Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

ashbury

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    42,479

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    471

 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 Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by ashbury

  1. ashbury
    In fairness, I think the players' union puts some pressure on the top players to push the envelope, on the principle that they are in position to make huge bucks because another superstar pushed the envelope a few years prior, a rising tide lifts all boats, etc.
  2. ashbury
    I realize this is a nitpick but I have to. If what you did there was extrapolate to 162 games (162*HR/G), Sanó isn't even 1st on his own team, much less the entire AL. Cruz and Garver both outpace him. Maybe it's true that if you factor in what a 162-game season would look like for him, he'd jump past everyone else's actual numbers - but in fairness you ought to let all the other players in the league get their multipliers too. (This leaves aside that only 6 major leaguers appeared in 162 games in 2019, and Sanó seems one of the less likely candidates to be allowed to do so even if never on the IL all season.) With that now out of my system, I'm in the camp that prefers to see if a bit more defensive capability can be taught to Sanó, in preference to any other solutions that cost significant salary to someone else. He handles slowly-hit balls as well as anyone I recall seeing lately, because his arm is strong and accurate, which means there is something to build on. He'll never be rangy to his left or right, but as long as he's got that bat, he's a plus at 3B (just not defensively), which means the team retains the positional flexibility to have an additional good bat at 1B. So if we do add someone at 3B and move Sanó to 1B, the comparison should be to Cron, not to Sanó.
  3. ashbury
    Big Whoop?
  4. ashbury
    Carefully. Carefully. Careful - L - Y .
  5. ashbury
    Yes, but how many were then mauled by Kent Hrbek? HOW MANY?
  6. ashbury
    On a team that gained this many wins, there will be no shortage of "most improved" candidates. Buxton improved his hitting results, but there was another area where he didn't improve at all.
  7. ashbury
    This? https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2019/08/02/mlb-juiced-baseball-problem-home-run-rate/1869584001/
  8. ashbury
    I was concerned about the two Yankee prospects we acquired, Littell and Cave, being too amped up and trying to do too much in the presence of their prior team (I realize Littell started in Seattle's organization and was with the Yankees less than a year). Littell came into the game without the slightest trace of command of his pitches, and we saw that grotesque dive Cave attempted. We kind of had to have Cave in the lineup but it would have been well to put anyone except Littell into a high-leverage situation until he had a chance to get his feet wet in playoff ball.
  9. ashbury
    Do these numbers, and the ones below, pertain to specific individuals, or just numbers pulled to make a point? Maybe they're in reference to discussion up-thread and I've forgotten. Early this season Marwin, who came here with a good rep in LF, was absolutely brutal in RF. He'd basically never played there before, and it showed. Getting turned around on fly balls, letting balls bounce away - he was like a rookie out there. He got better, presumably through hard work because that's who Marwin is. I could imagine a different player, who might not. Early on, Marwin might have had "splits" like what you show. Before dismissing numbers, I'd want to have a look at who was being discussed. We've seen batters sandwich a .250 season between two .300 seasons. We don't throw out batting average as a meaningful stat, on such a basis. There's probably an explanation, like an injury. Again, if those were the defensive numbers for a guy, I'd want to know who, and what the circumstances were. I don't disagree that defensive numbers are much, MUCH, shakier than their offense or pitching counterparts. The sample size is always inherently much smaller (batting stats derive from literally thousands of individual judgements and decisions by the batter over the course of hundreds of plate appearances, pitching stats the same in mirror image). But suppose that there IS a problem with a player's defense. If we know what to measure, it should show up. Maybe you'll get a lot of false-positives from the available stats, sample size being what it is, but I still want to look, when a stat is waving a red flag about someone, or if it's shining a spotlight on stellar play for that matter.
  10. ashbury
    So, I'm not sure - are you proposing to try to sign him, or let him go?
  11. ashbury
    One scouting report suggests he has fastball, curve and slider, all of which are decently developed at this stage. Not so?
  12. ashbury
    That's if you want Marwin's bat in the lineup every day. I don't. His defense at the less-skilled positions (LF, 3B) is good, but his bat is looking more and more like 2017 was an anomaly, and will not suddenly improve again.
  13. ashbury
    His manager would assess him a hefty fine if he did that. (Came to make the same remark you did, so I'm left with the absurdist postscript I would have added. )
  14. ashbury
    There's times, it's like he never left.
  15. ashbury
    You left out the part about him twirling his mustache and chuckling mwah-ha-ha! Good satire sweats the details.
  16. ashbury
    (Hate to step on my own joke, but that's me I'm making fun of, not anybody else.)
  17. ashbury
    Nice first post. Welcome!
  18. ashbury
    No. Below is what I think was shown in the telecast ("Paxton induces inning-ending dp" - I don't know how to isolate the one video). We saw the first step, and the final ones. It was enough for me, in the moment - I think the step after touching the base made it look a little ginger, and since he didn't make the play close I had my doubts. https://www.mlb.com/gameday/twins-vs-yankees/2019/10/04/599342#game_state=final,lock_state=final,game_tab=videos,game=599342
  19. ashbury
    One look at Luis running down the first base line, in the second inning, had me saying "he ain't right." This is why I'm not willing to call it second-guessing - we could not possess that information until seeing him in action, but the manager and coaches had the opportunity to find out beforehand. Rocco was unfortunate, to have things unravel so visibly involving a couple of 2B plays in the top of the third, and if instead they had won the game then we probably wouldn't be discussing the starting lineup - but that still doesn't make it a second guess. Rocco weighed the information - lefty vs lefty, inferior defense, marginal ankle readiness - and made his choice. It's fair to question it.
  20. ashbury
    Rortvedt must be hurt. AFL managers are pretty fastidious about splitting the playing time.
  21. ashbury
    Both my second-guesses concern Game 1, and I don't really consider either a second-guess since it would have been my approach from the start. I've stated them elsewhere already. #1, Schoop at 2B instead of Arraez. Facing a lefty, with Arraez still hobbled (as the field staff knew even if we didn't), and with better defense, Schoop is the "book" starter. Rocco went with a hunch, I guess, and the third inning proved pivotal. #2, in the fifth inning, treat this as a winnable game and pull out all the stops where pitching is concerned. To advance, you have to win 3 games, and you only get 5 chances. Not every game might be winnable - so the winnable ones are precious. Leave Berrios in for another inning (especially if that third inning played out differently, then he's got fewer pitches under his belt), and then replace him with no one but your best. Steal Game 1 if it's possible, lose Game 2 and 3 as we did, and then see what happens. That's my second-guess.
  22. ashbury
    We need RIverbrian to step up and handle editing duties for John Bonnes.
  23. ashbury
    Usually I agree with not getting carried away with the analysis. But, you know this old nursery rhyme: For want of a nail the shoe was lost. For want of a shoe the horse was lost. For want of a horse the rider was lost. For want of a rider the message was lost. For want of a message the battle was lost. For want of a battle the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a horseshoe nail. It's not second guessing to want Schoop in place of Arraez against a lefty - you get the better defense as a freebie. Events played out in about the worst possible way, in the third inning, nevertheless they did happen, and there's every reason to think that Berrios's first four innings go a little better with Schoop in there. That allows Jose to try the fifth, maybe even the sixth. Needing to cover only four innings or fewer, might remove the need to try Littell, who also provided nearly worst-case results. After it was 5-3, it was like Rocco folded his hand, hoping for a better opportunity for his key bullpen pieces another night. Turns out that was the winnable game, of the two. We might be down 0-2 anyway, but we gave up that first one without much of a fight, while still at mid-game. Arraez's first scamper down the first-base line told me all I needed to know, information that surely Rocco and company possessed before I did. Even without the gimpy ankle on Luis, I might want to support my game 1 starter with the better defensive second baseman. For want of a nail.
  24. ashbury
    This one, unfortunately, aged too well. I actually had originally typed "third inning", but wimped out because I was talking about the fifth inning decision of Game 1.
  25. ashbury
    Game thread is underway, here.
×
×
  • Create New...