Thread: Bollinger: Florimon is the favorite to start at shortstop

I don't know if we already knew this, or just figured it was the case. But Rhett Bollinger of MNTwins.com is reporting that Pedro Florimon is the favorite to be the shortstop on Opening Day.

Gardenhire added he's been impressed by Pedro Florimon at shortstop, and he remains the favorite to win that job heading into Grapefruit League play.


"He's the incumbent and I like Florimon," Gardenhire said. "I love the way he catches the ball and the way he plays. He's stronger. We'll see how he does swinging the bat. I rely on my shortstop to control that infield. I like the way he goes about his business."

History tells us how he's going to swing the bat: like someone visually challenged.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?...ok_id=41819384

"We'll see how he goes about swinging a bat"? We've already seen it Ron, it ain't pretty.

One of these days I'd like a detailed description of what this "control the infield" thing is. It's what sunk Bartlett early and has been repeated many times. It's so vague I'm not sure what it is.

Pretty sure we knew that already, didn't we?

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

One of these days I'd like a detailed description of what this "control the infield" thing is. It's what sunk Bartlett early and has been repeated many times. It's so vague I'm not sure what it is.

I'm pretty sure it has something to do with organizing the carpool to the Teresa Mauer ice cream sundae parties. In all fairness, Bartlett did suck at that.

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

One of these days I'd like a detailed description of what this "control the infield" thing is. It's what sunk Bartlett early and has been repeated many times. It's so vague I'm not sure what it is.

That's a great question, Leviathan! And, I don't know if there is really an answer to that... However, when I went to Beloit the first time 3 years ago... I saw James Beresford control the infield. He was playing second base that particular day. He was clearly the leader in that infield. And again, it wasn't yelling. It wasn't being loud. It was just very clear. He went in to talk to the pitcher a couple of times. He was seeing something. I remember immediately after that, the pitcher got a double play, and walking off the field, the pitcher went over and thanked Beresford.

That's one example of something that can't really be explained very clearly, but when you see it, you just can tell.

It's kind of like when people want to have scientific things explained to then in 'plain english'. What that usually means is they don't understand the english words that are being used in the original description they're confused by. The concept is baffling to lay people, because they lack the experience required to have a shared frame of reference. Of course, people who generally disagree with the person doing the confusing often will then use their confusion as evidence that the confusor doesn't know what they're doing.

Originally Posted by LoganJones

It's kind of like when people want to have scientific things explained to then in 'plain english'. What that usually means is they don't understand the english words that are being used in the original description they're confused by. The concept is baffling to lay people, because they lack the experience required to have a shared frame of reference. Of course, people who generally disagree with the person doing the confusing often will then use their confusion as evidence that the confusor doesn't know what they're doing.

Unless you've played the game at some certain level, you have no business on a discussion forum. We get it already.

I played one season of tee ball (I was a year younger than the other prospects in my league) but spent the rest of my childhood summers driving a tractor, sometimes listening to baseball or maybe catching a couple of innings during lunch on Saturdays. Does that qualify me to join a discussion forum?

Originally Posted by ashburyjohn

Unless you've played the game at some certain level, you have no business on a discussion forum. We get it already.

Obviously you don't 'get it'. That's not what I was saying at all. I was saying we regulars don't know what 'controlling the infield' means, but that won't stop some people from saying that its an indication Gardy is full of it.

Originally Posted by Han Joelo

I played one season of tee ball (I was a year younger than the other prospects in my league) but spent the rest of my childhood summers driving a tractor, sometimes listening to baseball or maybe catching a couple of innings during lunch on Saturdays. Does that qualify me to join a discussion forum?

Did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express at any point in your life? :-)

Originally Posted by LoganJones

Obviously you don't 'get it'. That's not what I was saying at all. I was saying we regulars don't know what 'controlling the infield' means, but that won't stop some people from saying that its an indication Gardy is full of it.

I've always took it to mean if there's a pop up in the IF, and the shortstop can get it, the shortstop gets it. Bartlett often let the 2B go get balls he clearly should have gotten. He also positions the IFs. He's helping position the OF by putting his hands behind his back and signaling (some teams used to do that...I did back in the day.). In other words, no doubt he's in charge. Watch Tulo or Jeter. No doubt who is in charge of those IF.

Hardy wasn't athletic enough to be in charge.

I did. I woke up with an epiphany: RBI totals are meaningless. I also learned the secret statistical formula describing the definition of a "True" Ace, but I can't tell.

Originally Posted by LoganJones

Obviously you don't 'get it'. That's not what I was saying at all. I was saying we regulars don't know what 'controlling the infield' means, but that won't stop some people from saying that its an indication Gardy is full of it.

I understand what is generally meant by the term - calling out positioning, relaying calls, taking charge, etc - what I don't understand is the Gardy version of it. I don't think this is a layman's misunderstanding.

If you want evidence of that - Jason Bartlett was a pretty established ball player and didn't apparently have a clue what it was either.

Anyone on the Gardy bandwagon still had better take a minute and digest this.

Originally Posted by Seth Stohs

Pretty sure we knew that already, didn't we?

Bollinger is the King of writing stuff that we already know.

Originally Posted by Han Joelo

I played one season of tee ball (I was a year younger than the other prospects in my league) but spent the rest of my childhood summers driving a tractor, sometimes listening to baseball or maybe catching a couple of innings during lunch on Saturdays. Does that qualify me to join a discussion forum?

We don't necessarily all feel the same way.
As far as I'm concerned all are welcome. Now, I'm just a lowly former catcher from back in the deadball era, but I still post and people are pretty nice to me.

That was very funny. All these baseball boards are usually made up of 49.99% people who played less baseball then you, 49.99% posers who never played at any advanced level but say they have and maybe one guy that played above high school who would never bother posting, because he knows the rest of us are tools... so you are OK to post away!!!

Funny side story...I coached a lot of Little League and I always had Dads that told me that they played pro or college ball so I would say "Oh that's great Mr Jeter, I will definitely want you out on the field to help me". I would then roll a ball to them and immediately see that they never even played t-ball. Hahaha!!! They played a few years of beer ball and they think that they can carry off that lie. So funny...

It ranks right up there with when big stupid meatheads who may or may not have been in the Navy or the Army for a couple years, says "oh yeah, I was a Navy Seal (or Army Ranger)". I almost burst out laughing because I know that they don't want big physical guys in the elite forces and I know they make those guys commit to 10 years minimum because of the millions they spend training them, so I know immediately that they are lying. The only "muscle" that they are looking for in those guys is the one between their ears. I am not saying that those guys are not in good shape but that is not what they are looking for in potential recruits. They want the brilliant guys. I don't know why I went off the subject of baseball there. Sorry about that...Ever since I had to leave my pro baseball career to join Team six of the Navy Seals and I was tortured by the Viet Cong at the Hanoi Hilton, I go off subject easily like this sometimes...anyway

Semper Fi to all my fellow sixers! Uh rah! (That's what we say all the time on team six...wait, I am so embarrassed, that was not in the Navy Seals that we said Semper Fi...we said that when I was the starting shortstop at Miami when I played D1 baseball before I joined the Army Rangers...I mean team six when we shot Obama bin Laden. Semper Fi meant "hey check out those hot cheerleaders". I would have you hit me some ground balls and show you or kill you with one finger but you know all that torture and stuff...

Originally Posted by Han Joelo

I played one season of tee ball (I was a year younger than the other prospects in my league) but spent the rest of my childhood summers driving a tractor, sometimes listening to baseball or maybe catching a couple of innings during lunch on Saturdays. Does that qualify me to join a discussion forum?

Jamey Carroll and Brian Dozier make the better tandem to be starters. And if I hear anymore whining about the $2 million Carroll option for 2014, I am going to lose my mind. Florimon is ok enough to play some. His bat is not going to be *that* bad and his defense is good enough. He needs focus to be able to make routine plays. If he develops that, then he can be the starter for the time being.