CDog

Comparisons like this sort of drive me crazy. Aside from the players "nowadays" that don't play as much as Ripken and Gehrig, do you know who else didn't play as much as those two? Every single other player over the last hundred and twenty years or so. I'd love to see some actual analysis of how many games players played then and now. As an anecdotal piece, I recently heard someone doing the same lament of how much tougher guys were in the "good old days" and specifically mentioned how much more often Pierzynski and Mientkiewicz played compared to Mauer and Morneau. Two or five minutes of internetting later showed that from the time they had become regular starters to the end of their time with the Twins (or the present time of the conversation...granted this was before Morneau missed an entire season, essentially) that they had averaged nearly identical numbers of games. Anyone have any actual facts on this?

Googling "revere left field gardenhire" results in article after article talking about how they started the spring with Willingham in right (one quotes Gardenhire saying Willingham was willing to do whatever needed) and Revere in left and then changed after seeing Revere play left field. Also many articles stating that Revere had been the expected starter for left field coming in to the spring. This is quoted from one of them from Startribune.com... The Twins will sacrifice significant range if Revere isn't given a starting spot, but his throwing arm remains a concern for the Twins. His throws were particularly erratic in left field this spring. "I don't know what the difference is, but every time I get a throw in right, it seems like it's on the money all the time," Revere said. "But in left field, it's a totally different story, I have no idea why."

OH...and by the way, if the issue is rest, then the 18 or 19 number is NOT true. In games 1, 5, 8, and 13 the same players played and at the same positions. Game 13 had Willingham and Morneau flipped in the batting order from the other three. So that's already down to 17. Also, Games 4 and 20 had the same players with one exception who was injured (Willingham) being replaced (we have to agree that was a good idea, right?) so it wasn't another lineup being used "for rest." And Games 2 and 9 were identical with the single exception that one player from Game 2 wasn't on the roster anymore and was replaced (again, that seems like a good idea to not just leave that empty spot out in the field and give a free out in the batting order).

Well I did apologize before the fact in case I had misinterpreted, but let me take the chance to do so again. It really did seem to me in the first post of yours I quoted in this thread that you maybe had a little bit of a subjective slant to your interesting tidbit on the number of lineups other than just stating a bland fact with no opinion tied to it at all. Once again, as before, I apologize since that wasn't the case.

I can see how this post applies to the thread, but it has really nothing to do with my post that it quoted. Guys being defensive, etc, isn't at all the same as quitting.

I thought I had retired, but my "job" is to point out that they started spring training with Revere playing in LF and Willingham in RF until the staff and Ben Revere himself found that Revere struggled playing LF. Carry on.

I won't speak for USAFChief, but your point is rather fanciful since it's been well-established that the lineup doesn't fluctuate nearly as much as your scenario pretends.

OK, I'll re-ask my question again... Where was someone getting "too much rest?" Catcher: I think we can agree that neither Mauer nor Doumit should have caught all 20 games. They were the only two to catch. The rotation was pretty predictable. 1B: Parmelee when Mauer was catching, Mauer when Mauer was not catching. Morneau on a very rare occasion when Mauer was DH'ing. A very predictable rotation to go with the catcher rotation. 2B: Casilla played 16 of the 20 games. Was getting Hughes two games of 20 and Plouffe two of 20 to keep them from rotting on the bench really out of line? 3B: Valencia 17 of 20 giving a bench guy (Burroughs) exactly three starts in 20 games. Too much? SS: Carroll EVERY SINGLE GAME. A late-30's MI started every single game at SS and we're saying they rested people too often? LF: Willingham every game with one exception at DH until he was hurt. Should they have made him go out there for those last two games of the 20 to keep from using different lineups? CF: Span. Every time. RF: And as mentioned, there really wasn't a starting RF on the team so there is where most of your "different lineups" come from. One spot where there was no real starter anyway. So I'll ask again: Where's the problem here that it's been often brought up as an indictment of Gardenhire as a manager?

I can't speak for "people" but I think the fact that he's from here makes him seem more of a Twin than he otherwise would simply from playing the one season. And the obvious of the circumstances (and his contribution) to that one season, too.

I'm curious which young (or old) players quit. I'll also mention that a professional athlete, especially a young fringe player (I don't think they had any young stars, did they?), that quits on a season is to blame far more than his manager or coach in my eyes.

I've seen you make various forms of this comment a few times as some sort of attempted indictment of Gardenhire. I don't understand why for two reasons. For one, I would think that almost any good manager tries to get a little playing time for his bench guys, and even one replacement is going to make for another scratch mark in the "different lineup" column. And more importantly, if you actually look at the lineups used, the point you seem to be trying to make isn't even accurate. Forgive me if I'm wrong in the assumption that you think the lineup wasn't stable enough. Looking at those first 20 games you mention... The first three spots in the batting order changed...never. Four and five were near locks except Willingham and Morneau switched after nine games. Doumit hit 6th every time he started with two exceptions where he moved up when Morneau or Willingham got a day off. Valencia hit 7th every time he started with three exceptions where someone ahead of him got a day off. Casilla hit 9th every time he started. From a fielding perspective, Span and Carroll both started at the same position 20 of 20 games. LF, 2B, and 3B were all very much locked up by Willingham, Casilla and Valencia who got three days off (one at DH and the final two games when he was hurt), four days off, and three days off, respectively. Catcher and 1B were used in a pretty predictable rotation for Mauer/Doumit and Parmelee. Right field...well, we know what was going on there. So...in the lineup, three spots had ZERO fluctuation, six were very steady outside of days off, and the 8th spot was used to handle the leftover role player in some sense. In the field, five spots were completely or quite stable, two were a very predictable rotation, and one was a revolving door of personnel. Where's the problem with what Gardenhire did here?

ESPN is saying Lohse is going to Brewers on 3-year/$33 Million deal (with an additional million available in bonuses). I'd say that's better than the $13.3 for one year qualifying offer. And miles and miles better than what it seemed likely he'd get at this point. Wonder how long it will take him to be ready to start.

I suppose they haven't announced Mauer getting optioned yet because of his bigger contract. Probably the right thing to do. So does that make Escobar the backup or are they going to get someone else up there to backup Doumit?

Because of its beginning, I read this all in Aaron Neville's voice. That was the highlight of my morning so far.

This may be a dumb question (they say there's no such thing...but they're almost surely wrong): Having turned down the Cardinals' qualifying offer, is there any reason he can't sign with them? They're the one team that doesn't have to worry about losing a pick to sign him (I am guessing...they can't very well give up their own pick...to themselves). Would it be too much face-saving from both sides? Would Lohse/Boras feel too silly accepting a $10-12M contract after turning down a larger one? Would the Cardinals be justified in saying, "You didn't want $13M before, and now you want us to offer it to you again?" Could they compromise at a lower per year figure, but more total money? Or is this all moot if there's something in place that disallows him to sign there at all once he declines the qualifying offer?

Are there times he doesn't look like that? The notion that GB pitchers are more injury-prone is interesting because I feel like I've heard the opposite fairly frequently. Without using a single piece of data, to me it seems like pitchers, regardless of style, get hurt so often that it would be surprising to me if any particular "type" gets hurt more often than another. Which is why I think it's interesting, because I have no real good idea what the outcome would be. Varying degrees of injuries and poorly defined groupings for "type" would be things that jump to mind as obstacles to doing a really good objective study, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be interesting for someone to try.

From what I had heard before and read here, it likely won't be in your channel guide because it's not "always there," rather they broadcast stuff on one of the channels that's typically public access or infomercials or whatever. Might just need to search through your guide (assuming you have that) on the TV and look for a baseball game by title that starts at 6:00.

I was under the impression that if you have FSN that you also have FSN+. I have no confirmation of this, but is it possible you get it and just don't realize it? That's happened to me on several occasions.

I played in a basketball league for years. The same core of guys on eight teams played for pretty much a decade, with each team obviously having some turnover here and there on the fringes. There were no referees, just a gym supervisor and an assistant that rolled out the balls and kept score and ran the clock, etc. So we were essentially self-policed with a "moderator" around for if/when things got testy. Things only got past the point of typical bickering on occasion. These almost always involved one particular player on my team. He'd get into it with some guy. Then he'd get into it with some other guy. Then someone else. He was the constant, but he just couldn't figure out why everyone was "out to get him." Eventually the gym supervisor said he couldn't play anymore, and he couldn't figure out why he had been singled out over his most recent altercation, which hadn't really been all that bad. Anyway, I can't think of a single instance where the conversation was hurt here by "over moderation." And even if I could, I'm pretty sure the "It's their house and they can run it how they see fit" line of reasoning trumps almost any complaints to the contrary. This site is amazing compared to others I've seen that strive for similar content. Keep up the good work. The combination of restraint and firmness, along with some moments of extremely impressive objectivity have impressed me greatly.

I think there are two reasons Killebrew doesn't lap the field or immediately come to my mind. The first is I didn't get to see him play. The other is that even when I do think of him, it's almost like he's bigger than the Twins. If the question was who is Mr. Baseball, I think he'd come more to my thoughts than for Mr. Twin. If that makes sense. I predict if this is asked in 2033, the answer will be Mauer. And for me that's true right now, even if I know Killebrew is a "better" answer.

While this topic may have been pounded to a pulp... I originally quoted the post you mention with a comment about Ben Revere not playing 2nd. That may or may not have been the impetus for later posts from others. I'll expand further on the point... As BlueSky has stated, it seems that Gardenhire likes certain things in his 2-hitter and many of those things also happen to be common in middle infielders. Yes, I have looked and MI (not just second-baseman, which is part of why the "Play 2nd, Bat 2nd" snark irks me some...it's not even accurate so it comes off as lazy) have hit 2nd a HUGE amount since he's been the manager. BUT, the fact that Revere was almost always there when in the lineup just last year (and that there were even times when Mauer has been used there for not-tiny stretches) shows if he thinks there is reason to have someone else there, then he'll do it. I think Mauer third is fine, in general, but given the people likely on the roster this year my preference would be that he hits second. If the spring training lineup with Dozier hitting there leaks into the season, I'll be disappointed.

Almost my exact reaction to that comment.

He said he felt something first while jumping rope and then later in the workout while lifting weights it was worse (or not better or whatever).

ESPN article about Mauer on the WBC team... Joe Mauer and Team USA set to face Puerto Rico in WBC elimination game - ESPN I thought he wasn't perceived well around the league and the national media? Huh.

I think I remember Deduno leaving the field exactly the same way several times last year. I asked this in the thread about the game, but that seems to be left for dead while this one may still be a little more active. Anyone who watched feel like giving a brief recap of the Deduno vs. Mauer plate appearances?