because we can't keep up with their pitching. Hopefully our top two prospects are really something special because they a hitters in a pitching era. If they can't hit the best pitchers in baseball then it really won't matter how good the are.

Major Leauge Ready
10-04-2013, 04:34 PM
Showing support for your team doesn't need to include just accepting everything your team's management says or does as the right thing, either. I support our President, because he's our President, but I don't particularly care for him or think he's doing a great job. Still support him though.

No, it does not and the people here are very knowledgable baseball FANS. I emphasize fans for a couple reasons. One, we have a distant view and a fan's viewpoint. They are two different things but both result in a distorted viewpoint. Two, because we lack the extensive professional experience of the Twin's FO and Terry Ryan in particular. We can certainly question and debate direction, strategy, management style etc, and make a very good arguments for a different approach. However, the indignation that is so common here could be tamed down a bit. We are hobbyist and to presume we know more than the people with considerable credentials in this professionals is a bit naracistic.

We don't need credentials on the internet. Everyone gets an equal voice. We need not have managed a P&L of hundreds of millions of dollars. We need not have negotiated contacts worth 10-100 million dollars. We don't need to have any management experience at all or degrees in finance or MBAs. We need no professional baseball experience at all to participate. However, if you don't have these credentials the first presumption should not be that the people who do are the ones who don't understand.

ThePuck
10-04-2013, 04:50 PM
No, it does not and the people here are very knowledgable baseball FANS. I emphasize fans for a couple reasons. One, we have a distant view and a fan's viewpoint. They are two different things but both result in a distorted viewpoint. Two, because we lack the extensive professional experience of the Twin's FO and Terry Ryan in particular. We can certainly question and debate direction, strategy, management style etc, and make a very good arguments for a different approach. However, the indignation that is so common here could be tamed down a bit. We are hobbyist and to presume we know more than the people with considerable credentials in this professionals is a bit naracistic.

We don't need credentials on the internet. Everyone gets an equal voice. We need not have managed a P&L of hundreds of millions of dollars. We need not have negotiated contacts worth 10-100 million dollars. We don't need to have any management experience at all or degrees in finance or MBAs. We need no professional baseball experience at all to participate. However, if you don't have these credentials the first presumption should not be that the people who do are the ones who don't understand.

If I go to a fancy restaurant as a customer, and I find the food to be bad, I wouldn't expect the chef to come and tell me it is good, that I don't know what I'm talking about, and to be quiet and eat it. I don't need to be a chef to know the product I'm spending money on isn't up to my liking.

If I buy a brand new car and it keeps breaking down, I don't need to be a car manufacturer to know the car I bought isn't up to standards.

How many people have slammed President Bush for going to War because they believe it was about oil instead of 9-11? How many blame him because no WMDs were found in Iraq once we got there? Were they sitting in on the meetings? Did the get the intelligence briefings, the military briefings, etc, etc...? Nope...but many sure feel that he made a really bad call! How many of them have been President?

In this day and age, to suggest people can't be educated on something and have very valid complaints simply because they've never done the job, is ludicrous.

ashburyjohn
10-04-2013, 07:02 PM
As moderators... We just want to keep the train on the tracks.

Folks, a day later, and several recent posts have the greatest potential to get off the tracks again. Please avoid going off on tangents that are obviously contentious with no chance of solving anything. Also please avoid grouping people needlessly, such as "anyone who agrees/disagrees also must think..."

glunn
10-04-2013, 07:39 PM
In this day and age, to suggest people can't be educated on something and have very valid complaints simply because they've never done the job, is ludicrous.

You are massively exaggerating what he said. This is how flame wars get started. Please stop or I am going to start issuing infractions.

drivlikejehu
10-04-2013, 08:08 PM
Puck is right. The poster made an appeal to authority rather than making his own case; appealing to authority as an argument makes sense in certain situations, but essentially defeats the purpose of a message board and, in any event, isn't really deserved considering how bad the Twins are right now.

Besides which, I haven't seen anyone "presume to know more" about baseball than Terry Ryan. But for the very reason that he is GM, he should know more than he does about developments in the game. And topics like his attitude towards interviewers, openness to change, have nothing to do specifically with baseball at all.

ThePuck
10-04-2013, 09:43 PM
Puck is right. The poster made an appeal to authority rather than making his own case; appealing to authority as an argument makes sense in certain situations, but essentially defeats the purpose of a message board and, in any event, isn't really deserved considering how bad the Twins are right now.

Exactly.

Jim Crikket
10-04-2013, 10:03 PM
[deleted]

Screw it. It ain't worth it.

Kwak
10-04-2013, 10:08 PM
I plan on writing an article, er, I mean blog on Billy Beane. I will break down his success as a GM. Trades, through the Draft, Salary cap management (through trading arbitration eligible players vs talent payback), and the team's success with players he was directly responsible for.

I have a feeling y'all will be very surprised when the facts are put out there.

I will say, this guy is a trader jack, and that has made connecting the strings a lot more work.

I also plan on putting forth a very compelling Byron Buxton article that I have yet to find in circulation.

Just takes a lot of statistical analysis.

As always, love the discussions you guys bring.

Before you worship at the altar of Beane, you need to determine how older players have "a resurgence" when they go to Oakland.

snepp
10-04-2013, 10:10 PM
Yeah, everyone should know by now the purpose of a message board is to bitch about authority.


I like to think of it as eloquent discourse. :)

snepp
10-04-2013, 10:18 PM
Before you worship at the altar of Beane, you need to determine how older players have "a resurgence" when they go to Oakland.


I'm curious, let's hear it.

ThePuck
10-04-2013, 11:09 PM
You are massively exaggerating what he said. This is how flame wars get started. Please stop or I am going to start issuing infractions.

I have to respectfully ask, what do you think he was saying when he said 'We are hobbyist and to presume we know more than the people with considerable credentials in this professionals is a bit naracistic. '

I don't see how you can read that, with it ending in 'narcissistic' (I corrected the spelling), and then say my quote you quoted is massively exaggerating what he was saying. Then his whole 2nd paragraph expounds on that statement.

USAFChief
10-04-2013, 11:42 PM
Request: if you have questions about, or problems with, actions taken, or not taken, by moderator(s), PM one (or all) of us. We will respond via PM. Feel free to vent to your hearts content.

If, after trying that route, you still feel you've been treated unfairly, or haven't gotten your answer, I bet one of the site founders will answer a PM regarding their mods.

That way we can keep threads on track. About baseball.

Thanks.

Love,

Chief

The Wise One
10-05-2013, 12:11 AM
If I go to a fancy restaurant as a customer, and I find the food to be bad, I wouldn't expect the chef to come and tell me it is good, that I don't know what I'm talking about, and to be quiet and eat it. I don't need to be a chef to know the product I'm spending money on isn't up to my liking.

If I buy a brand new car and it keeps breaking down, I don't need to be a car manufacturer to know the car I bought isn't up to standards.

How many people have slammed President Bush for going to War because they believe it was about oil instead of 9-11? How many blame him because no WMDs were found in Iraq once we got there? Were they sitting in on the meetings? Did the get the intelligence briefings, the military briefings, etc, etc...? Nope...but many sure feel that he made a really bad call! How many of them have been President?

In this day and age, to suggest people can't be educated on something and have very valid complaints simply because they've never done the job, is ludicrous.

In terms of food, the food might not be bad, it is just not how you like it. Chef didn't cook it like your mama did. Some people think a dash of pepper is too spicy. Others think if it doesn't make you cry it is bland. Neither person cooks bad food. People come from different points of view. Thing of it is, if one calls the other person's food bad, it is really just not accepting other people's way of doing things.

People on this board make claims all the time about subjects they only a surface knowledge of or less.
Look back on the 5th post. Does that guy know what the scouts know and how they analyze a player? Does he read their reports and analysis. Does he know what information Ryan wants from his scouts to make a decision? That is not the only post like that. Doesn't stop them from ripping away. Complaints without knowledge are annoying. You all can complain. It sure would be nice if you could have a basis of your complaint, more than I think this is how they make a decision and it is wrong. You can dislike the decisions, but you don't know the decision making process.

Major Leauge Ready
10-05-2013, 07:20 AM
In terms of food, the food might not be bad, it is just not how you like it. Chef didn't cook it like your mama did. Some people think a dash of pepper is too spicy. Others think if it doesn't make you cry it is bland. Neither person cooks bad food. People come from different points of view. Thing of it is, if one calls the other person's food bad, it is really just not accepting other people's way of doing things.

People on this board make claims all the time about subjects they only a surface knowledge of or less.
Look back on the 5th post. Does that guy know what the scouts know and how they analyze a player? Does he read their reports and analysis. Does he know what information Ryan wants from his scouts to make a decision? That is not the only post like that. Doesn't stop them from ripping away. Complaints without knowledge are annoying. You all can complain. It sure would be nice if you could have a basis of your complaint, more than I think this is how they make a decision and it is wrong. You can dislike the decisions, but you don't know the decision making process.


This was not my intended point but an excellent point none the less. Your point is actually a better depiction of the divide here. Everyone has their own idea of what should be done. That is very evident here and drives the debate. Some think signing Ellsbury would be a great move and others think it is a terrible idea. Some look at where we are and say fire everyone, we have not produced any good players. Others look at the situation and say, well, we didn’t produce any good players for a while but now we have a loaded farm system. Why is it better now? Do we still have refinements to make?

Actually, Puck’s response perfectly illustrated my point. Of course, anyone can determine if they don’t like the food or the car. They might even have some constructive input on improving the food or car. However, to presume to know how to run the restaurant chain or the car company is an entirely different premise. And, I have no problem with the complaining. I hate the problem myself. I just think the tone should not be “those idiots in the FO” when there are likely things we don’t know or don’t understand.

I fully recognize we do this in sports. You could even say it is part of being a fan. I have my own disgruntlements and believe some of the criticism is justified. To be completely honest, I support the FO because I have been in TRs shoes, not in MLB but organizations of the same size and a couple considerably larger. That experience tells me we all of us would have a considerably different point of view if we had full access and his experience.

old nurse
10-05-2013, 08:23 AM
the issue is, if you are going to ignore big time or even mediocre free agents, and you wont' trade prospects for proven players, you have to BETTER than the other teams at drafting. You have to win the draft, year after year. Otherwise, you end up with at least three years of 95 loss teams.

Ryan does get a ton of credit for what he did before. Certainly some dont' give him any credit.....some don't give Gardy credit, some used to rip on Kriby for hitting into too many double plays. Not sure what any of that has to to do with acknowledging that part of the issue is that this team has not drafted and developed enough good players. Whatever the reason, it is true. And, that isn't all on Smith. That's all my post was about, this isn't all Smith's fault, like some people keep posting.

I really don't think most people think it is any one person's fault. When there is a fire Ryan the Twins stink because Ryan did (insert opinion) the unspoken reaction might "Might not have helped the situation" followed by a launch into what happened during the Smith Era.
I would add that anything Ryan is alleged to have done wrong was fixable by Smith.

howieramone
10-05-2013, 09:02 AM
This was not my intended point but an excellent point none the less. Your point is actually a better depiction of the divide here. Everyone has their own idea of what should be done. That is very evident here and drives the debate. Some think signing Ellsbury would be a great move and others think it is a terrible idea. Some look at where we are and say fire everyone, we have not produced any good players. Others look at the situation and say, well, we didn’t produce any good players for a while but now we have a loaded farm system. Why is it better now? Do we still have refinements to make?

Actually, Puck’s response perfectly illustrated my point. Of course, anyone can determine if they don’t like the food or the car. They might even have some constructive input on improving the food or car. However, to presume to know how to run the restaurant chain or the car company is an entirely different premise. And, I have no problem with the complaining. I hate the problem myself. I just think the tone should not be “those idiots in the FO” when there are likely things we don’t know or don’t understand.

I fully recognize we do this in sports. You could even say it is part of being a fan. I have my own disgruntlements and believe some of the criticism is justified. To be completely honest, I support the FO because I have been in TRs shoes, not in MLB but organizations of the same size and a couple considerably larger. That experience tells me we all of us would have a considerably different point of view if we had full access and his experience.I agree because I have followed the Corporate Star also. Maybe the board could make a gentlemen's agreement that the Twins aren't run by Larry, Moe, and Curly.

Major Leauge Ready
10-05-2013, 09:19 AM
I agree because I have followed the Corporate Star also. Maybe the board could make a gentlemen's agreement that the Twins aren't run by Larry, Moe, and Curly.

I had a prettty good idea that was the case. It was evident not long after I started following this forum.

Kwak
10-05-2013, 10:55 AM
This was not my intended point but an excellent point none the less. Your point is actually a better depiction of the divide here. Everyone has their own idea of what should be done. That is very evident here and drives the debate. Some think signing Ellsbury would be a great move and others think it is a terrible idea. Some look at where we are and say fire everyone, we have not produced any good players. Others look at the situation and say, well, we didn’t produce any good players for a while but now we have a loaded farm system. Why is it better now? Do we still have refinements to make?

Actually, Puck’s response perfectly illustrated my point. Of course, anyone can determine if they don’t like the food or the car. They might even have some constructive input on improving the food or car. However, to presume to know how to run the restaurant chain or the car company is an entirely different premise. And, I have no problem with the complaining. I hate the problem myself. I just think the tone should not be “those idiots in the FO” when there are likely things we don’t know or don’t understand.

I fully recognize we do this in sports. You could even say it is part of being a fan. I have my own disgruntlements and believe some of the criticism is justified. To be completely honest, I support the FO because I have been in TRs shoes, not in MLB but organizations of the same size and a couple considerably larger. That experience tells me we all of us would have a considerably different point of view if we had full access and his experience.

So the FO isn't accountable? Why? Is it because every team must "take it's turn"?, or ownership won't give them the resources?, or success is random?, or must be cyclical?
Ergo, there are "forces" above and beyond the control of management that require the Twins to stink?
One constant has been that the Twins always cite reasons for failure. Sometimes it's "the big, bad Yankees--we just can't compete with all of their money" (this despite the money transferred to the Twins from MLB [mostly from the Yankees!]), or "injuries", or whatever! They continually provide excuses. Most teams don't do this. I conclude this front office is far more concerned about their image than in actual success--"sell the sizzle, not the steak". I have lived in many cities that have MLB teams, but Minnesota is the only team that I have encountered, that has people shouting about how good management is and how lucky we fans are to have this group running "our favorite team"--especially during periods of failure. How can this be?

Shane Wahl
10-05-2013, 11:02 AM
Just for reference, sometimes "appeal to authority" as a fallacy is altered to "appeal to illegitimate authority." And I think that is a wise correction. Appealing to an authority is not necessarily bad if the person in question truly has expertise. One big problem is when one conflates a person *in* authority as being an authority.

Whether the relevant cast of characters involved for the Twins have that expertise is another issue, though maybe debating that should wait a few weeks around here . . .

diehardtwinsfan
10-05-2013, 11:46 AM
I added another quote, here it is: QUOTE TO NOTE: "Back when I was over at the Metrodome in '07, we did a lot of stat work, but it wasn't with the depth that he certainly provides for us. It's different. And he's got some statistical things that I don't believe in, and he's got a lot of things that I do believe in." -- General manager Terry Ryan, on the team's work with advanced statistics and the influence of Jack Goin, the team's director of baseball research.

And I don't know what sort of veto power is or where it's been said Jack Goin has it. Having said that, yes, I do think Ryan is going to, in the end, go with his own judgement. As he said in the quote above, there are things he doesn't believe in that Goin shows him. If one of the things Ryan doesn't believe in is why Goin is saying it's a bad personnel move, Ryan is going to do it anyway...since he's the boss.

One guy should have this kind of power... nor should one guy have the power to make the trade. If I were running things, there would be 3-6 guys making the decision with the need for a super majority to go forward with it... That's just me.

howieramone
10-05-2013, 11:53 AM
So the FO isn't accountable? Why? Is it because every team must "take it's turn"?, or ownership won't give them the resources?, or success is random?, or must be cyclical?
Ergo, there are "forces" above and beyond the control of management that require the Twins to stink?
One constant has been that the Twins always cite reasons for failure. Sometimes it's "the big, bad Yankees--we just can't compete with all of their money" (this despite the money transferred to the Twins from MLB [mostly from the Yankees!]), or "injuries", or whatever! They continually provide excuses. Most teams don't do this. I conclude this front office is far more concerned about their image than in actual success--"sell the sizzle, not the steak". I have lived in many cities that have MLB teams, but Minnesota is the only team that I have encountered, that has people shouting about how good management is and how lucky we fans are to have this group running "our favorite team"--especially during periods of failure. How can this be?I've lived in 4 communities with MLB, and my experience is all teams make excuses at some point in time. Many of us have been following the Twins since early youth, I think we're as qualified as anyone to decide if we want to support the current management group.