Okay, this is going to be my last post on the subject. Again, he said this: "I don't know what the Twins have done to him, but it's not great." I am not interpreting his words to mean what I want them to mean. The strict definition of his words imply the Twins did something wrong. There's literally no other way to interpret those 14 words. That's what they mean. If that wasn't the writer's intent - and maybe it wasn't - then he's the one at fault for not properly using the English-freaking-language. If regression was his intent, then he should have used the word "regression". You're the one implying intent, spycake. There's not even a hint of a suggestion a regression to the mean is involved, a statement I actually would have shrugged and and said "yeah, that's entirely possible". It's super-weird to me that I'm using a strict definition of his words and I'm the one being accused of twisting intent and injecting personal bias whereas you just brought up something that wasn't even implied, not even a little bit. If you want to argue that the comment was entertaining snark, I get it. I disagree with the comment but different things appeal to different people. I can dislike the comment, you can think it's fine. But you can't accuse me of personal bias and then defend it by injecting a bunch of stuff into the statement that he simply did not say.