Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Brock Beauchamp

Site Manager
  • Posts

    32,669
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    328

 Content Type 

Profiles

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Brock Beauchamp

  1. Yep, no worries. We can drop it. Ancient history anyway.
  2. Well, he never had a truly bad season unless you're counting the 16 innings during his injury-plagued 2007 season.
  3. I think Nunez is an insurance policy. Like you, I hope the leash is relatively short and if the Twins are presented better options, they shouldn't think too hard about releasing him and eating the money.
  4. Well, you're kinda proving my point for me. The human memory is selective and often irrational. In the case of Jesse Crain and his "straight fastball" that led to losses, he was 33-21 with Minnesota (I loathe using wins but you brought it up) and had an ERA+ of 128 during his time here. He wasn't a flashy pitcher (until his last couple of seasons with the Twins, anyway) but he got the job done year in and year out. His peripherals were pretty good. He didn't give up an inordinate number of hits, his HR/9 ratio was very good, he struck out a middling number of batters, and he didn't walk an inordinate number of batters. Stats like inherited runners contribute to more bias confirmation... It doesn't really tell you what happened. If a guy is routinely thrown out into a bad situation in the middle of an inning, his inherited runners percentage is going to reflect that... and it's not an indictment of the pitcher because almost any pitcher will give up runs in certain situations unless he's dealt a very lucky hand (eg. runner on third base, no outs with the heart of the lineup heading to the plate). Feel free to continue using the stat but you should also realize it doesn't really tell you anything unless the numbers are at either edge of the bell curve.
  5. I also enjoyed both Darkman and The Phantom for their schlockiness.
  6. AFAIK, that factory is *only* for battery production. I don't believe they actually build cars at that location, though I could be wrong. Also, I don't know if that $7.5b is based on expected average sale price or a flat $35k. Obviously, many of those Model 3 preorders will be considerably more expensive than $35k once various luxury packages are added to the purchases.
  7. The factory is insane. It's going to have one of the largest footprints of any building in the world. http://i1.wp.com/evobsession.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/How-Big-is-the-Tesla-Gigafactory.png?w=1512
  8. Tesla preorders are up to $7.5b in less than 24 hours. At this point, I'm beginning to question how on earth they will deliver in these numbers.
  9. Yeah, I was short on cash when they tanked a few months ago... Pretty irritated that market crash happened at the wrong time for me. I wanted to invest heavily in several stocks. Tesla's Model 3 preorders from yesterday alone were worth ~$5b in future sales. Yowza.
  10. Actually, no. Tesla's big leg up right now is the Gigafactory. They're planning to cut battery costs by 30% once that factory is up and running (probably later this year, early 2017 at the latest). It will be the largest battery producer in the world and no one else is close. It will take years for another manufacturer to catch up to Tesla in what is the most expensive and cumbersome aspect of electric vehicles. A company like VW can surely undercut Tesla here and there in aspects of general vehicle production but it won't erase the gap from 30% cheaper batteries.
  11. 1) Eh, the White Sox comparison is flawed because the Sox had a few good players, a bunch of bad players, and no depth in the minors. The Twins are stacked with mediocre-to-good depth. That means - barring catastrophic injuries/underperformance from a large segment of the roster - two or three breakout players means they're a good team overall. That was my point. 2) I suppose that's fair but predicting a RotY implies a quality performance, which loops me back around to the first point. I simply do not see a reasonable projection where Buxton/Park/Sano thrive and the Twins are a bad team. They have too many pitchers, too many high minors replacements, and too many solid vets for several young players to thrive and the team to finish in last place.
  12. Another good number. I'm a bit more confident in the over than I was with Cleveland, but not by much.
  13. I've read tens of thousands of comics and even I'm fighting comic book movie fatigue.
  14. You just explained why you shouldn't be surprised. Yeah, if everything breaks right with Detroit and they get solid, full seasons out of a half dozen guys well on the wrong side of 30, they might be good. The chances of that happening are pretty slim. It's possible but not likely enough to put them in front of younger teams with more depth.
  15. It really shows how much thought, or lack thereof, goes into these predictions. Here are the three people who picked the Twins to finish last: Keri: Fifth place finish, Park RotY, Sano HR champ Anderson: Fifth place finish, no Twins leaders... Hey, this one is actually consistent Snyder: Fifth place finish, Buxton RotY Is there any reasonable scenario where Park is the RotY, Sano is the HR champ, and the Twins finish last in the division? While slightly less absurd, is there any reasonable scenario where the Twins finish last while Buxton - of all people, maybe the most crucial breakout hope of the team - wins the RotY? It's just soooooo unlikely to happen. A RotY prediction is essentially saying "this player is worth 3-4 wins on his own" or, in the case of Buxton and his defense, probably a 5+ win player. A Sano HR champ prediction is essentially saying "this guy is pretty easily a 4-6 win player". Keri is predicting two breakout players to be worth something approaching ten wins, yet picks the Twins last in the division. Cognitive dissonance, anyone? Yeah, if all the Twins falter, maybe they finish fifth in a close division... But if one of the young players breaks out big, it's highly unlikely the Twins finish last because they have several solid performers up and down the roster and a ton of depth, maybe more depth than any other team in baseball. Yeah, the depth isn't always of the highest quality but it's depth and most of it has quite a bit of potential.
  16. Sure, if a reliever consistently has a low run scored percentage, he's probably a good reliever... But there are a half dozen stats that better tell us he's a good reliever long before inherited runners gets enough data points to become relevant. Again, the problem with inherited runners are many fold: 1. Reliever use: it's not in the pitcher's control. Some relievers just don't come in very often with runners on base (eg. your average closer). 2. Game situation: is the game 4-3 or 9-2? Does it matter whether the reliever allows one run to score in a bases loaded situation or is it kind of irrelevant? 3. Runner situation: if a manager leans on a reliever abnormally often in "really bad" situations (ie. bases loaded, no outs) versus another manager leaning on a reliever infrequently (ie. runner on first, two outs), that's going to wildly skew the results, especially in the relatively small sample size a reliever sees over the course of one season (anywhere between 50-70 innings). Inherited runners are a lot like pitcher wins. If a pitcher is really bad or really good at preventing/allowing runs, that's an indication of pitcher quality... But everything in between is noise. Any stat that treats the following two situations the same: 1. No outs, Escobar on third, Buxton on second, Dozier at the plate and the Twins are up by seven runs and 2. Two outs, Sano on second, Plouffe on first, Arcia at the plate against a left-handed pitcher and the Twins are down by one run Is so broken as to be almost entirely useless.
  17. Except for the part where Trevor Plouffe is actually good at playing third base. The guy derives much of his value from gloving at the hot corner. Move him to the OF and he's a mediocre bat with subpar defense. ...Which renders him a pretty bad player overall and not worth much... And we've circled right back to square one.
  18. Yeah, missed the earlier posts. I tuned out of this thread a few days ago and missed a bunch of stuff.
  19. Wow, she's way older than I thought. I had her pegged in her mid to late 50s... She's 66 years old. So yeah.
  20. I think she's a bad presidential candidate today but I think she could be turned into a good candidate with more experience... That's why I'd like to see her as a VP candidate. She's certainly smart enough to handle the other stuff, she just needs more hands-on time with it.
  21. I'm not singling you out here but I want to make a point at large: Using Spring Training innings to prove/disprove a decision is... well, dumb. The Twins aren't basing a decision in Spring Training over four innings... But they are basing a decision on those four innings, a multitude of side sessions, practices, and other things we don't get to see (well, most of us, anyway). Maybe the Twins held down Berrios because of service time (but that's something they overlook whenever they feel like it so it's not really a defensible position to take)... but what's more likely is they got their coaches together after watching Berrios throw for several weeks and decided he could use some time in the minors. I doubt the four innings had much of an impact, if it had any impact at all. There's a lot to Spring Training we don't get to see as fans and we shouldn't assume the team is basing their decisions on the stats we can quantify in a box score.
  22. I agree but she'd make one hell of a VP. Give her 4-8 years in the second chair and she might be ready for the big chair. But I think the chances of Hillary nominating a woman as VP is somewhere around -3% because reasons. Man, I just can't stand Hillary.
  23. I liked the human aspect of him in the movie - the best Superman is usually humanized a bit - but "no joy" Superman bugs the **** out of me. He's DC's Captain America: he's the best in us, a shining beacon of hope. Take that away and he's no longer Superman. That's my problem with Snyder's Superman... He's not actually Superman. He's just a dude who kinda looks like Superman with the color saturation turned waaaaayyy down. Superman smiled once in the film. It's right before he smashed a terrorist through a wall and killed him. That's not ****ing Superman.
  24. I'm abstaining from this one. I wouldn't bet on the Indians at 84.5, as that's right where I'd put them this season. If I had a gun to my head... argh... Over? Probably over.
×
×
  • Create New...