Today's Philosophical Question: Can we even recognize good baseball anymore?

[bird]

These things have nothing to do with the product on the field for the Minnesota Twins right now.  Nor does anything else, save Vargas and Santana, in your response.

 

I think we're at an impasse because you prefer to talk about oranges in a thread about apples.

Hogwash, my friend. Look back, and you'll see I have repeatedly argued that the product on the field today is better than how you describe it.

 

And my second point has been about how so many of you love to talk about the obvious.

[bird]

We're not at an impasse either. We've reached an understanding is all. You see a forest of bad trees with only a few trees of good when you look at the product on the field. I see a forest with many many good trees, the buckthorn being cut down rapidly, and only a few bad trees left when I look at the product on the field. You're not wrong in having your perspective and neither am I. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

Moderator note, please cut back on the bickering.

[bird]

Finding it funny and ironic that after a 20-6 victory last night, I'm watching today's game and see this sequence: bunt hit by Nunez, hit and run single by Escobar, HBP by Fryer, bases-clearing triple by Schaefer.

 

There's not a single TD member  that would describe any of these four as "plus", although Escobar might get a little love.  None of us are confused about bad baseball and "plus" players. We all know that if those guys played every day we'd see a lot of bad baseball. But that sure was some good baseball right there. 

[Craig Arko]

Finding it funny and ironic that after a 20-6 victory last night, I'm watching today's game and see this sequence: bunt hit by Nunez, hit and run single by Escobar, HBP by Fryer, bases-clearing triple by Schaefer.

 

There's not a single TD member that would describe any of these four as "plus", although Escobar might get a little love. None of us are confused about bad baseball and "plus" players. We all know that if those guys played every day we'd see a lot of bad baseball. But that sure was some good baseball right there.

Very much unlike this time last year. In part because Mauer had his concussion on Aug. 20th last year, and now seems to be recovered a year later.

[TheLeviathan]

We're not at an impasse either. We've reached an understanding is all. You see a forest of bad trees with only a few trees of good when you look at the product on the field. I see a forest with many many good trees, the buckthorn being cut down rapidly, and only a few bad trees left when I look at the product on the field. You're not wrong in having your perspective and neither am I. 

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but only opinion between us has a lot of statistical and factual information on it's side.

 

 I'm glad you're glass half-full, but it seems to me that particular perspective on the quality of good team play requires a lot of time with one's head in the sand.  It certainly bucks a healthy amount of objective evidence to the contrary.

[Platoon]

Not quite.  I'd take an occasional appearance to the World Series

 

Frankly... being there in both '87 & '91 and in what followed after the strike and the contraction conversation and the resurrection in the 00s, the biggest disappointment was the loss in the second game of the ALCS in the Dome to the Angels in 2002.  The Twins just never lost in the post-season at home.  That just did not happen (well, the lost in the previous series to OAK, but the swept them away so that was more of a back of the mind thing.)   And then they went to Disneyland and went belly up pretty much.  And the same every other post season that followed the last decade.

 

Hard to point it out, but this team just does not have the attitude that the teams of the MacPhail era had, which mainly was a. hating losing and b. hating losing at home even more.

 

And this shows.  And this could pretty much be the difference between a good and a mediocre team.

 

And, of course, I'd love to see them win it all (again.) But I'd love to see perspective and sense in them before that and a hate of losing.  I am probably one of the few people that this rubbed the wrong way, but I really found the way that this club celebrated and commemorated Gardenhire's personal 1000th win among the fourth miserable team season in a row, a tad tacky, disconcerting and  embarrassing.

 

But it is just me likely.

 

And it is not winning World Series....

 

It is just wanting to win, hating losing and not being happy and complacent and celebrating losing.

 

[Thegrin]

The World Series teams had Kirby. His fire and fun were contagious and was the face of the Twins.  The 21st Century Twins have been represented by Mauer, a cool customer at the most intense of times.  These players shape our perception of the teams.  We, as fans, actually have no idea how badly these Twins want to win.  We can only guess.  

[Platoon]

I have sometimes struggled to figure out how to describe the Twins the last 3 plus years! Needless to say they have a lack of talent, but something else seems to define them. For lack of a better term, "soft" comes to mind.

And this precedes the years that are the subject of this thread. How do you get the Twins hitters out? Walk the first two guys, and they will do it for you! Ok, that might have been an overstatement but clutch has not been a word in their vocabulary for several years. Nor has "attitude". Not the kind that will rightfully get you plunked in the ribs in the next at bat, but the AJ kind. As for us the fans... It isn't the fact we have mediocre talent on the team.... Every team does. It's the fact that we are content to celebrate .238 hitters for "keepin after it".

[Craig Arko]

So using the same standards, how should we describe the 2014 Tigers?

[JB_Iowa]

So using the same standards, how should we describe the 2014 Tigers?

 

 

At the moment?  A mess.

 

And I'm still blaming their group Zubaz pants roadtrip.

[Thegrin]

So using the same standards, how should we describe the 2014 Tigers?

Scared s***less 

[bird]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but only opinion between us has a lot of statistical and factual information on it's side.

 

 I'm glad you're glass half-full, but it seems to me that particular perspective on the quality of good team play requires a lot of time with one's head in the sand.  It certainly bucks a healthy amount of objective evidence to the contrary.

Well, Levi, I'm an old man who spent decades reviewing evidence for a living. What I discovered is that not all evidence is statistical, and in fact the most reliable evidence of quality, which is what this thread was discussing, is qualitative evidence.

 

Another thing I learned over the years is that no one has a corner on objectivity and the most sure-fire way to promote a non-objective stance is through the use of statistics, not that you're guilty of this yourself. I'm not arrogant enough to think I don't suffer from some bias, however. I'm not 100% objective of course! But I'd caution you to not conflate your statistics and your opinions based on them with some superior level of objectivity. You are not more objective, Levi, sorry.

[TheLeviathan]

I never said I was objective, but the stats that are objective tend to better support the stance ive taken. And there are very, very few that dont.

 

Things are pointed right, but we are and will continue to see bad baseball in the near future. Hopefully for not much longer.

[bird]

I never said I was objective, but the stats that are objective tend to better support the stance ive taken. And there are very, very few that dont.

 

Things are pointed right, but we are and will continue to see bad baseball in the near future. Hopefully for not much longer.

Stats are just stats, my friend. They can be accurate, but they cannot take on human qualities like objectivity. Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine that so many people cite statistical facts and then claim a superior entitlement to objectivity and support for their position.  It's the conclusions drawn from them that count, and some of the conclusions we witness being drawn from them are nothing short of idiotic. And people constantly use statistics in rather devious ways to bolster an already-drawn conclusion of theirs. Another pet peeve is the notion that qualitative information is inferior and therefore contributors are not credible if they draw conclusions based on non-statistical information.

 

Levi, I respect your judgment and find you to be more intellectually honest than a lot of our other pals here on TD. Thanks for the stimulating exchange, and here's to less bad baseball and a shorter journey to the good stuff. And diehard, we're not bickering, OK?

[Thegrin]

Intellectually honest ?  A fan, by definition can not be intellectually honest. A fanatic want his favorite team to win and the 24 hours after a win are a little warmer, brighter and happier. The 24 hours after a loss are dull, dreary and oppressive. Fortunately, baseball gives us a new result every day and that is one of the reasons we love baseball and we love our team. 

Every hit by a rookie is viewed with hope. Every good outing by a pitcher foretells victories to come.  1 of our scrubs is worth 2 of any other teams best prospects.  A fanatic cannot be fair, objective or intellectually honest, or they would not be a fan.

[TheLeviathan]

Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine that so many people cite statistical facts and then claim a superior entitlement to objectivity and support for their position.  

 

Yeah, I don't know where the bickering accusation came from either, if this isn't a policy-approved exchange we should just shut this whole thing down.

 

To your point, I'm not claiming to be objective.  I know the play of this team has left a bad taste in my mouth and I judge it accordingly.  None of that changes this team's record, run differential, and minimal improvement statistically.  Those are objective stats that don't support your claim that good baseball is being played.  You have to make your argument in direct opposition to the strong trend that this just isn't a very good baseball team yet.

 

Some players certainly do not fit the overall trend of the team and I understand holding on to those beacons of hope as what you stress about going forward.  But the original point was that we are so accustomed to awful baseball that even the slight perception of less awful play somehow makes the jump to "good".  

 

It's like your wife was trying to cook you the best damn steak you ever had.  The last three years it's been little more than a pile of burnt ash on a plate.  This year she managed to at least keep it at a stage that could be called "meat" but it's still burnt leather.  But hey, she looked up a mean garlic butter recipe to pair with it and that stuff was great!  Now we just need to get a little closer to medium-rare and we got ourselves a good meal.  Calling that burn leather "good" to your wife might save you a trip to the couch, but no one here will send you to the couch for calling a spade a spade.

[Craig Arko]

Intellectually honest ?  A fan, by definition can not be intellectually honest. A fanatic want his favorite team to win and the 24 hours after a win are a little warmer, brighter and happier. The 24 hours after a loss are dull, dreary and oppressive. Fortunately, baseball gives us a new result every day and that is one of the reasons we love baseball and we love our team. 

Every hit by a rookie is viewed with hope. Every good outing by a pitcher foretells victories to come.  1 of our scrubs is worth 2 of any other teams best prospects.  A fanatic cannot be fair, objective or intellectually honest, or they would not be a fan.

I guess that's one way of looking at it. Not mine, I think.

[bird]

Yeah, I don't know where the bickering accusation came from either, if this isn't a policy-approved exchange we should just shut this whole thing down.

 

To your point, I'm not claiming to be objective.  I know the play of this team has left a bad taste in my mouth and I judge it accordingly.  None of that changes this team's record, run differential, and minimal improvement statistically.  Those are objective stats that don't support your claim that good baseball is being played.  You have to make your argument in direct opposition to the strong trend that this just isn't a very good baseball team yet.

 

Some players certainly do not fit the overall trend of the team and I understand holding on to those beacons of hope as what you stress about going forward.  But the original point was that we are so accustomed to awful baseball that even the slight perception of less awful play somehow makes the jump to "good".  

 

It's like your wife was trying to cook you the best damn steak you ever had.  The last three years it's been little more than a pile of burnt ash on a plate.  This year she managed to at least keep it at a stage that could be called "meat" but it's still burnt leather.  But hey, she looked up a mean garlic butter recipe to pair with it and that stuff was great!  Now we just need to get a little closer to medium-rare and we got ourselves a good meal.  Calling that burn leather "good" to your wife might save you a trip to the couch, but no one here will send you to the couch for calling a spade a spade.

 

 

Wow. I'm smiling as I write this:

 

1. The original claim was that a lot of us are confused. That when we see and point out positive things, especially moments of good baseball or improvement, we have jumped into a delusional realm and are seeing good baseball where very very obviously mostly bad baseball and a smattering of mediocre baseball is being played. This is a false claim, and frankly, it's a bit insulting to our fellow members who the claimants contend fit in this category. I reject the condescending implication of this description. Levi, you went so far as to describe me as having my head in the sand. I didn't take great offense at that, but certainly wouldn't return the insult.

 

2. You're putting generalized claims in my mouth, you big meany! I NEVER have directly opposed an argument that "this" isn't good baseball! I NEVER claimed that good baseball is being played. I pointed out how obvious the bad baseball meme is, and how tiring it is to hear it ad infinitum. And wasn't it me that suggested that certain players don't fit the overall trend of bad baseball? One of the differences between us is that you can readily describe players fitting the trend of bad baseball as such, but the players who fit the concept of good baseball are only "beacons of hope". Stats are stats, and everything else is just hope? Give me credit for what I said rather than painting a disparaging portrait with what I didn't say, OK? ")

 

 

3. You still insist that statistics are objective. Stats are no more objective than they are gluttonous or lazy or charitable. Giving stats this lofty human status of objectivity serves the purpose, intentional or not, of establishing superiority to an argument. It denigrates equally valuable and credible qualitative information, intentionally or not. As I said, it's my pet peeve at TD.

 

4. Where one person sees burnt leather, another sees an overdone steak. Why is it that, in your mind, the guy who sees burnt leather is calling a spade a spade and those of us who see an overdone steak are disingenuous? That's condescending and insulting, my friend. And why aren't you cooking your own damn steak?

 

And diehard, Levi and I are still being respectful, even if he wouldn't come to my birthday party.

[Craig Arko]

I never get insulted by people asking questions. Or when they give their own answer to them.

 

It's only when they try to give other peoples' answers that the daleks of intellectual dishonesty come rolling in. Let everybody speak for themselves. It makes for a more interesting and useful omnilog.

[TheLeviathan]

 

 

 

3. You still insist that statistics are objective. Stats are no more objective than they are gluttonous or lazy or charitable. Giving stats this lofty human status of objectivity serves the purpose, intentional or not, of establishing superiority to an argument. It denigrates equally valuable and credible qualitative information, intentionally or not. As I said, it's my pet peeve at TD.

 

4. Why is it that, in your mind, the guy who sees burnt leather is calling a spade a spade and those of us who see an overdone steak are disingenuous? 

 

 

3.  Stats are objective, at least the ones largely judging team play.  The win-loss record is not subjective.  The team's ERA is not subjective.  (A few dumb error/not-error calls doesn't change this)  The team's run differential is not subjective.  I may employ those stats subjectively, but citing them as objective reinforcers of my position is valid. 

 

4. I fully admitted we're getting better and we're on the right path.  But when I said those good trees are still stuck in a "tough" forest - you took issue.  Isn't that taking issue with the idea that, despite some good performances by some, it's still largely bad baseball?  I would suggest part of the confusion is you seem to want to hold that you do believe it's still "bad baseball" but then everytime someone points out why it's "bad baseball" you have an argument against it.

[Craig Arko]

I think there is some confusion (and not just on this board) about the difference between descriptive statistics and inferential statistics.

 

http://statistics.about.com/od/Descriptive-Statistics/a/Differences-In-Descriptive-And-Inferential-Statistics.htm

[TheLeviathan]

I think there is some confusion (and not just on this board) about the difference between descriptive statistics and inferential statistics.

 

http://statistics.about.com/od/Descriptive-Statistics/a/Differences-In-Descriptive-And-Inferential-Statistics.htm

 

Thank you, I think this is helpful.  For the record, when I'm referencing statistics it is of the descriptive type precisely because they are showing what has actually happened outside my particular bias.  I find those stats more useful in this sort of discussion.

[Thegrin]

descriptive statistics and inferential statistics  ???  It is time for a cliche. Since nobody else has said it, I will...Figures lie and lyers figure ...  not that any of us is a lyer... but if I wanted to take the time, I could find a bushel of saber-metric apples to prove that we are seeing good baseball  or bad baseball, depending on my whim of the moment  

[USAFChief]

I'm not sure calling it overdone rather than burnt makes the steak any more palatable.

[bird]

I'm not sure calling it overdone rather than burnt makes the steak any more palatable.

Well duh, Chief. It's more palatable because it's overdone, not burnt leather. You're OK with it if I eat my overdone steak I hope, because it's no skin off my hide if the next person is chewing on burnt leather. Just don't tell me what I'm eating, OK?

[glunn]

Moderator note -- my squabbling alarm is sounding.  I think that we can all agree that the Twins have played very badly this year, but there have been significant bright spots.  The rest of the debate seems to be focused on the appropriate level of unhappiness each of us should feel.  That part of the debate seems somewhat futile.  It's OK to continue, but please keep in mind that how we each feel is inherently subjective.

[DocBauer]

NOT a part of this discussion overall as too much math makes my head hurt. I was an Enligj major. Lol

 

But the discussion is interesting, and has made me smile and laugh a few times.

 

I am, however, reminded of the old line...how does it go now..."there are statistics, damn statistics, and lies" if I remember correctly.

 

Baseball has forever been, and will be, a game of statistics and numbers. Everything gets crunched nowadays. I feel it's gotten to the point where we're trying to measure a SP taking the mound, on a day game, vs a certain team, with a certain umpire calling the game, if the sky is clear vs cloudy, if Mr Smith and his pitch framing numbers are behind the plate, and if the SP, Mr Jones, had regular Cheerios vs the Honey Nut variety. Did I mention it was a start in July on a Tuesday vs an August start on a Thursday?

 

My point is statistical information is very important, and helps measure and qualify certain measurables that may help measure or predict an outcome. But they are not necessarily quantitative in final result.

 

For instance; tell me a team hits on .240 and I can tell you that team is poor offensively and with such a poor BA, is probably a losing team. Now tell me that team is amongst the team leaders in OB% and HR production, and suddenly my perspective shifts, even though I still haven't seen the W-L record yet. Next, you tell me that team is amongst the league leaders in SV% and team SO's, and my measuring stick moves further up the scale, again without seeing a W-L record, further impressed with what this team must be accomplishing. Then I find out their team ERA is in the top third, and I'm convinced this is not only a winning team, but maybe a championship caliber team. Then I find out team defense is at the bottom of the league, they lead the league in un-earned runs, and rank last in BB allowed and suddenly I'm thinking we have a real problem team on our hands without yet seeing the W-L record to this point.

 

2011, the Twins were supposed to be one of the top teams in the AL. We know what happened. We still don't know for sure what happened in 2012 and 2013, but what we do know, and saw, was a team that seemed to lack any direction, lack of depth of talent and result, and had an awful lot of embarrassing results. Results that forced us, the most dedicated and did-hard fans, to turn the station.

 

I don't know how the 2014 final record is going to turn out yet. Nor does anyone else. I'm hoping for a strong finish to August, and a fun September for the first time in a long time. Final W-L record for 2014 compared to the last three years? Not a clue.

 

But here's the difference, statistics be damned. THIS season has been more fun than the last three, and there is no doubt of that. Why? Because tuning in or attending your favorite team in person and seeing them losing 7-1 in the third inning is very different than seeing them playing a competitive game 3-2 in the third inning. Losing is still losing. But watching a promising 23 yo player making things happen in a close game is not only more inviting than watching a struggling 32 yo trying to make a contribution.

 

The point is that statistics can lie. Or at least prove to be deceptive. The eyes are a powerful tool of observation and information collection. And this team is flat out more fun, more interesting, and more competitive with a brighter future than what we have seen the last few years.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Brandon, I disagree

 

plus hitters:

Santana - nope, but could be maybe with some luck could be

Plouffe - nope

Escobar - nope, we have seen his pinnacle it's fine not plus

Dozier - yup I agree

Suzuki - nope

Vargas - maybe, not now, but time will tell

 

hitters who should be plus next year:

Mauer - yup

Arcia - wishful, but I would like to see it too.

 

 

 

Rotation:

Hughes #3

Gibson #4

Nolasco #5

Millone solid swing-man

Meyer. -- if-- he gets up here could be a very good pitcher

May - could be a decent middle rotation guy, or a good bull pen piece. Maybe more, time will tell.

I'm still looking 1 and 2 rotation spot, a cleanup hitter, a centerfielder and a left fielder. I'm not willing to wait for Buxton, Sano, Berrios, Stewart, and Rosario. Too many gambles and not enough insurance for all of them to work out in the right timeline.

[old nurse]

The fans will know good baseball when they see it.

Complaining about the team will go away for about a week after they win a championship and then return. That is some people's nature. Very few teams will be perfect. No team will stay that way. There will always be something to pick at.