Fangraphs: Q&A Glen Perkins

[snepp]

[h=2]Q&A: Glen Perkins, A Twin, His FIP, and Math[/h] by David Laurila - May 9, 2013

[Nick Nelson]

This was a great read. Perk has an astute understanding of advanced pitching statistics. It's cool to have a guy like him on this team because he really breaks the traditional mold.

[edavis0308]

Great read. Any interview involving Perkins is worth the time.

[snepp]

Methinks Perk could probably teach the front office a thing or two.

[DaveW]

Perkins is awesome and one of my favorite Twins, I hope he sticks around long term even if it means overpaying for "Saves" a bit.

 

The guy was in the doghouse and re-established himself as one of the better closers in the league, because he had the right attitude/perseverance he is going to carve out a nice little career and several nice paychecks because of that. Kevin Slowey should have taken note.

On being 7-for-7 in save opportunities: “Do I particularly agree with closers in baseball? That’s a tough question that I ask myself. But it’s my job, and when I go out there to do that job, saves are the most important thing to me. If I throw a quality inning, that’s the result I should get.”

[drjim]

It was aa good read but my big takeaway is that advanced pitching numbers quantify what is and always has been obvious.

 

More strikeouts and groundballs, less walks and home runs. Truly groundbreaking stuff.

[ashbury]

Methinks Perk could probably teach the front office a thing or two.

 

Unlike most players, Perkins's post-playing future might *be* in the front office.

 

How in the world was a player who speaks like I do - "just by default" - "it's a small sample" - "at whatever point that stabilizes" - not flushed from this team's farm system early on, on the grounds of "not a good game face" or "bad make-up". It's one thing to acknowledge that good results might regress, but I'd love to see the look on a coach's face the time a player tries to laugh off a bad result with a guess that he'll regress to better results next time.

[ashbury]

It was aa good read but my big takeaway is that advanced pitching numbers quantify what is and always has been obvious.

 

More strikeouts and groundballs, less walks and home runs. Truly groundbreaking stuff.

 

‘First a new theory is attacked as absurd; then it is admitted to be true, but obvious and insignificant; finally it is seen to be so important that its adversaries claim they themselves discovered it.’

 

— William James

[drjim]

Oh I am quite familiar with the work of William James.