Yahoo: Mike Pelfrey Defended

[twinsfaninsaudi]

When Hughes signed there was all this talk about getting him in his prime years and the potential for him to out perform his contract because of that, he'll turn 28 next year.

 

Pelfrey signed a lesser contract and will be 29 next season. He's in his prime years also. That's why I like his signing over Arroyo.

[old nurse]

4.48/1065innings/607Ks/1.45 WHIP, and a good club house guy

or would you rather have

4.14/963 In/776Ks/1.23 WHIP?

 

With a poor ofense it might not matter between those two pitchers. Plenty other statistics would also be missing to make a determination of which pitcher would be prefereable. One would certainly hope that a GM other than Moore would make decisions based on a few statistics.

There is a difference of 100 innings there. If those missing innings were starts and you had to start a PJ Walters then the statistics would favor Pelfrey. Your team would be better off.

[thetank]

I would not compare apples:

 

 

to oranges

 

 

 

As far as winning goes.

 

 

And the different results of these 2 groupings make this false:

 

 

 

To go from being a competitive team for 4 seasons with one and outs in the post-season to wining 2 World Series in 4 seasons, apparently you need more than talent.

 

in 1987 and 1991, the Twins did not have the AL Cy Young and AL MVP play in the same team. In 2006 they did. Arguably, the 2006 team was more talented than either of the World Series teams. Why did they not win? Not because of talent it seems...

 

Heart, Chemistry and Desire to win are huge as well...

 

Or find me another explanation about the postseason Gardenhire loser teams, which does not involve "luck", "dice" or "the Yankees".

 

I am all ears.

I would argue that the Twins won in 1987 because their division was so bad. Then they won 2 post-season series. The worse record on the road ever for a WS champion. After the fact you could say they had chemistry.

 

The Twins should have made it to 1 WS this past decade.

[Major League Ready]

I have no real expertise in team chemistry. I have to admit to assuming I could offer some insight on chemistry based on corporate leadership and consulting experience. This is a phenomenally complex topic. It would require considerable expertise in both areas to be qualified to compare and contrast the two.

 

Chemistry gets brought up a lot in interviews with managers. And, there are a lot of well respected managers, (MLB) and coaches (NBA) that seem to think team chemistry is a relevent issue. Somehow the measuring stick became the "primary measure". The internet is a poor medium and a contributing factor to a decision somehow becomes the only consideration. Of course, I am exaggerating a bit for effect.

 

I have to admit to assuming based interviews with managers there were similarities to the impact of culture on corporate performance and team chemistry. Somewhere there must be a former MLB player who went to have corporate success that could provide an opinion. The rest of us are not really qualified. I know a former NFL player that fits this profile. I will ask his opinion but it seems that the NFL and MLB are sufficiently different that we should not draw that parallel.

[Marta Shearing]

Knoblauch never played with Gaetti.

[OldTwinky]

Constantly we hear this tripe in MN sports. I swear being "a good guy" is enough to get you millions of dollars playing for ANY of the professional sports teams. Here's a little wake up call SUPREME TALENT wins not SUPREME CHEMISTRY. Besides if you're team has a strong leader even "bad apples" will fall in line.