White Sox 12, Twins 3: Woof.

[T.O.]

28 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

I think it's mostly that you're a grownup now and it's really hard to "look up to" a 25-year-old when you're over 50.

I'd say that Pablo Lopez and Byron Buxton are just as worthy of admiration as Jim Kaat and Tony Oliva. Joe Mauer hasn't done anything to tarnish his hometown hero reputation.

 

I think it's mostly that you're a grownup now and it's really hard to "look up to" a 25-year-old when you're over 50.
Definitely not that. Clearly it's easier idolize players of the past remembering mostly the good parts. I'm doing that. It's easy to forget that Tony O was laid up with knee problems repeatedly. But also he played through a lot of that. By today's standards that doesn't make sense but at the same time it was easy to admire. Back in that time the salaries were ridiculously low the owners did not have the players welfare as a priority. Players were expected to put out more. Today salaries seem ridiculously high. Players are probably seen more as financial assets than humans by the owners. Some players can sign long term high $ contracts and still perform at their top level (Judge, Ohtani) but so many struggle living up the expectations of their contracts.
Not questioning the character of the players you name. Lopez is clearly a leader and has gone a long way to be a part of the community. He had a really good year in 23. He struggled since then.  His maturity is evident. I admire how he can get himself in a jam and get himself out where others would fall apart. Still he was not great in 24. I often wonder what the effect of having so many "Pablo Days" has. I would think the pressure would be enormous. The way teams market the stardom or intended stardom of players can be shameful. Look at what the Twins did to hype Lewis. 
 

My comment was mostly focused on the past few years. I wasn't thinking of people like Mauer.

I don't think things were great back in the day and awful now. But things are very different. Sometimes changes are both good and bad.

 

[Mike Sixel]

Once guy I'm certain is a MLB player in the lineup, one guy I think is, two utility guys, and the rest. It's hard to field that bad a lineup. 

[Edmond Dantes]

29 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

It's less that. It's the same reason no TV show will ever rival the ratings of MASH ever again. Or why the singular blockbuster of 2025 is no longer as culturally relevant as Gone With The Wind or Star Wars. 

It's not that TV is worse, or movies are worse, and definitely isn't that baseball is worse. 

There's a constant stream of entertainment into anyone's brain at a moment's notice. The players today are better than those of yesteryear, but baseball, and sports, no longer has a monopoly on attention. Mr Beast is more popular with kids than Bobby Witt Jr, even though Witt is better than most of the stars you looked up to as a kid. 

 

I would be very surprised if anyone who grew up watching baseball in the 70s, 80s, or 90s would agree that baseball isn't worse now, or that baseball players are better now. 

[D.C Twins]

2 hours ago, terrydactyls said:

As depressed as many of you are, here is an uplifting reminder of good things that might be coming.

P	Team	W	L	PCT	GB
1	Chicago White Sox	51	88	0.367	-
2	Pittsburgh Pirates	62	77	0.446	11.0
3	Atlanta Braves	62	77	0.446	11.0
4	Minnesota Twins	62	76	0.449	11.5
5	Baltimore Orioles	63	76	0.453	12.0
6	Whatever Athletics	64	76	0.457	12.5
8	Miami Marlins	65	74	0.468	14.0
7	Los Angeles Angels	65	73	0.471	14.5
11	St. Louis Cardinals	69	71	0.493	17.5
10	Arizona Diamondbacks	69	71	0.493	17.5
9	Cleveland Guardians	68	69	0.496	18.0
13	Tampa Bay Rays	69	69	0.500	18.5
12	San Francisco Giants	70	69	0.504	19.0
14	Texas Rangers	72	68	0.514	20.5

We GOT this!

[D.C Twins]

2 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

I said last night Davis might be the worst pitcher I’ve seen wearing a Twins uniform in 15 years. It’s actually worse than that. 

I assumed he remembered to specifically check Ron Davis' stats before making this conclusion right?!

[RpR]

11 hours ago, Fatbat said:

But is he coachable?

He runs he bases the way Gomez fielded balls.

[DJL44]

21 minutes ago, Edmond Dantes said:

I would be very surprised if anyone who grew up watching baseball in the 70s, 80s, or 90s would agree that baseball isn't worse now, or that baseball players are better now. 

The worst players are definitely better now. The worst pitchers throw in the mid-90s with nasty breaking pitches, not 88 with a mediocre curveball. The White Sox hitters lit up Hatch yesterday and he would have been a bullpen regular in the 80s.

The games are less interesting - batting averages are down, strikeouts are high, and defense is not as consistent (no turf, players selected for bat first).

[RpR]

3 hours ago, Whitey333 said:

Interesting lineup on Tuesday.  We had Jeffers, Julian, Keaschall,  and Lewis as regular starters riding the bench.  4 regulars out at the same time??  What's with that?  Anyway it was a typical post trade deadline game.  Both Falvey and Rocco need to go at end of season but I doubt it will happen.  Smallest September crowd at Target Field ever.  11, 721.  Looked like half that in the stands.  But it's ok this is the new Twins Way.

With the possible exception of Keaschall (whose glove is not inspiring)  it would not have made a difference.   

Run-at-will Jeffers is a not good catcher, Lewis is not a good 3rd baseman (although he has improved), Julien , a regular, God help us.

[NYCTK]

53 minutes ago, Edmond Dantes said:

I would be very surprised if anyone who grew up watching baseball in the 70s, 80s, or 90s would agree that baseball isn't worse now, or that baseball players are better now. 

Well, those people are just wrong. 

[NYCTK]

23 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

The worst players are definitely better now. The worst pitchers throw in the mid-90s with nasty breaking pitches, not 88 with a mediocre curveball. The White Sox hitters lit up Hatch yesterday and he would have been a bullpen regular in the 80s.

The games are less interesting - batting averages are down, strikeouts are high, and defense is not as consistent (no turf, players selected for bat first).

Are games less interesting? Depends on what you're looking for but like you mentioned, the game used to be played on glorified painted concrete.

And for everyone lamenting how MLB is dying, attendance is about 2x as high in 2025 than it was in 1975 too. 

I'll take 2025 MLB over 1975 MLB every day of the week. 

[Parfigliano]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

Once guy I'm certain is a MLB player in the lineup, one guy I think is, two utility guys, and the rest. It's hard to field that bad a lineup. 

Not hard.  TC does it daily.

[MinnInPa]

just let this sink in ..Twins have been getting shellacked by the team with the worst record in baseball ....another great performance by wallner..3 K's .. the future should not include this kid. next year will not be good unless Owners pony up for a closer..and a high cost free agent all star caliber player. The Martins, Juliens, Mirandas, Larnachs, Kiersey,  and Wallners will not be players to put up a playoff caliber team. I'd rather see them bring up Jenkins, Culpepper, Fedco to pair w Lee and Keaschall and see what they could do next year. we've seen enough of the previously mentioned to know they will never help

[Edmond Dantes]

1 hour ago, NYCTK said:

Well, those people are just wrong. 

Just curious, did you see baseball before 2000? What about today's game do you think is better?

[Edmond Dantes]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

The worst players are definitely better now. The worst pitchers throw in the mid-90s with nasty breaking pitches, not 88 with a mediocre curveball. The White Sox hitters lit up Hatch yesterday and he would have been a bullpen regular in the 80s.

The games are less interesting - batting averages are down, strikeouts are high, and defense is not as consistent (no turf, players selected for bat first).

I am always confused when people think MPH equals good pitcher or exit velocity equals good hitter. By that rationale, shouldn't Festa and Matthews have ERAs below three, instead of above five? Greg Maddox was pretty good; how hard did he throw? Shouldn't Wallner be hitting better than .200? 

[DJL44]

26 minutes ago, Edmond Dantes said:

Just curious, did you see baseball before 2000? What about today's game do you think is better?

I wouldn't say the game is better, just different. The pitching and hitting are both better now. The spread in performance between the best and worst players has shrunk. Based on available talent, we're overdue for expansion.

[DJL44]

5 minutes ago, Edmond Dantes said:

I am always confused when people think MPH equals good pitcher or exit velocity equals good hitter. By that rationale, shouldn't Festa and Matthews have ERAs below three, instead of above five? Greg Maddox was pretty good; how hard did he throw? Shouldn't Wallner be hitting better than .200? 

You're not very good at "rationale".

MPH obviously matters. Every batter will tell you it matters. There is a reason batting average leaguewide has dropped 20 points since the 90s. Strikeouts are WAY up. The only thing keeping us from a deadball era is batters are hitting for more power, maintaining the power spike of the juiced-up 90s. If players weren't hitting for power, we would see an offensive environment like the 1968 "year of the pitcher".

[Woof Bronzer]

10 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

If players weren't hitting for power, we would see an offensive environment like the 1968 "year of the pitcher".

Interesting point to make when the best team in baseball is 19th in home runs.  But yeah, no need to let facts get in the way of sabermetric conventional wisdom.  

[NYCTK]

58 minutes ago, Edmond Dantes said:

Just curious, did you see baseball before 2000? What about today's game do you think is better?

I'm more so saying, objectively, the players are better. 

As an opinion, I just think this game is better in addition. Part of that is the fact that the ballparks are better too, which is again objectively true. 

[Edmond Dantes]

12 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

You're not very good at "rationale".

MPH obviously matters. Every batter will tell you it matters. There is a reason batting average leaguewide has dropped 20 points since the 90s. Strikeouts are WAY up. The only thing keeping us from a deadball era is batters are hitting for more power, maintaining the power spike of the juiced-up 90s. If players weren't hitting for power, we would see an offensive environment like the 1968 "year of the pitcher".

Yeah, you are clearly the bright one. This isn't fantasy baseball fella. No one cares how many strikeouts a pitcher has if his ERA is 4.5+. Let's make it real simple for you, my man? What were the league ERA averages in the 80s and 90s? What is it today? If the average ERA is higher, and you already admitted the BA has dropped by 20, how is baseball better today if both the pitchers and hitters are worse? 

[NYCTK]

5 minutes ago, Edmond Dantes said:

Yeah, you are clearly the bright one. This isn't fantasy baseball fella. No one cares how many strikeouts a pitcher has if his ERA is 4.5+. Let's make it real simple for you, my man? What were the league ERA averages in the 80s and 90s? What is it today? If the average ERA is higher, and you already admitted the BA has dropped by 20, how is baseball better today if both the pitchers and hitters are worse? 

Only baseball fans could ever think that current talent doesn't come close to talent from 50 years ago. 

Propose that about any other sport and everyone will laugh at you. Take the NBA, I'm sure Bob McAdoo was a good player, but put him in the league in 2025 and we'd all laugh at how outmatched he was. Same goes with Fran Tarkenton. But baseball fans will convince themselves that Jim Palmer would still be the best pitcher in the sport if he were teleported to 2025. 

[DJL44]

1 minute ago, Edmond Dantes said:

Yeah, you are clearly the bright one. This isn't fantasy baseball fella. No one cares how many strikeouts a pitcher has if his ERA is 4.5+. Let's make it real simple for you, my man? What were the league ERA averages in the 80s and 90s? What is it today? If the average ERA is higher, and you already admitted the BA has dropped by 20, how is baseball better today if both the pitchers and hitters are worse? 

Simple seems to be the only thing you can understand, The pitchers and hitters are BOTH better now, specifically the worst players have been gradually improving. ERA measures run environment, not talent. This seems to be too nuanced and complicated of a subject for you to grasp.

18 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

the best team in baseball is 19th in home runs

And 12th in total bases. The Brewers have above-average power. They're also 5th in walks. They're not a contradiction to sabermetrics, they're a shining example of how OBP and SLG matter.

[Edmond Dantes]

2 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Simple seems to be the only thing you can understand, The pitchers and hitters are BOTH better now, specifically the worst players have been gradually improving. ERA measures run environment, not talent. This seems to be too nuanced and complicated of a subject for you to grasp.

And 12th in total bases. The Brewers have above-average power. They're also 5th in walks. They're not a contradiction to sabermetrics, they're a shining example of how OBP and SLG matter.

By what measurement genius? Not ERA. Not batting average. By your opinion. How did you free yourself from the straight jacket to type that nonsense.

[DJL44]

4 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

Only baseball fans could ever think that current talent doesn't come close to talent from 50 years ago. 

Propose that about any other sport and everyone will laugh at you. Take the NBA, I'm sure Bob McAdoo was a good player, but put him in the league in 2025 and we'd all laugh at how outmatched he was. Same goes with Fran Tarkenton. But baseball fans will convince themselves that Jim Palmer would still be the best pitcher in the sport if he were teleported to 2025. 

I think the top talent from any time after integration would hold their own today. Jim Palmer would still be a good pitcher. Bob McAdoo could still play. Neither would be as good relative to their peers unless they also took advantage of the improvements in training. The bottom talent from the 1970s and 1980s might never get past AAA. There are more people competing for spots now, including all of Japan.

[DJL44]

6 minutes ago, Edmond Dantes said:

By what measurement genius? Not ERA. Not batting average. By your opinion. How did you free yourself from the straight jacket to type that nonsense.

By standard deviations in talent. The spread in talent has narrowed. The top players are not as big of outliers as before. Players can't sustain All-Star level performance for as long as they used to. Careers are starting later and ending earlier. This is what happens when you measure the top 1000 people on the right-hand side of a bell curve and the population increases.

[DJL44]

36 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

As an opinion, I just think this game is better in addition. Part of that is the fact that the ballparks are better too, which is again objectively true. 

The ballparks are SO MUCH BETTER. The TV experience is also better. The radio announcers are worse.

[USAFChief]

25 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

I think the top talent from any time after integration would hold their own today. Jim Palmer would still be a good pitcher. 

Yup.

Jim Palmer would be an all star. 

But likely not a future HOFer because he'd be asked to do so much less.

[NYCTK]

Just now, USAFChief said:

Yup.

Jim Palmer would be an all star. 

But likely not a future HOFer because he'd be asked to do so much less.

Mostly because current hitters are so much better (and the strike zone tightened up) that he'd have to labor so much more to get through those same starts. 

 

[The Great Hambino]

29 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Yup.

Jim Palmer would be an all star. 

But likely not a future HOFer because he'd be asked to do so much less.

You think so?  Guys ultimately get measured against their era.  Standards change, thresholds change as the game changes.  It's not like they've stopped electing pitchers to the Hall.  Sabathia just got in first ballot, and I'd consider him to be an average HOFer (not that there's anything wrong with that)

Every once in a while someone falls through the cracks because the standards hadn't adjusted yet (like what happened to Johan, or what will happen to deGrom), but that's what the old timers committees are for

[USAFChief]

56 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

Mostly because current hitters are so much better (and the strike zone tightened up) that he'd have to labor so much more to get through those same starts. 

 

Current hitters aren't "so much better."

And Palmer would have the same training and data used to increase velocity today that others do. He was tremendous because he could pitch. He'd have the same ability today.

He just wouldn't get to pitch as much. Modern baseball theory is hopelessly lost in many respects. "Pitchers cant be allowed to pitch" is one example. 

[USAFChief]

25 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

You think so?  Guys ultimately get measured against their era.  Standards change, thresholds change as the game changes.  It's not like they've stopped electing pitchers to the Hall.  Sabathia just got in first ballot, and I'd consider him to be an average HOFer (not that there's anything wrong with that)

Every once in a while someone falls through the cracks because the standards hadn't adjusted yet (like what happened to Johan, or what will happen to deGrom), but that's what the old timers committees are for

Maybe. No way he gets 268 Ws though.

Maybe HOF standards will change. I guess they almost have to.