04-27-2014, 02:01 PM #21
- Liked 775 Times in 407 Posts
I guess I'd choose to not give the wins back, even when they derive from that inferior base on balls.Oh, I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay,
I sleep all night and I work all day.
04-27-2014, 06:12 PM #22
- Liked 850 Times in 546 Posts
- Blog Entries
04-27-2014, 06:34 PM #23
04-27-2014, 07:49 PM #24
- Liked 3,302 Times in 1,753 Posts
- Blog Entries
04-27-2014, 10:05 PM #25
- Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Sent the email below to [email protected] at 9:30 am on Friday, about 5 hours before the article was posted:
Hi Nick, big fan of your blog. Nice to see some clear-eyed analysis of the Twins that digs a bit deeper into the reasons for their success and failure. I'm writing because I'd like to get your opinion on what's happening with the number of walks this year. They're scoring runs at a phenomenal rate and it appears to be due to their AL leading OBP (~0.350). If you look at their batting average (~0.250) and number of walks thus far (111!), it's pretty clear they're doing well because of improved plate discipline and free passes. I've been following the Twins a long time and this is not the swing first ask questions later team that I'm used to seeing. 5+ walks per game? A quick look at the past three years:
OBP walks per game
2013 0.312 3.2
2012 0.325 3.1
2011 0.306. 2.7
Why the dramatic shift in approach? Is this due to coaching or did the players agree amongst themselves to grind out every at bat to get on base? It looks like a coherent philosophy up and down the order. Given the (still) terrible staring pitching, it's seems like the walks are the one of the main factors contributing to their success. Would be curious to hear your thoughts.
does anyone know if I sent it to the right email address?
Last edited by zzlund; 04-27-2014 at 10:16 PM.
04-28-2014, 07:13 AM #26
That should be Nick's address, yes. He probably hasn't had time to read his email and/or respond. It's best to engage him via Twitter, I think. You're most likely to get a response through that channel.