Thread: Who gets the credit?

Originally Posted by twinsnorth49

reacting on either end of the extreme is illogical ...

No middle ground.

But almost all of us, regardless where we fall, THINK we're right on that even-keel middle spot! That's why we choose the spot we do. Just one of the many things that make humans amazing and strange and fascinating and...

Actually I took the question in the sense that you were looking for an answer. So I pointed out the biggest difference between then and now.

Scott Diamond gets whatever credit is merited. This is the worst team in the league. Gardenhire is a moron's delight and should face a firing squad.

I feel more hopeful about the team--why? They aren't losing every game--there were a few weeks where I thought we'd never win a game again.....it felt hopeless. Lately they are getting some hits, sometimes even timely times, pitching is definitely better. I like our bullpen. Weird how a year ago it was SO BAD. I give EVERYBODY some credit for making me feel more hopeful. Scott Diamond would be at the top of my individual list.

Originally Posted by shanewahl

Actually I took the question in the sense that you were looking for an answer. So I pointed out the biggest difference between then and now.

Fair enough, I didn't mean that to sound like the smart guy, trick question thing. I don't seem to recall you being on the firing squad so actually answering the question on merit would be consistent.

Originally Posted by twinsnorth49

That pretty much nails it CDog,, the essence of the question was to illustrate that there is no more reason to "pop the champagne" now, than there was to line up the firing squad a month ago. It's a rhetorical question, reacting on either end of the extreme is illogical and never represents strong organizational direction.

---I agree with what you and CDog have said.

I'll and that it's not only interesting how people need to assign blame to something, but always come up with such simple explanations. You don't see lists of 5+ things. It's all Gardy. Or Dozier. Or Diamond. Or the schedule.

The reality is that explanations are rarely that simple. The "it takes an organization to win a championship" line is cliched but true. By the same token, it takes an organization to create a train wreck.

And sometimes, there really isn't a satisfactory, identifiable explanation. I remember an interview with Thome after the 2010 playoff exit where he talked about how he played on a lot of really talented teams that made the playoffs. Some years, they made deep runs. Other years, they fizzled. But he said they always felt good going into the playoffs, and looking back, he couldn't really point to reasons why some postseasons went one way while others didn't.

The LA Kings current playoff run, for example, simply defies explanation.

Originally Posted by twinsnorth49

It's funny how many people assign failure with coaches and success with players and other factors though. Never a middle ground.

---The impact that the manager has on wins and losses is massively overestimated here. Reading through some of these threads, you'd think this was a video game and Gardy was holding the controller.

Originally Posted by one_eyed_jack

---I agree with what you and CDog have said.

I'll and that it's not only interesting how people need to assign blame to something, but always come up with such simple explanations. You don't see lists of 5+ things. It's all Gardy. Or Dozier. Or Diamond. Or the schedule.

The reality is that explanations are rarely that simple. The "it takes an organization to win a championship" line is cliched but true. By the same token, it takes an organization to create a train wreck.

And sometimes, there really isn't a satisfactory, identifiable explanation. I remember an interview with Thome after the 2010 playoff exit where he talked about how he played on a lot of really talented teams that made the playoffs. Some years, they made deep runs. Other years, they fizzled. But he said they always felt good going into the playoffs, and looking back, he couldn't really point to reasons why some postseasons went one way while others didn't.

The LA Kings current playoff run, for example, simply defies explanation.

Well said, that's interesting to hear from Thome and probably the honest answer most players would give. The Kings analogy is a good one, similar to the Cards last year, there is no formula for it.

Originally Posted by one_eyed_jack

---The impact that the manager has on wins and losses is massively overestimated here. Reading through some of these threads, you'd think this was a video game and Gardy was holding the controller.

LOL, or more accurately the belief that the way you manage your MLB2K12 is the same way you would manage a real team.

Originally Posted by jokin

15-14 in the Dozier era is hardly time to break out the champagne and commence with the back-slapping. In the last decade, the Twins have made their living dominating the weak teams (near .700 against the bottom-feeders), particularly in the Central and West. How much of their record thus far, with respect to who is on the schedule, is Killjoy cynicism versus cold reality staring them in the face? I was entertained a year ago in June, but other than a few foolish media types who absurdly suggested it was "happening", we all knew that the boomlet bubble would soon be burst. Given the Twins inadequate efforts at addressing the problems and other woes in major aspects of management and personnel, their is little to suggest any other outcome than something similar to last year.

One reason for optimism, Terry Ryan might better be able to pull the trigger and get above-average return as a seller in July (if the Twins finally show their hand and admit the dire position they find themselves in). There are quite a few teams who haven't had a winner in a while that just might be tempted to go all-in to get over the hump in the short-term and some perennial winners who have top-level prospects blocked but are caught short in positions of need.

1) Sorry, was there champagne-popping or back-slapping in this thread that I missed, or are you just setting up straw men?

2) "Cold hard reality"? Good heavens, son, it's a game. It's entertainment. A harmless diversion. Losing your job when you've got a family to feed, being diagnosed with cancer, the crap going on in Syria, those are cold, hard realities. The fact that one group of millionaires who you like isn't hitting, catching and throwing a ball as well as other groups of millionaires that you don't? Ummm, yeah, not so much. Baseball is a distraction from cold hard realities for a lot of fans. It's fun. And at least for some people, it's a lot more fun to hold out hope of success even when you know it's a remote possibility than to find the 2,395th meaningless, newfangled stat to cite in your latest "piss on the Twins" rant.

3) Would you care to give us examples of "some perennial winners who have top-level prospects blocked but are caught short in positions of need" who would be willing to give up said prospects for what the Twins have to offer?

On the plus side, Joe Mauer since the start of the Dozier (15-14) Era: (ie, in Twins last 30 games here is his slash)- .322/.445/.478.

On the downside, 1) Joe Mauer has only played catcher in 11 of those 30 games and the Twins are 4-7 when he caught them. 2) Cutting back on catching was supposed to immunize Joe from a spate of injuries and illnesses like last season but, meanwhile, the world is waiting on the latest for a decision on his latest injury...

Originally Posted by one_eyed_jack

1) Sorry, was there champagne-popping or back-slapping in this thread that I missed, or are you just setting up straw men?

2) "Cold hard reality"? Good heavens, son, it's a game. It's entertainment. A harmless diversion. Losing your job when you've got a family to feed, being diagnosed with cancer, the crap going on in Syria, those are cold, hard realities. The fact that one group of millionaires who you like isn't hitting, catching and throwing a ball as well as other groups of millionaires that you don't? Ummm, yeah, not so much. Baseball is a distraction from cold hard realities for a lot of fans. It's fun. And at least for some people, it's a lot more fun to hold out hope of success even when you know it's a remote possibility than to find the 2,395th meaningless, newfangled stat to cite in your latest "piss on the Twins" rant.

3) Would you care to give us examples of "some perennial winners who have top-level prospects blocked but are caught short in positions of need" who would be willing to give up said prospects for what the Twins have to offer?

Wow, is this the new, "apologetic for his melodramatic juvenile rants" one eyed jack or his own private Debbie-downer sock puppet?

I'm not sure there's any basis to start a conversation here. I might recommend a Crisis Intervention Hotline number, though.

Originally Posted by jokin

2) Cutting back on catching was supposed to immunize Joe from the injury but, meanwhile, the world is waiting on the latest for a decision on his latest injury...

I blame Gardy for that, he should have known better than to send him up bat.

Originally Posted by one_eyed_jack

---


The reality is that explanations are rarely that simple. The "it takes an organization to win a championship" line is cliched but true. By the same token, it takes an organization to create a train wreck.


The LA Kings current playoff run, for example, simply defies explanation.

1) The "explanations are rarely that simple" and then you explain it all away what happened with not one, but two over-simplistic cliches.

2) Hockey has never had an 8 seed win it all, but the explanations for the Kings success are certainly quantitatively definable in a sport based heavily on lucky bounces and deflections and hot goalies at the right time.

Originally Posted by jokin

1)

2) Hockey has never had an 8 seed win it all, but the explanations for the Kings success are certainly quantitatively defiable in a sport based heavily on lucky bounces and deflections and hot goalies at the right time.

Wow, that is one of the most polysyllabic posts I've ever read, you're one smart dude, are you a Biochemist? Too bad you seemingly know nothing about hockey.

Thanks, jokin, I needed a good laugh. Hockey is just lucky bounces, deflections and hot goalies. Yah, OK.

Gretzky, Lemieux, Hull - they just managed to get a lot of really lucky bounces against stone cold goalies.

And the Wild have been offensively-challenged for years because the puck never bounces their way, and they just happened to always catch opposing goalies on a hot streak.

And yes, I am juvenille while you are a model of class, dignity and maturity - your approach to forum discussion is one we should all aspire to.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by jokin

Wow, is this the new, "apologetic for his melodramatic juvenile rants" one eyed jack or his own private Debbie-downer sock puppet?

I'm not sure there's any basis to start a conversation here. I might recommend a Crisis Intervention Hotline number, though.

Well, certainly not if you're going to resort to name-calling. But I did ask you a specific question. Maybe you could start there.

I give all the credit to our fine catcher, Drew Butera.

Originally Posted by Montecore

Scott Diamond gets whatever credit is merited. This is the worst team in the league. Gardenhire is a moron's delight and should face a firing squad.

Isn't a firing squad a bit harsh? How about we all just stand around and whip him with wet noodles instead?

Originally Posted by one_eyed_jack

Well, certainly not if you're going to resort to name-calling. But I did ask you a specific question. Maybe you could start there.

I didn't call you a Debbie-downer sock puppet, I just asked if you employed one. I trust calling you by your name, one-eyed jack, is not resorting to name-calling. BTW, I'm glad I got you out of your depression with my hockey comment. The league has a history of low-seed teams that have gotten on amazing runs with hot goalies and you know it full well. I never said hockey was "just bounces and deflections". I believe you are also intelligent enough to know that like baseball, there is an element of luck, enough to overcome in the short-term, the Kings' opponents long-term superiority (Cards 2011, Twins 87).

I've got a question for you. Who has more short- and long-term influence on his team? A hockey coach or a baseball manager?