ashbury

That was my first impression of Willians on TV as well. Also Ben Rortvedt when I first saw him on one of the back fields at Ft Myers a couple of springs ago. I dunno, I see a guy, and that word pops into my head. Most catchers fidget in one way or the other. I'm not sure being "quiet" should be the be-all and end-all. I just know the term. And now this article informs me that maybe it's a little overrated.

The Homonym Is Over, apparently.

This article addresses some questions that had arisen in the past week, such as when Rortvedt was behind the plate in a couple of televised games. I'd like to see further exploration of how this ties in (or trades off) with the many other aspects of a catcher's game. A brief mention was made of dealing with baserunners, but can more be said? Also, not everything goes according to plan - could pitches in the dirt, either by design or simply a wild pitch, be harder to corral? Ditto for unexpectedly high pitches, or way outside? Finally, might anything about the changed stance make a catcher more vulnerable to missing the pitch with his glove when crossed up by the pitcher? Taking one off of the mask is an uncommon occurrence, but anything that slightly increases the odds of that could be very costly in return for the advantages of better framing - we've seen the long-term cost of concussions, and Garver has had a serious one already. The traditional crouch, when done by an agile athlete, would seem to have one big advantage, of offering the most balanced starting point for any of the tasks which the catcher may be called upon to perform. Sticking a leg out may optimize some tasks, but impede others. I have to rely on experts to tell me the pluses and minuses. This article's a great start.

I was about to jest, "yeah, he'll never get anywhere with that inside-out swing," but I already used my allotment* of satire at this site today. * Or, is THAT the satire?

That tweak does stand out by a mile.

So call my feeble attempt "Satire" instead of "Sarcasm" - which doesn't make it any safer to try on an Internet forum.

Viewers hate pitching changes and will tune out if you allow a substitution.

You watch the early rounds of cuts, and they're all the guys in the 6's, then the 7's. It's not infallible, but gives a hint. Duda stands out. Nicolina's a surprise, but pitching's more SSS and it's a matter of giving everyone innings.

Great question for Cuddy next time you're at a player panel.

Yes. He answered the questions up in the main body of the original post. http://twinsdaily.com/topic/32383-article-ask-seth/

My quick take ... and you may get many ... In an ideal world you have 3 center fielders, and you put them wherever you want. In the real but still-near ideal world, you pick the best all-around guy for CF, and then you pick one guy with a CF arm but not quite the speed to play the position, and let him play RF, for the reason of the throw to 3B you mention. You take the other guy who has the speed to play center but lacks the arm, and put him in left, again with the throw to 3B in mind. ("Arm" includes both the strength and the accuracy, and perhaps when forced to choose, you choose the latter as the better arm.) In even less ideal situations, such as a plodding no-arm guy, it might not really matter which corner you stick him in, and will depend on the strengths of your other corner candidate. I think RF gets about as many total chances as LF. There are no absolutes. Michael Cuddyer is deaf in his left ear, so he played RF, the better to hear his partner in center. We had the fairly recent experience of watching rag-armed Ben Revere do OK in RF for a time, because Josh Willingham was signed with RF in mind and then during Spring Training it was learned he wanted to stay in left, and the team went with the veteran's wishes. Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans.

20+ cuts to make, a couple of weeks to make them? I think your guess is safe.

Talent development, and talent evaluation. Two separate issues and yet joined at the hip.

I really think the issue you are getting at is abstraction, not subjectivity. A subjective stat would be if I created Ashbury's All-around High-performers (AAH!), which is batting average, plus a value that I choose for each player. Bryce Harper batted .249 last year but his AAH is .749 because I think he's a hell of a player and I give him .500 more. Ehire's AAH is just his .251 BA because I think he's only OK. You don't want to know what AAH I assigned Pedro Florimon a few years ago. Harper had exactly 100 RBI last year, which sounds like a made up round number but is actually computed in a way that MLB has defined for over a century now. Harper had a bWAR of 1.3 because of a formula some guy developed in 1995, or 2007, or maybe 2013. (Actually RBI has gone through changes in its time too - I'd have to go back and check the specifics but runs scored on sac flies and double plays counted or didn't count depending on which season you are looking up.) If you accept the framework, you can verify the numbers in each case. What both of these objective stats leave unanswered is, "... and this is important, why?" RBI is situational, so that for instance a player who was hurt for half a season will appear less valuable, and a guy with weak-hitting teammates will get fewer chances. WAR tries to figure out how a player correlates to his team's chances of winning. The importance of either stat depends on what you want to use it for, and subjectivity definitely comes in there. As a different example, FIP has importance to some people, because studies have shown that it is a better predictor for the next season's ERA, than is ERA itself. FIP is also not subjective, as you can check any website's number by computing it yourself, but its use certainly is subjective, as we saw for instance with Ricky Nolasco. The difference, to me, is that RBI faithfully records what happened. It's extremely concrete. WAR and FIP are both abstractions. There's no such thing as an actual Win in the standings being allocated to anyone but a particular pitcher (unless you are a Bill James acolyte) so WAR tries to remedy that - and there are other similar remedies to consider instead, for instance BJ's own Win Shares. FIP tries to recognize that pitchers sometimes run into hard luck, and again there are other remedies for that if FIP itself bothers you, or you can stick with ERA and its ability to record what demonstrably did happen. Sorry to wax philosophical. My recollection is that you aren't averse to peeling back the layers of the onion a bit, now and then.

I'm not surprised if they walked that statement back. It was amateurish.

No minor league options get exercised until Opening Day, correct? So cuts like Stewart can be undone if conditions change drastically? These early moves are just clearing the decks so that the harder decisions are done with a little more clarity.

This for me is key. One of FalVine basically threw the one-year guys under the bus, in explaining the disappointing season - if they feel the clubhouse chemistry was impacted by guys who were playing only for themselves (the rationale given), how are Kimbrel's or Keuchel's personalities different? If anything, I see their personalities as basically similar to those signed last year.

What tribute or sacrifice is required, to avert this fate? Would Tyler Jay's left arm on a platter suffice? Or does it have to be something still of value?

You should always be wary. OPS is quick-and-dirty. WAR is quick-and-dirty. RBI and ERA and Wins all have extenuating factors. Including defensive wins into WAR tells you something additional, even if it's staticky and sometimes even misleading. You teach your kids to watch their step on ice - you don't tell them not to walk on ice.

I asked only because an old boss of mine used to ask me, "what would you do with that information if you had it?" and I'd be stuck for an answer sometimes.

Suppose the answer were "flipflops". It being a celebration, well after the games were over. How would that affect your view of things?

Last 30 years, playing 80% or more at SS and having WAR of 2.0 or better (basically MLB average SS or above), there are 10 such seasons for the Twins. Bartlett twice(!), Florimon once (and just barely), Gagne three times, Guzman once, Meares twice and now Polanco once. I think you'll agree I set the bar low enough that I didn't miss anybody important. Across the majors there were such 418 seasons by shortstops, out of 900 possible of course. I don't think we got our fair share. Positional weakness for this franchise since Versalles and Cardenas, with only Smalley providing a break in a long stretch of futility.

I thought Brian's story would end up with the cat trapped in the box, sort of like the cat in our apartment would.

Ron Cey retired some time ago.

First post? Welcome!