Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Nine of twelve

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6,784

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Nine of twelve

  1. Nine of twelve
    I respectfully disagree. Teams didn't shift Arraez so as a batter he'll be facing the same fielding positioning in 2023 that he did in 2022. If anything the new anti-shift rule will probably work against him because range will be significantly more important for infielders, especially second basemen, and that's one of his shortcomings.
  2. Nine of twelve
    Yep. Although it's much more likely to happen to a player who is 38 years old than, say, one who is 25 years old.
  3. Nine of twelve
    I suspect it would have taken more than a bit more to get one of the other pitchers.
  4. Nine of twelve
    A bit of arcane trivia--the Twins of about 1964-65 occasionally played a "glass infield", with all four players wearing glasses: Mincher, Frank Kostro, Zoilo Versalles, and Rich Rollins.
  5. Nine of twelve
    I get frustrated every time I see "Arreaz". One of the things I like best about this trade that I won't be seeing that as much in the future. Now if I can just get through the next few days...
  6. Nine of twelve
    Probably Dobnak, 2 years ago.
  7. Nine of twelve
    Marlins would have said no.
  8. Nine of twelve
    I love Patrick's writing and baseball knowledge but everyone throws a clunker or two.
  9. Nine of twelve
    I'll reserve judgement until 10 years from now so we can find out what happens to all four players involved.
  10. Nine of twelve
    Then you must not have been reading these forums for the last couple weeks.
  11. Nine of twelve
    I'll disagree. There's a team in New England that has more financial resources than the Twins and a gaping hole at shortstop. If Correa wanted to play there I'm sure Boras would have involved them, but their absence in the pursuit of Correa was conspicuous. My take on that is that Correa wanted nothing to do with playing for their manager based on previous interactions and that this was communicated to the team very early on. I think if Correa had expressed interest that their offer would have been higher than what he signed for with the Twins.
  12. Nine of twelve
    Yes. On a major league team the player who is the least skilled at fielding almost always plays LF. (See Young, Delmon and Willingham, Josh.) If the player has a strong arm then RF is OK.
  13. Nine of twelve
    Thanks for this reminder. Now that I'm retired it will be much easier to get to day games. I am now in possession of tickets for the home opener!
  14. Nine of twelve
    I agree that locking up good young talent early in the process is the best thing for a team to do. The key is to success in this specific matter is the same thing that is the key to success in general: accurate player evaluation (in other words scouting) and effective player development. Do those things well and you'll have a continuous pipeline of emerging stars with little to no need for free agents.
  15. Nine of twelve
    I still think a standard uniform strike zone in professional baseball is the way to go once an automated system is in use from the major leagues all the way down through rookie ball. I certainly realize that this position is not universally held and never will be but I have enjoyed the spirited discussion and I want to thank everyone who participated.
  16. Nine of twelve
    Point well taken, although I think any baseball player capable of playing professional baseball will have the ability to adapt to a different zone.
  17. Nine of twelve
    If you are going to bring up the topic of rules no longer in effect you should at least be complete. From the rules of that time: "Should the pitcher repeatedly fail to deliver to the striker fair balls, for the apparent purpose of delaying the game, or for any other cause, the umpire, after warning him, shall call one ball, and if the pitcher persists in such action, two and three balls; when three balls shall have been called, the striker shall be entitled to the first base; and should any base be occupied at that time, each player occupying them shall be entitled to one base without being put out." Batters decided if pitches were too high or too low. A ball was called after the third unfair pitch, meaning that 9 "unhittable" pitches were required for a base on balls. It's easy to see why the rules that you cite were scrapped. It's interesting to read about this from a historical perspective but that game is quite literally not the same game as modern baseball and that renders the rules of that era irrelevant for this discussion.
  18. Nine of twelve
    You don't have to be 270 pounds to play football. You don't have to be 7 feet tall to play basketball.
  19. Nine of twelve
    And by the way, I don't like that we can't delete our own posts.😡
  20. Nine of twelve
    I didn't assert that. I did assert that baseball is the only major sport that I know of that has a field of play that varies depending on the size of the player. I merely used examples from other sports showing that the field of play does not vary depending on the size of the player in those sports. I did exactly this, and in my 3-paragraph post of about 8 hours ago I explained why the strike zone is defined in the way it currently exists. The burden of proof is on you to show that this is true, which I don't think is the case.
  21. Nine of twelve
  22. Nine of twelve
    That's something that should be very easy to verify.
  23. Nine of twelve
    Oh, well I guess that definitively answers my question.
  24. Nine of twelve
    The height of a basketball hoop is not adjusted depending on the height of the shooter. The size of a soccer goal is not adjusted depending on the height of the keeper. The distance of a footrace is not adjusted depending on the leg length of the runner. The size of a football is not adjusted depending on the size of the quarterback's hand. Etc, etc, etc. Why should the strike zone change depending on the size of the batter? As I said before, the top and bottom of the strike zone were defined as they are for the sole reason that the parts of a batter's body were the only landmarks an umpire could use to determine the top and bottom of the strike zone. It's not 1880 any more.
  25. Nine of twelve
    A point well taken, but the strike zone can be and has been adjusted from time to time over the years anyway. I guess my point is there would be a large improvement in consistency from pitch to pitch and from game to game within the season. And in fact it would not surprise me if the zone is adjusted at some point during the first years after ABS is adopted depending on how this improvement affects the game.
×
×
  • Create New...