ashbury

That's easy to say in hindsight. But a GM with the #1 pick probably lives in fear of unattributed quotes from other teams with high picks saying, "he wasn't even in our top five." That didn't happen, so give them credit. The draft isn't the collaboration that it works out being after the fact for our armchair-analytic benefit.

Maybe it could have been a larger sample size if he had done better. / No I don't really have a point.

"Sources said it is the hardest they've ever seen him working at it."

Some high-powered public relations firm needs to hire you to do their spin!

Could he break DiMaggio's record if he bunted frequently, game after game after game?

I believe I heard that somewhere. Checking now for a link.

"Some cuts of beef are more prized than others. Marbling is good up to only a point."

When it comes time to talk contract extension, he plans to charge by the pound.

It's been a while since I've visited DC. But I have to think that it's completely common to see out-of-towners with apparel that expresses a point of view. How is a MAGA hat different from wearing pink cat ears, for example? Or a hippie-freak tie-dye shirt with a big peace sign emblazoned? Or a two-years out-of-date "I'm With Her" t-shirt with the red -> arrow, or some older hopey-changey Obama memorabilia? I imagine those folks get accosted in DC on an irregular basis too. It's not right to demonize people, but as a practical matter you can't pretend to be surprised if someone turns what's essentially a passive-aggressive message into something less passive and makes an issue of it. In one's own native environment, such "flair" (I'm referencing Office Space with that) is almost invisible. Outside that environment, it's like picking a fight without realizing it. MAGA hats kind of enrage me, but I expect pink ears enrage a segment of folks too. It's not right to jump to conclusions based on stuff like that, but we do. It's not unique to the left. Google any likely combination of terms and you'll find rightists doing the same. Check out this random hit I found today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr9zlUIo3DI . (Slightly NSFW language.) It didn't happen to go viral - probably others do, just not viral in the circles I frequent. The biggest question for me is why this Covington instance went so very viral. It did so before the major news media picked up on it, so I don't chalk it up to Librul Media Bias. Though, once it became viral, it was news in its own right. But the fact that it was so ubiquitous among my Facebook connections suggests to me that there was some skillful orchestration going on. I didn't engage much on the subject of the Covington kids when it first came out, mostly because so massively many of my Facebook friends were doing so that my opinion would have been redundant. I fell for the simple narrative. What I see now is kids getting experience that normally they learn from ("go to DC and you'll run into all kinds of people some of whom carry an agenda, so pull in your horns on your own agenda just a bit, and just walk away if that's not enough"), which now they don't receive the benefit of because they got demonized nationwide and had to get defensive.

If injuries have accounted for flailing at breaking pitches in the dirt, then I'm with you. Personally I think they are two separate provisos involved with our being happy with him.

The nickname is a fish. Miami has one too, the Marlins. What's "horrible"?

The book is still open on Polanco, but at the moment he is a good example of why I say you should take age into account when evaluating minor league stats. On average, players gain skills year by year, and they move up to harder leagues that tax those skills. Simply adding up stats doesn't tell you enough, and stats that seemingly stagnate from year to year may hide a lot of growth. It's an inexact art and others surely do it better, but I rate each minor league level as .100 OPS harder than the one below it, and I estimate .100 OPS improvement each year for a player, until around age 24. Players can have a bad year and I throw it out if that's what it looks like - they can have an outlier "career year" and I do likewise - fluctuation occurs, and progress is not steady, and injuries occur, and good luck happens. Getting called up early can mess with the player's mind and his progression. But all in all, Polanco's age 19-21 seasons at A, high-A and AA, told me to keep an eye on him. Max Kepler looked like he'd reach the majors, by the same general method. I had higher hopes for Eduardo Escobar when he was obtained, than some, same way. But the same methodology had me keeping tabs on Max Murphy and Travis Harrison too. *shrug* Anyway, don't look at AA stats for a 21-year old the same way you would for 23, is my suggestion.

Boy! That escalated slowly.

I think by 54 we all start to feel the wisdom of not legging out every routine grounder.

If he is fine, he will play 150+ games. I think that's the way to look at it.

Yachta not make puns like those, canoe stop?

Hadn't run across this. None of the articles this link points to tells me how the stat is actually computed - they just extol its virtues. Do you know? Good mid-winter pun.

It was a different kind of "doesn't work", with mangled characters in the URL. I fixed it. I still can't read the article.

I think it's safe to say literally 100% of the people empowered to vote on the question disagree with your position. That's rare for any position, on any topic.

I'll condense your post to this sentence for the purpose of my reply. I'm reminded of a letter supposedly sent to Dear Abby long ago. It went along the lines of "Dear Abby, my husband has left me. I'm 46 years old, with no job experience, and I'm thinking of going back to school and getting the college degree that I never tried for when I got married at 18. Everyone tells me I can do the work necessary to succeed in college. But, Abby, I'd be 50 when I graduated! Should I do this?" And Abby (is said to have) replied, "And how old will you be in 4 years if you DON'T go to college?" I'd love to have a good playoff run, but that's not the sole criterion. I want good baseball. I'm not of the "all in for the WS, or else tank" philosophy (and that might be where the disconnect is, relative to some posters). Any pool of baseball assets is inherently a depreciating one, so you must replenish via all avenues, continually. Acquire talent that other teams covet, instead of concentrating on filler. Sometimes this requires money. If it doesn't work out due to circumstances such as the young cheap guys not panning out as hoped, or even if the acquired FA talents fizzle, then deal with it then. (If every asset fails, go back and figure out what's wrong with the system.) "But we might not have a good season if we acquire McCutchen [or whoever] and then Buxton/Sano fail?" "And how good a season will we have if Buxton/Sano fail, without McCutchen?"

I'm not advocating for going to extremes, such as signing players to lengthy contracts that will hamstring the team for years as future events unfold. But acquiring talent when you're not sure of what you've got, and then dealing with the happy circumstance of too much talent, was still possible this off-season. McCutchen signed for 3 years. That contract wouldn't be an albatross, and would be preferable to what they are paying Cron in my estimation. Aiming higher with the pitchers they signed would be another avenue toward bolstering talent during uncertainty - relievers are generally always fungible if you find yourself overstocked. Uncertainty is a fact of life for any team. That doesn't mean marking time. Damage caused by taking action is often easy to spot and then critique. Failing to shore things up and perform maintenance is less obviously costly, and is also generally underrated. This and the next several seasons for the Twins are an era of young cheap talent produced by the farm system, albeit talent of as yet uncertain quality, and the thing to do is apply unused financial resources during this period in case the young talent flops. What exactly are we saving the money for?

It was his age-22 season. That's young for AAA, even accounting for roster filler. BB-REF.com will show me the top 100 batters in games played, and there were 4 guys age 22 and one at 21. Mind you, I was seriously unimpressed with what I saw from him in SSS in person. But he's young enough that we probably haven't seen the best from him yet.