Miami Kryptonite?

[FanFromAffar]

The Marlins lose to everyone this year...except the Twins. Is it because of some kind of Twins kryptonite they've found on us? It's not because "the Twins stink" because they don't. This is a team that has beaten clubs that are much better than the Marlins so what is about Miami? I went back and looked and it seems like Giancarlo Stanton and Rob Brantly bothed played notable roles in the Twins defeat on April 23 and in last nights defeat. Are Brantly and Stanton the Twins kryptonite? or do the Marlins simply posses something like a piece of the last ball to strike out a Washington Senator before the team moved to MN?

 

More importantly what can we learn from Brantly and Stanton? is it a pitching style that they benefit from?

[Benchwarmerjim]

it might be an NL East thing because the Twins are only 4-10 against that division this year

[Badsmerf]

Or the Twins are 1-2 against them on the season....

[Thrylos]

It's not because "the Twins stink" because they don't.

 

Are you sure about that?

[silverslugger]

Aaron Gleeman noted in his blog on Tuesday that the Twins basically stink against everyone other than the White Sox and Brewers. So, it may not be just a Marlins thing.

 

Also, was it just me or were the Miami pitchers benefitting from an extended strike zone yesterday? Disclaimer: I rarely look to blame the umps, especially those behind the plate because it is truly a difficult job.

[Mike Sixel]

I'd suggest it had something to do with the lineup the Twins put out, and the fact they faced a good pitcher......

[iastfan112]

1. SSS

2. Jose Fernandez is really good

3. Mike Pelfrey is really bad.

[Guest USAFChief]

It might be that

 

1) This is major league baseball, not the NFL. There are no prohibitive favorites in any one game, or series. Ever. The Miami Marlins will win 50 or more games this year.

 

2) These are the 2013 Minnesota Twins, not the 1927 Yankees.

[Riverbrian]

I'm gonna go with small sample size. It's a Multi purpose explanation that really works in a lot of cases.

 

For example:

 

Mayor: "Can someone explain what is going on... This was our city's 2nd rogue Kangaroo attack on one of our citizens in the past 5 Days... Do we have a Kangaroo problem"?

 

Zookeeper: "There is no Problem... We are talking a very small sample size here".

 

Restaurant Owner: "Hey Hey... Look at this... 2nd day on the menu and we just sold our first order of Steamed Rat... Let's set those traps nightly to make sure we don't run out of supply".

 

Head Chef: Umm... This would be a good time to consider sample size".

 

Girls I dated back when I used to Date: "Ohh Riverbrian... You are the best. I've never been with anyone like you"

 

Riverbrian: Yeah I know

[gunnarthor]

Aaron Gleeman noted in his blog on Tuesday that the Twins basically stink against everyone other than the White Sox and Brewers. So, it may not be just a Marlins thing.

 

That seems a bit harsh, they're 8-9 against Bal, Boston and Texas (with a positive run differential). That's not too bad. 20-20 outside the AL central. 33-34 against every team except KC.

[stringer bell]

Everybody plays just about everybody. The Twins were lucky to face the Angels when they were playing terrible. They were not lucky to play Toronto when they weren't playing well. Miami is playing better now and the Twins faced their best pitcher twice now.

[Winston Smith]

Gleeman never lets actual numbers get in the way of an opinion.

 

He said this; Twins are 10-2 against the White Sox and Brewers, 24-38 against the other teams. Actual, true statemant of fact!

[nicksaviking]

I think it's because this team has decided against carrying 3 catchers. It's the downfall of so many great clubs.

[Pius Jefferson]

He said this; Twins are 10-2 against the White Sox and Brewers, 24-38 against the other teams. Actual, true statemant of fact!

 

But, like gunnarthor said they are 8-9 against three playoff contending teams. I just think if you're saying the Twins have dominated two bad teams than nothing wrong with mentioning they've done okay against three good teams.

[Winston Smith]

But, like gunnarthor said they are 8-9 against three playoff contending teams. I just think if you're saying the Twins have dominated two bad teams than nothing wrong with mentioning they've done okay against three good teams.

Didn't say there was. You made it sound like AG was making stuff up to suit his point, what he said was true nothing more on my part.

[jokin]

He was cherry picking numbers. The counter is that you can do that a variety of ways to prove almost any point that you want to. Not exactly a shock Gleeman would do that.

 

A little work by Gleeman, with a slightly broader set of data would make a slightly more valid point.

 

Twins record vs. teams w/ a winning record: 16-26

Twins record vs. teams w/ a losing record: 18-14

 

The Twins are 1-5 this year against KC. Their next 4 games are with the Royals, followed by 14 straight games in 14 days with teams with winning records from the Eastern Division.

 

Let's revisit how the Twins are doing after they run this next gauntlet of 18 games going into the Break.

[gunnarthor]

What happened to drjim's post that read:

 

He was cherry picking numbers. The counter is that you can do that a variety of ways to prove almost any point that you want to. Not exactly a shock Gleeman would do that.

[gunnarthor]

Didn't say there was. You made it sound like AG was making stuff up to suit his point, what he said was true nothing more on my part.

 

I think the implication was that he seemed to be suggesting that the Twins are only as good as they are b/c they played the White Sox and Brewers and couldn't beat better teams. Reading his actual post at his cite, I think he was more celebrating that the Twins were beating up on those two teams then anything else.

[drjim]

What happened to drjim's post that read:

 

I didn't do anything to it...Too unfair to Gleeman?

[gunnarthor]

I didn't do anything to it...Too unfair to Gleeman?

 

I guess. I suppose you'll be banned now. Nice knowing you.

[Riverbrian]

I guess. I suppose you'll be banned now. Nice knowing you.

 

Gunarthor... Because you made fun of the process... You have been banned for 3 seconds.

 

The Banning started at Hour 20 Minute 29 and 13 Seconds.

It concluded at Hour 20 Minute 29 and 19 Seconds.

 

Your account has been credited for the extra 3 seconds served.

 

[LaBombo]

I suppose you'll be banned now.

No, the forum still has no rule against being wrong.

[ashbury]

What happened to drjim's post that read:

 

The deletion comment, a few posts above your question, reads:

 

This message has been deleted by ashburyjohn.

Reason

Final sentence was a personal attack, contrary to Comments Policy #1

 

 

I thought it would be self-explanatory. The TD Comments Policy is found at

http://twinsdaily.com/minnesota-twins-talk/5759-updated-comment-policy.html

 

The specific item is #1, "Personal attacks or insults". His first two sentences were fine, as a critique. The last sentence violates policy; I would also add the personal observation that the post actually reads better if this sentence had been omitted. But I'm not going to get into the business of editing people's posts for them.

[gunnarthor]

The deletion comment, a few posts above your question, reads:

 

This message has been deleted by ashburyjohn.

Reason

Final sentence was a personal attack, contrary to Comments Policy #1

 

 

I thought it would be self-explanatory. The TD Comments Policy is found at

http://twinsdaily.com/minnesota-twins-talk/5759-updated-comment-policy.html

 

The specific item is #1, "Personal attacks or insults". His first two sentences were fine, as a critique. The last sentence violates policy; I would also add the personal observation that the post actually reads better if this sentence had been omitted. But I'm not going to get into the business of editing people's posts for them.

 

"Not exactly a shock Gleeman would do that." violates TD policy? It's not an attack on another poster but rather an attack on the credibility of a twins based writer. I assume all attacks on Souhan being a hack are off limits, too? Or Reusse being negative?

[drjim]

"Not exactly a shock Gleeman would do that." violates TD policy? It's not an attack on another poster but rather an attack on the credibility of a twins based writer. I assume all attacks on Souhan being a hack are off limits, too? Or Reusse being negative?

 

I don't especially care, and perhaps it was poorly written, but I thought it was a critique on his writing style and the way he forms articles, not an attack on him personally.

[ashbury]

"Not exactly a shock Gleeman would do that." violates TD policy?

 

Yes. Move on.

 

I assume all attacks on Souhan being a hack are off limits, too? Or Reusse being negative?

 

I don't care if other attacks have gone without intervention; it's been 15 years since my youngest child was 5 years old and used that kind of rebuttal.

[drjim]

Yes. Move on.

 

For future reference, what would have been appropriate there? Or is there no appropriate way to critique a public writer's style or content?

[gunnarthor]

Yes. Move on.

 

 

 

I don't care if other attacks have gone without intervention; it's been 15 years since my youngest child was 5 years old and used that kind of rebuttal.

 

What rebuttal? I'm honestly trying to figure out where the limits are. Frankly your last sentence seems to be more insulting than anything drjim posted and it was directed at a poster.

[silverslugger]

Aaron Gleeman noted in his blog on Tuesday that the Twins basically stink against everyone other than the White Sox and Brewers. So, it may not be just a Marlins thing.

 

I'll accept some blame for putting words in Gleeman's mouth that weren't there. He posted stats (w-l record) on his blog for the Twins versus other teams. I do believe I was correct in assuming he was implying that he Twins have stunk against everyone other than the pale hose and the Brewers. Obviously, they haven't. They definitely have stunk it up when playing the vaunted Marlins though. Just glad we're done with them! Good Riddance!

[John Bonnes]

What rebuttal? I'm honestly trying to figure out where the limits are. Frankly your last sentence seems to be more insulting than anything drjim posted and it was directed at a poster.

 

I'll reply to this honest question, just so we're clear. I'm often asked by people who have been banned or whose posts have been deleted "I just want to know where the line is." Or "I just want to know what the limits are." Here is the answer:

 

We are working in a very nebulous and dynamic environment. We are figuring out our policy for maintaining civil discussion as we go along. There are five moderators with different opinions. Every time each of those moderators checks in, they're in a different state of mind. And finally, we all have limits to the time we can donate to these forums.

 

So there is no line. There is no limit. There are a lot of them, and they're always changing and that's the way it has to be. So just stay the hell away from it.

 

And frankly, that shouldn't be so hard. In fact, I can objectively PROVE it isn't that hard. Here you go:

- We have 2757 users right now on Twins Daily.

- Every day, we have about 300 active posters.

- We keep needing to delete stuff or warn about 5 to 10 members.

 

When about 97% or our community can consistently stay away from the line, I'm confident that the other 3% can figure out a way to, too.

 

And if you are unfairly penalized - deal with it like a grown up. Re-do your deleted post in a more civil manner so you can still make the point. Sit out of the forum for three days (or seven days) and just read things. Maybe see how others stay away from the line. Or enjoy another site. Or do something else. You'll live.

 

Let me share one last thing. I've talked to several people who run national sites much bigger that TD and here's how they do things - they see a post that makes them think they probably don't want that guy on the board and they just block the IP address. They do not think twice about it. No deleted post. No warning. No temporary ban. This is common, because they just don't have the time (or, frankly, the incentive) to rehabilitate anyone who looks like a moron.

 

When they told me that a year ago, I was aghast. It seemed arbitrary and unfair. Now, with as much time as I find having to moderate or explain the process of moderation to others, I'm a lot more sympathetic. To be exceptionally candid, my life would be a lot easier with permanent bans on about seven members. And as stretched as we are right now with time, that might be enough reason. That might be the new line.

 

Again - this isn't that hard. Be civil. Leave your ego out of it. Don't try to "win". Stay away from the line.