CDog

That JUST struck you?????

I just did a search now on something like, "Tom Kelly at bats" and then added a few different versions of "to know about a player" after that and got several hits that included the 1000 number. All of those, however, were simply from blogs where people stated it much the same way that you and I have, and not official quotes. I also included 1000 in the search and found just a few more blog type entries than before with that number, and using 2000 in the search didn't result in any. File the preceding in "wasting time on trivial things over lunch break" file.

I was fortunate enough to watch a game in a suite, and I've also gotten to go on a tour of the ballpark. There are many levels of niceness (invented word?) and size and decor to the suites there. They're all pretty nice, though!

Ahhh. The suites are pretty sweet, too! Don't be afraid to go out and mix with the commoners, though. Haha.

I don't know what Terry Ryan knows or wants to know or doesn't know about math or statistics. (I would suspect that is also true of almost everyone posting here.) I do know that anyone with sense can realize that the first quote has virtually nothing to do with Terry Ryan and almost everything to do with his audience and the forum in which it was said.

Oh, I'm quite certain many fans have done it. I do wonder if the powers that be have even considered that people would. Because it's completely illogical that they've tied the exhibition game to the most important actual games that get played, so at least some reasoning power seems to have been left on the table.

I wonder if it's even occured to "them" that the smart strategy for a person who is a fan of a team (isn't that most everyone?) would be to vote for the very worst players he could find from the opposite league.

Which version? I believe Target Field has four different classes of "Box" seats (Home Plate Box, Diamond Box, Dugout Box, and Field Box). In any of those, you're going to have a great seat, in my experience. Have a great time!

Semi-sure the number he would use was 1000. Not all that unlikely that he may have used different numbers at different times. But 1000 is what I've heard.

Agree on all counts. Has been more of a curiosity of how exactly the evolution took place because it's rather a fantastic story (probably at least in part because for some reason I can't put my finger on given the limited information, I always felt like I liked him as a person).

I've wondered a few times over the last couple months as he's been lighting up the world if it's closer to what you describe or was more of a gradual thing that just took him time and reps and tinkering to pefect. I saw they did a feature on him on ESPN recently where it looked like he was talking a lot about how he throws it, etc, but I was somewhere with picture but no sound. Did anyone see that and did it shed any light? Apologies for any thread hijacking.

You can rest assured that nearly all of those people will continue to surmise that, too. It's rare to get to hear athletes actually speak at any length in any meaningful way. As fans, it's refreshing. Post-game interviews filled with cliches are typically the best we get. Sometimes when we get a glimpse at more, the result is finding out that there isn't much going on. Other times we find a guy who comes off as intelligent and thoughtful and interesting and witty. Glad someone recapped this for us. Wish I had gotten to hear or see the entire thing.

It's a pretty decent question. I'm always up for trading "it seems like" for "here's what actually happened." My guess is that people who have been put in multiple roles like that will have some serious sample size issues to deal with in analyzing some of those roles. By definition, it's kinda hard for one guy to do all of those things a lot.

The post you refer to was about comments directed at athletes besmirching (that is a fantastic word) their personal character based on their athletic success. Responding to someone lying about what I've said...then doing it again...and then doing it again, and all while trying to belittle me based on said lie isn't nearly the same thing.

I agree that the salary comments weren't really an "analysis." It was really a reply to my own comment in an earlier post that I doubted he was paid like a typical # 3 starter.

Each time you re-tell your lie gets a little bit more sad. Even more so because it is fairly clear that you think you're being clever.

You just used "spring training" and "stats" in the same sentence. Therefore you think they matter. See how stupid that sounds? Every time I "brought them up" was to say that there weren't stats to properly measure spring training performance. If you're going to attack with snark, it really is a good idea to read what you're responding to. Or have someone do it for you that can understand. Because otherwise you sound dumb AND like a jerk. One of those at a time isn't so bad, but both at once is no fun for anyone.

You can keep saying the sky is green, but it doesn't make it so. And you kind of embarrass yourself when you do so.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Blackie was willing to accept being sent down if he had options left (I think he's been around long enough he would have to agree to it, right? Does he have options, though?). I feel like he went down rather willingly (or maybe it was to the bullpen?) during a bad spell last year or the year before. And given his reaction to the most recent outing, he sure seems like he's ready to do something--anything--to get things figured out. Is that an option without giving him the ol' DFA? On another note, it's a bit of a slow day at work, so I took a look through some other rosters and salaraies according to USA Today's lists. On teams that spend at least as much as the Twins, Blackburn's salary would put him as the 5th or 6th highest paid starter on six of them, and the 4th highest on three others (including being 4th highest on Twins). For the third of the league directly behind the Twins in payroll, he would be 3rd highest paid on seven of them. And for the penny-pinchers, he would be the first (rarely) or second (usually) highest paid starter on all but one of them (where he would be 3rd).

Which is why I was curious if anyone was both there to see AND had the expertise to notice what (if anything) was different.

And to repeat for your reinforcement... "Do feel free to read entire sentences and paragraphs to get actual meaning."

Do feel free to read entire sentences and paragraphs to get actual meaning.

Right. Like you said, these are small samples. AND they don't count "non-official" appearances. AND they don't include secondary stats that are likely more useful about swings and misses and strikes and all that. Which is why I said (and I think you're agreeing) that there aren't stats there to accurately explain what was going on.

Lots of things in this thread I felt like I wanted to comment on, so no quote since they were from so many. I apologize in advance for any lack of clarity as to what I'm talking about. Like John and Nick stated, I have also thought Blackburn had more to offer than many. And like them I'm befuddled by the lack of results. As for the actual direction of the original post, the only reason I can see continuing to start him now because of being under contract next year is if there is some merit to the general argument that the best way for him to get right is by starting big league games. Given they are very unlikely to get to contention this year, do you use this year as work to get him better for next? I don't know if there IS any merit to that, but that's the only reason I can think of to keep going in the same lane. Along the lines of results and what it might take and how far away he is from fixing anything, wasn't it just three months ago that he was lights out in spring training? So this is a question...having virtually no access to see spring training performances and the lack of statistics to properly measure them, is there anyone with the expertise here that actually WAS able to watch then to know what was different? Was it just luck or small-sample variation? Or was his sinker actually sinking and his breaking ball actually breaking and all of that? If he WAS throwing a good, heavy sinker just that recently, is that hope enough to think he could do it again relatively soon? There was a comment about him being paid like a # 3 starter. I haven't looked it up, so this may be wrong, but I can't imagine the median or average for a starting pitcher in the big leagues is as low as what he's getting. More in general, there's a lot of hand-wringing (or worse) about his contract, but the dollars involved really weren't that enormous. And finally, I can't imagine how big "a brass bowl" (that's a rhyme) one has to be to call someone a "piece of ****" or "garbage" behind the safety and anonymity of their keyboard because they aren't throwing a baseball as well as they'd like.

But that's where the timing of things doesn't make sense to me. By the time the arbitration process gets to an offer amount ($12M or $2M or whatever it is), the player has already agreed to the arbitration process, which means he's NOT leaving for greener pastures. So there's nothing to be compensated for. That is, if my understanding is correct that it goes: team offers arbitration process, player accepts (or doesn't), THEN team and player submit their amounts (assuming offer of process was accepted).