Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

Bollinger: Florimon is the favorite to start at shortstop

  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#1 John Bonnes

John Bonnes

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 5,202 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:51 PM

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/n...ook_id=41819384

#2 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    Moderately Moderate

  • Twins Mods
  • 5,266 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:55 PM

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

#3 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 7,249 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 04:35 PM

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.

#4 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 9,843 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 04:40 PM

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

#5 TwinsArmChairGM_Jon

TwinsArmChairGM_Jon

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 22 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 04:42 PM

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.

#6 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 9,843 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 04:43 PM

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.

#7 LoganJones

LoganJones

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 172 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 04:56 PM

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.

#8 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Fan

  • Twins Mods
  • 8,424 posts
  • LocationIt's complicated.

Posted 21 February 2013 - 05:03 PM

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.

#9 Han Joelo

Han Joelo

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 143 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 05:14 PM

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?

#10 LoganJones

LoganJones

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 172 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 05:17 PM

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.

#11 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 05:17 PM

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? :-)

#12 ThePuck

ThePuck

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 05:21 PM

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.

#13 snepp

snepp

    Curve Hanger

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,340 posts
  • LocationSioux Falls

Posted 21 February 2013 - 05:31 PM

Hardy wasn't athletic enough to be in charge.

#14 Han Joelo

Han Joelo

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 143 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 05:44 PM

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.

#15 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 7,249 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 07:12 PM

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.

#16 Badsmerf

Badsmerf

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,850 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:42 PM

Anyone on the Gardy bandwagon still had better take a minute and digest this.
Do or do not. There is no try.

#17 righty8383

righty8383

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 596 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:46 PM

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


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

#18 Oldgoat_MN

Oldgoat_MN

    Afraid my optimism will damage me somehow

  • Members
  • 724 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:08 PM

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.

#19 RodneyKline

RodneyKline

    Member

  • Members
  • 53 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:48 PM

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...

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?

Edited by RodneyKline, 21 February 2013 - 11:54 PM.


#20 Shane Wahl

Shane Wahl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,914 posts

Posted 22 February 2013 - 12:41 AM

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.