Target Field Park Factor

[jianfu]

The ESPN numbers do compare home v. road numbers; to that end they are an attempt to measure park influence. BBall-ref goes a step further by including opponents performance at the park compared to other parks. But you can consider these a park factor measure. They're not simple runs-per-game type stuff.

 

The homeruns are still down (these past two homestands notwithstanding, in particular the interleague homestand where there were nearly 3 hrs per game), but the doubles, triples, and walks are all way up, contributing to the runs.

 

I suspect the park will eventually settle into neutral-to-slight-pitcher park. That's how it's played last yaer and this year. I think that's what they wanted. But who knows?I hope that's the case as I'm not a fan of extreme parks.

 

It's also interesting to go to hittracker and check out the park overlays, where you can put an outline of parks on top of each other to compare. Dimensions of fields are probably much more similar than many realize. Target Field is about the ezxact same shape as Safeco, but it's also not too different than US Cellular.

[TheLeviathan]

You are somehow qualified to call people "borderline insane" or less than human, for quoting them accurately?.

I've been here a week and it's clear this guy doesn't understand the concept of a quote. I'm sure a butter-knife steak was the real culprit here or something equally as absurd.

[Riverbrian]

Wow, seriously?

 

You are somehow qualified to call people "borderline insane" or less than human, for quoting them accurately? I also didn't use a single adjective. I made no reference to the tone of the comments, I guess I prefer a stiff-upper-lip approach to sports as opposed to the metro-sexual get-all-my-feelings on the table approach to high-level sports.

 

I noticed you had no comment on the trees and their need of their presence in CF as an excuse- and then the hitting results after their removal. Aren't the players coddled and rewarded richly enough? The fans built the stadium and pay the salaries, the aesthetic integrity of the park and intent of the designers of the park were whimsically cast aside for a mere trifle.

Yes seriously... The essence of common sense? Common perhaps... Sense... Not even close...

 

The players are criticized for play on the field and now you can add mundane differences in lifted quotes about how they feel about the hitting experience to what you will criticize. It's ok to like Thome's answer better but to define a lesser quote as crying or whining for answering a question with what is assumed to be an honest answer is pretty unfair. Especially when you consider that they were asked a question and answered it and did not seek an interview to express their opinions.

 

How do you know that there wasn't more to the quote? How do you know that Mauer or Kubel or Morneau or Cuddyer didn't continue on with and finish with "whatever the dimensions... the ball game is still played the same way. Do you actually think that Mauer said what he said and then walked away ending the interview and those were the only words spoken. Do you think that the players are possibly deeper than what they express in a simple sound bite. I do but your posts suggests that the judge and jury have all the evidence needed and we have crying. I want to know what players actually think... I just don't think it's possible with The editing that takes place and the over reaction to their edited thoughts. Eventually... They will just shut up and then people will be pissed cuz they are cold hearted jerks.

 

Im noticing your indignance over my use of Borderline insane and losing human qualities... Yet you failed to include my third option of really bad at adjectives. I personally think it's the third option but I can't discount the other two at this point.

 

As for the Trees... I don't know... I wasn't in the room when they made the decision. If the trees make it hard to spot the ball coming out of the pitchers hand... It will bug the hitters and the pitchers will love it. Both teams will have to contend with the issue and I would Imagine it being a home park advantage because of more exposure to the hinderence.

 

I imagine without knowledge that players were asked about the park by the Front office and It's not out of the realm of possibility that questionnaires were distributed by someone who has time on their hands. It is also quite possible that Jim Thome himself with his ability to put together solid quotes that pass your smell test may have filled out "the ball is hard to spot coming out of the pitchers hand with the trees behind. You don't know... I don't know but I assume they didn't take the trees out because Drew Butera and Drew Butera only said the trees were a challenge. I assume that the Trees were taken out because enough players were not seeing the ball to take action. After all... Not seeing the ball at 95 MPH is a health issue.

 

Im sure none of my post did any good. So you can reply now with some more of the essence of common sense (which kinda rhymes by the way). It would be much easier to just admit that it's not crying. It was an answer.

[Riverbrian]

I've been here a week and it's clear this guy doesn't understand the concept of a quote. I'm sure a butter-knife steak was the real culprit here or something equally as absurd.

Do you work in the media? I do... I've taken quotes and chopped them up because of space issues. I've also been interviewed by newspapers and trade magazines only to find that nearly every time they take the parts of your interview that fits their slant and I get to see it presented in ways I didn't intend in the finished product.

 

The question is... Do you understand the concept of a quote? I'll admit I don't know the context of any of the quotes listed but I can say that I do understand the concept of quotes. At least I better or I need to find a different line of work.

[TheLeviathan]

The question is... Do you understand the concept of a quote? I'll admit I don't know the context of any of the quotes listed but I can say that I do understand the concept of quotes. At least I better or I need to find a different line of work.

Everything always has context. It's ok to say "Yeah, they said that. I wonder if there is more context?" If you were honest about your speculation that would be fine. But as you continue to demonstrate - you prefer to dismiss a direct quote in favor on context you are speculating/assuming that you have no evidence for to refute the quote.

 

That's the silly stuff. Speculate away, it's a message board. But if people back up their speculation with direct quotes, you aren't on equal ground with the nonsense of "well there may be more context....". Either provide the context or another quote or acknowledge the quote for what it is. It's basic discourse/logic/argument 101 - you can't dismiss a strong argument (bolstered by a quote) with speculation.

 

It's like refuting fossil records with the Bible. You do a nice job dressing it up like your points are valid - but they're not. They're pigs in prom dresses and that's what you're being called out for.

[jokin]

 

Im noticing your indignance over my use of Borderline insane and losing human qualities... Yet you failed to include my third option of really bad at adjectives. I personally think it's the third option but I can't discount the other two at this point.

 

.

I can only speak for myself, as you directed this to the whole forum. Hard to be indignant over something that ridiculously bombastic. And, I did include your third option concerning adjectival choices- as I stated- I didn't use any. I gave the quote as printed in the Pioneer Press, verbatim. I didn't say it was "crying", or "whining". I let it stand to compare and contrast with Thome's. And then you continued in your passive-agressive assault on "certain someones'" opinions wuth whom you disagree. Nice attempt at marginalization. This behavior I wouldn't discount as "borderline".

[Riverbrian]

Everything always has context. It's ok to say "Yeah, they said that. I wonder if there is more context?" If you were honest about your speculation that would be fine. But as you continue to demonstrate - you prefer to dismiss a direct quote in favor on context you are speculating/assuming that you have no evidence for to refute the quote.

 

That's the silly stuff. Speculate away, it's a message board. But if people back up their speculation with direct quotes, you aren't on equal ground with the nonsense of "well there may be more context....". Either provide the context or another quote or acknowledge the quote for what it is. It's basic discourse/logic/argument 101 - you can't dismiss a strong argument (bolstered by a quote) with speculation.

 

It's like refuting fossil records with the Bible. You do a nice job dressing it up like your points are valid - but they're not. They're pigs in prom dresses and that's what you're being called out for.

I'm not dismissing the direct quote. I'm sure Ben Revere said nice things about Brunansky. I'm sure they worked on hitting. My issue was your claim that a month of AAA produced the Ben Revere of today. You used his quotes in a slanted Hartman article to make your point. That's when it fell off the tracks. I contend that Ben didn't need to be sent down and I base that on his consistent stats and what I see watching him play. You thought I was making stuff up. You can say Something was fixed in Rochester yet he had 1 extra base hit during his time. Same Ben to me. High Average... Little extra base power... Little walks and boatload of speed and highlight reel catches.

 

On this issue. Do you really believe that Mauer and the ball players are crying? They are not... They have an opinion and expressed it cuz they were asked. That's my opinion. How do you feel? Do you think they are outwardly upset over the ballpark. On this issue... It was the quote that is used against them.

 

Now hopefully you can understand my diatribe!

[TheLeviathan]

My issue was your claim that a month of AAA produced the Ben Revere of today. You used his quotes in a slanted Hartman article to make your point.

 

That wasn't my point. You made that my point and then argued it. Classic strawman. (go ahead, go back and read it. I never made any such claim - I said he worked on some things and came back better. That strawman was all you.) Which is exactly what you're doing here as well. Someone posted quotes. You can call them slanted or put your own spin on it - but they're quotes. You don't refute them just because you wave a magic wand and say "I don't believe it!" Which is exactly what you've done. At best it's bad form in a discussion. If I thought you were doing it intentionally I'd call it trolling. Essentially that's what it amounts to though.

 

If you'd like to provide more context to those quotes to prove your claim - I'd be interested to hear it. If you don't have that, then put the magic wand away and stop dismissing them.

 

On this issue. Do you really believe that Mauer and the ball players are crying? They are not... They have an opinion and expressed it cuz they were asked. That's my opinion. How do you feel? Do you think they are outwardly upset over the ballpark. On this issue... It was the quote that is used against them. !

 

I think several players on the team have gotten too comfortable with the idea that they can't hit homeruns here. They've let their perception of the difficulty cloud them to the point that it is effecting their play. That bothers me and to that degree I'd say they are far too negatively focused on that aspect of the field.

[Riverbrian]

Don't forget to add Joe Mauer for nothing more than analyzing what he does for a living:

"It's definitely frustrating as a left-handed hitter," Mauer said. "I'd be lying if I told you there aren't times at the plate where you're like, 'Oh, I've got to maybe pull a ball,' or things like that. It messes with your approach a little bit."

 

Don't forget that they apparently complained as a group (oh, I meant to say analyzing what they do for a living) to remove the center field trees after 2010- only to see averages and production plummet further.

 

I'd love to hear Plouffe, Willingham, Parmelee and Thome,....and Soriano,......and Bautista.... Oh wait, Thome has gone public with his analyzing what he does (did/er, will do again, now that he's back in the AL as an Oriole) for a living. Here's Thome griping away:

 

"There were some balls that you hit that could get knocked down, sure, I think maybe (it's) the weather or something," Thome said. "Whatever. You just go hit. You don't really worry about all that."

CDog doesn't need my support. He can be biting and direct but he's fairly smart. He's called me out on occasion and I answer back with I don't know or finish my thinking and we move on. LOL... actually, he probably prefers that I don't support him. However, he is absolutely correct in my opinion.

 

Jokin, I apologize if I misunderstood the context of your post above but to me it looked like you aligned yourself with Badsmerf. You did not mention crying in this post. But it does seem to be support of Badsmerf who did.

 

I've read your posts... I enjoy your posts... you are also a smart guy... Sometime we disagree but that's only natural.

 

I was shocked to see you jump into this camp. Clearly you are smart enough to realize that Joe answered a question and for this to be perceived as crying or whining is my issue.

 

This isn't anything new... Over the decades players are often quoted and taken out of context and it leads to the Sports Cliche. Once you starting getting cliche's... You just get removed furthur from what is really happening.

[CDog]

For the record, I haven't dismissed anything on basis of context in any of those quotes. I have said, and still do, that considering the exact quotes listed to be whining or crying or anything in that vein is simply looking fairly hard for something to complain about. And I've even mentioned some reasons that I think that happens somewhere in the not-too-distant past.

 

And while I'm here, "affect" and "effect" are not the same word.

[amjgt]

Its possible that the Plaza could be a factor. I'm not saying it while banging down a gavel. Its possible... The plaza is an open spot and the wind will funnel through it and could knock down balls. I admit I don't know what direction it faces cuz I'm bad with directions but if it faces a typical wind direction it could cause problems for lefties. Mauer... Morneau and Kubel haven't hit a ton of Target field homers. Thome... well he's a power freak... It would take an F3 tornado to knock his ball down.

 

Righties do seem to hit more. I said seem... I didn't research anything.

I've been thinking about this a decent amount recently (specifically after the series in Cincy). Why are some parks such hitters parks compared to other parks.

 

I've been to a decent amount of games at Target Field (probably 30 or so) and I remember days where the wind was blowing out of the South, thinking "man, the balls are going to fly out today," but that just hasn't ever been the case.

 

I feel like there are never days where the wind makes the ball carry, but there are certainly days when the wind stifles hard hit balls.

 

There are probably several features of the Target field construction that effect this.

(Just FYI, before I start talking about directions, the pitcher pitches due west at Target Field)

 

The plaza could certainly be one. That "tunnel" could easily gather wind from a pretty wide swath of directions and direct it into Right field. So, if the wind is from straight south to straight east, there could be a pretty significant disadvantage for lefties.

 

You'd think a wind from the south would help righties and a wind from the west would help both batters. But it doesn't seem to. It has to have something to do with the air dynamics of the building. Think of that roof element as a airplane wing. Just looking at an airplane, you would think it could fly. But the airplane wing creates lift; enough lift to lift a very heavy object into the air.

Perhaps the roof at TF is making the air sink, which knocks balls down. That would explain, why even on days where the wind is howling out of the West, balls still don't seem to carry. The advantage gained from the wind blowing from the west is counteracted by the extra sink the air is feeling (when a plane goes faster it has more lift).

If this effect is real, then that takes care of over 180° of wind direction. SE to probably due north.

 

The final 90 degrees (north to east) are easy to explain because that's right in the batters face.

 

So, on days when the wind is from South to East to North (12:01 to 5:59) it's hurting batters, and on days when it's South to West to North (6:01 to 11:59) it's about neutral.

[TheLeviathan]

For the record, I haven't dismissed anything on basis of context in any of those quotes. I have said, and still do, that considering the exact quotes listed to be whining or crying or anything in that vein is simply looking fairly hard for something to complain about. And I've even mentioned some reasons that I think that happens somewhere in the not-too-distant past.

That's fine. Remarks like that are open to be interpreted to a degree. I can see how someone would label it crying - some of the language by the Twins players is a bit "ridiculous" to use one of their own terms. Removing the trees seemed a bit petty considering lots of parks have CF attractions. And there is something to the way the organizational mouth-pieces keep repeating the same complaints.

 

At the same time, this park is not good for left-handed pull hitters or a guy like Mauer. So I understand their frustration. I'm not sure I'd label it crying, but I am bothered by how much it is being used as a crutch.

[CDog]

I've been thinking about this a decent amount recently (specifically after the series in Cincy). Why are some parks such hitters parks compared to other parks.

 

I've been to a decent amount of games at Target Field (probably 30 or so) and I remember days where the wind was blowing out of the South, thinking "man, the balls are going to fly out today," but that just hasn't ever been the case.

Isn't this pondering essentially what one of the papers (I forget which, but I think it was the Minneapolis side) did some limited research on before this season started (and naturally, people got all up in arms about the players whining because the newspaper did such a project...which makes perfect sense...or something...but I digress)? I don't rememember their exact conclusions, but it might be worth a peek back if you're interested.

[CDog]

I'm not sure I'd label it crying, but I am bothered by how much it is being used as a crutch.

I guess I don't see or understand how it is used as a crutch. I'm not trying to be difficult; I really don't see what you mean by that.

[Riverbrian]

That wasn't my point. You made that my point and then argued it. Classic strawman. (go ahead, go back and read it. I never made any such claim - I said he worked on some things and came back better. That strawman was all you.) Which is exactly what you're doing here as well. Someone posted quotes. You can call them slanted or put your own spin on it - but they're quotes. You don't refute them just because you wave a magic wand and say "I don't believe it!" Which is exactly what you've done. At best it's bad form in a discussion. If I thought you were doing it intentionally I'd call it trolling. Essentially that's what it amounts to though.

 

If you'd like to provide more context to those quotes to prove your claim - I'd be interested to hear it. If you don't have that, then put the magic wand away and stop dismissing them.

 

 

 

I think several players on the team have gotten too comfortable with the idea that they can't hit homeruns here. They've let their perception of the difficulty cloud them to the point that it is effecting their play. That bothers me and to that degree I'd say they are far too negatively focused on that aspect of the field.

At some point... They are going to lock this thread down... There isn't much point in bringing it back up... I remember the discussion... I've re-read the discussion.

 

You said We should send Dozier down because (paraphrasing) look what it did for Ben Revere.

I said (paraphrasing) that sending Revere down to AAA did nothing for him he was the same guy before.

You said (Paraphrasing) that Ben Credits his time in AAA and eventually you provided a Sid Hartman article with his quotes.

I Said (Paraphrasing) It's a Sid Hartman article and he's about as slanted as it gets.

 

And at some point in time... We both probably stopped reading each other and nothing got solved.

 

Whatever... Welcome aboard... Like I said... The Board has had more energy to it lately and I mean that. It just seems that lately we've had a rash of quote induced crap from Terry Ryan to Ron Gardenhire to Ben Revere to Mauer, Morneau, Kubel and Cuddyer.

 

Quotes will never be what they seem and everyone draws their own conclusions from them. Hell we can't even quote each other properly... I really wasn't angry at you at any point... you never said that Ben Revere was a little weasel or baby or anything.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Okay, then I'll say it.

 

Ben Revere is a weasel baby.

 

[jokin]

For the record, I haven't dismissed anything on basis of context in any of those quotes. I have said, and still do, that considering the exact quotes listed to be whining or crying or anything in that vein is simply looking fairly hard for something to complain about. And I've even mentioned some reasons that I think that happens somewhere in the not-too-distant past.

 

And while I'm here, "affect" and "effect" are not the same word.

You are correct, and I cringe and bite my tongue every time I read misuses of affect/effect and loose/lose, won/one, etc, because of the appearances that you are trying to win an argument grammarily.

 

Regarding the substance, I just prefer "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do" approach to playing a kids game for millions of dollars. As on the other issue concerning his injury, Joe is a man, he's tough, an incredible talent...... who needs to hire a better media advisor. I thought plain-spoken, far-less-sophisticated, Jim Thome, hit all the same notes and left no room for misinterpretation of where he stood regarding the situation with Target Field.

[jokin]

Isn't this pondering essentially what one of the papers (I forget which, but I think it was the Minneapolis side) did some limited research on before this season started (and naturally, people got all up in arms about the players whining because the newspaper did such a project...which makes perfect sense...or something...but I digress)? I don't rememember their exact conclusions, but it might be worth a peek back if you're interested.

The Pio-Press did such an article and was from where I obtained my two quotes. Sorry, I don't have the link, but it was easy to find.

[TwinVike61]

You are correct, and I cringe and bite my tongue every time I read misuses of affect/effect and loose/lose, won/one, etc, because of the appearances that you are trying to win an argument grammarily.

How about the most popular misuse...They're there for their game?

[amjgt]

Isn't this pondering essentially what one of the papers (I forget which, but I think it was the Minneapolis side) did some limited research on before this season started (and naturally, people got all up in arms about the players whining because the newspaper did such a project...which makes perfect sense...or something...but I digress)? I don't rememember their exact conclusions, but it might be worth a peek back if you're interested.

Found the article (St Paul side): http://www.twincities.com/1000/ci_20398152/target-field-factor-minnesota-twins-sluggers-constantly-battle?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com

 

Hadn't read the article before, but it does say a lot of the same things I did.

 

I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[jokin]

That's fine. Remarks like that are open to be interpreted to a degree. I can see how someone would label it crying - some of the language by the Twins players is a bit "ridiculous" to use one of their own terms. Removing the trees seemed a bit petty considering lots of parks have CF attractions. And there is something to the way the organizational mouth-pieces keep repeating the same complaints.

 

At the same time, this park is not good for left-handed pull hitters or a guy like Mauer. So I understand their frustration. I'm not sure I'd label it crying, but I am bothered by how much it is being used as a crutch.

 

It does go back to the organization. When you have two premier, recent MVP-level players who happen to be lefties and don't make every effort to tailor the park to their strengths seems the height of stupidity. The tree excuse was petty and silly and production went down after they were removed. The trees were a natural home-field advantage, there is precedence for them being there, so the safety issue is moot. It came down to more coddling and enabling, instead of re-tooling the ballpark. I proposed from season one to extend the porch overhang from foul pole to right center, restore the trees, while retaining the integrity of the park, problem solved.

[jokin]

How about the most popular misuse...They're there for their game?

Numero Uno, for sure. Major cringeworthiness.

[CDog]

You are correct, and I cringe and bite my tongue every time I read misuses of affect/effect and loose/lose, won/one, etc, because of the appearances that you are trying to win an argument grammarily.

 

Regarding the substance, I just prefer "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do" approach to playing a kids game for millions of dollars. As on the other issue concerning his injury, Joe is a man, he's tough, an incredible talent...... who needs to hire a better media advisor. I thought plain-spoken, far-less-sophisticated, Jim Thome, hit all the same notes and left no room for misinterpretation of where he stood regarding the situation with Target Field.

I try...I really do. Was the third time in one day seeing the a/effect one come up, so I pointed it out without quote and not as part of any argument for that very reason.

 

I know we're going round and round...but I just don't see why there's a difference. Two quotes say, "it took me a while, but I adjusted" (paraphrasing). Way to man up, right? I did one thing, it didn't work, I tried something else. Tough. Manly. Or should they not have adjusted or admitted to the frailty of not being perfect right away? Another acknowledged not being a pull-hitter and maybe trying to be to a fault. Admit some mistakes, working on trying to be better, trying to be the best player he can be. Good on him. Some balls get knocked down by wind or whatever, but I just do my best. Rugged. I just can't see getting upset or annoyed or even slightly miffed at different wording for the same thing.

[CDog]

It does go back to the organization. When you have two premier, recent MVP-level players who happen to be lefties and don't make every effort to tailor the park to their strengths seems the height of stupidity.

As long as I'm on a roll...1) I'd say that when you build a park to be used for 20 years minimum, and hopefully more than 50 (and hopefully way more than 50), building it for current team could be viewed as short-sighted instead. I hope we have MVP hitters from the both sides and Cy Young pitchers not even born yet that come through the same park that can benefit from things that current players don't. 2) As has been pointed out early and late in this thread, the dimensions aren't all that ridiculous for the lefties (although the extended high wall could be considered extreme) or righties. I think the home-run scarcity is more of a, "We find out how it plays after it's built and it gets used" in most cases. And also no reason it can't or hasn't been a doubles/triples/singles park while playing big for homers.

[jokin]

I try...I really do. Was the third time in one day seeing the a/effect one come up, so I pointed it out without quote and not as part of any argument for that very reason.

 

I know we're going round and round...but I just don't see why there's a difference. Two quotes say, "it took me a while, but I adjusted" (paraphrasing). Way to man up, right? I did one thing, it didn't work, I tried something else. Tough. Manly. Or should they not have adjusted or admitted to the frailty of not being perfect right away? Another acknowledged not being a pull-hitter and maybe trying to be to a fault. Admit some mistakes, working on trying to be better, trying to be the best player he can be. Good on him. Some balls get knocked down by wind or whatever, but I just do my best. Rugged. I just can't see getting upset or annoyed or even slightly miffed at different wording for the same thing.

I saw those three examples, too. How I so productively get annoyed on my afternoon off.

 

Speaking of annoyed, I wasn't annoyed by the quotes, I was amused. The metero-sexual, in-touch-with-your-feelings approach for public figures to assume as a persona is everywhere else in our culture, so of course, it's drifted into baseball. At least we haven't descended to Euro-style athletics, where everyone but the rugby and irish hurling players writhe in agony when they trip or break a fingernail. I'm not asking Mauer to behave like Brett Favre, although they both were quarterbacks, Joe appears to be a far more decent guy, I just would hope that he cut back on the introspection and "masculinize" his quotes concerning his onfield endeavours to just a shade more toward Brett. I know as a teammate, it would definitely instill more confidence in him as someone to count on for leadership.

 

"Ah, the days of yore, when men were men and their women were glad of it.'

[jokin]

As long as I'm on a roll...1) I'd say that when you build a park to be used for 20 years minimum, and hopefully more than 50 (and hopefully way more than 50), building it for current team could be viewed as short-sighted instead. I hope we have MVP hitters from the both sides and Cy Young pitchers not even born yet that come through the same park that can benefit from things that current players don't. 2) As has been pointed out early and late in this thread, the dimensions aren't all that ridiculous for the lefties (although the extended high wall could be considered extreme) or righties. I think the home-run scarcity is more of a, "We find out how it plays after it's built and it gets used" in most cases. And also no reason it can't or hasn't been a doubles/triples/singles park while playing big for homers.

 

That trend is definitely not your friend in terms of 50 years for TF. Refurbished Met Stadium didn't get much past 20. Most 60s, 70s and now, 80s parks have been or will be soon be replaced/significantly upgraded. Standard operating procedure for clubs that get new ballparks is to maximize the media and cultural attention by gearing the park towards the clubs' marketing strengths, not its weaknesses. For good reason, they want front end-payoff and let the out-years of the park's life take care of itself.

 

For all intents and purposes, the public statements of Kubel, Morneau, Mauer, et al, and the public's percepton, is that the park is unfair to lefties and the latter two guys led off every single commercial to the run-up n the marketing of the Target Field Experience- and it continues to this day. And the appearances are that the players aren't enjoying their "TF Experience".

[TheLeviathan]

I guess I don't see or understand how it is used as a crutch. I'm not trying to be difficult; I really don't see what you mean by that.

Nope it's cool. Jokin hit on it later in the thread - it's the organization pulling the trees, it's TR saying they are changing their draft style for the field, it's Dick, Bert, Coomer, Gladden, etc. all mentioning what a bad hitter's park it is every time they are broadcasting, and I could go on.

 

It sounds like validating an excuse. And it sounds like some Twins are buying into that excuse. As you rightly said - it seems like a lot of short-sighted complaints and unusually loud squawking to the press for it to sit right with me.

[TheLeviathan]

Quotes will never be what they seem and everyone draws their own conclusions from them. Hell we can't even quote each other properly... I really wasn't angry at you at any point... you never said that Ben Revere was a little weasel or baby or anything.

Quotes cannot be slant. A direct quote is not slant. Taking a quote, verbatim, and presenting it is not slant. You can't dismiss it. You can present counter-evidence. You can present further context. You can even present blood-intoxication results. But you can't dismiss the quote itself, only argue about interpretation. Hence why you were wrong to say:

 

Please go on and explain how his 101 PA in AAA and one extra base hit transformed him into the beautiful MLB swan today.

 

What I said numerous times was "he attributes" "he said" etc. You seem to believe that "quotes = interpretations" with no ability to discern one from the other. I'd just advise that you try, because you're being unnecessarily confrontational based on that fundamental misunderstanding.

 

Oh and when can we "Weasel Baby" us some Ben Revere word filter style?

[John Bonnes]

Okay, then I'll say it.

 

Ben Revere is a weasel baby.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1453[/ATTACH]

I laughed. I did. Out loud.

[John Bonnes]

With the way Plouffe and Willingham have been jerking home runs to left field, it certainly isn't looking like a pitchers park. Players are starting to figure out how to hit at Target Field and that is making the offensive numbers show up.

I wonder if it's the players figuring it out or the organization. Adding two dead pull hitters (one via free agency) is looking brilliant this year. The "use the whole park" philosophy might be emphasized a little less throughout the organization given their home field.