Sssuperdave

I don't quite understand where the Baseball America article is getting all of the information for this proposal. I don't see anything on mlb.com other than the article about Portland desiring a baseball team. I'm sure that all of these decisions will be made somewhat independent of each other, where the Baseball America makes it sound like a package deal. In reality I think each topic should be considered on it's own merits: Should Baseball Expand?If it expands, what is the best divisional alignment?Given a new divisional alignment, how best should the playoffs be handled?How many games should teams play in division vs out of division?Should the number of games played change?What should be done with the DH?I love the idea of expanding to 32 teams, but I don't like the idea of getting rid of the AL/NL split, or 4 division winners and 8 wild cards, and I don't see any reason why expanding to 32 teams means you have to get rid of leagues, have 4 divisions, or reduce the number of games.

This is literally the first time I've ever heard the term "Minnesota Nice" used to describe the Twins of the 2000s. The term wasn't thrown around when Puckett and Hrbek were the faces of the franchise, and it's not being thrown around now by anyone but you.

While this play certainly stunk, it mostly gets a "meh" from me for several reasons: None of us have any clue what it's actually like to play in an MLB postseason game. When you are in a situation you've never been in before, sometimes you do things you've never done before. I used to perform a lot as a musician, and more than once I made a mistake on stage mid-solo that I'd never made in practice. Your body just does things differently. When I was practicing my mouth would often have too much moisture in it, but when performing it would be too dry, and that caused weird stuff to happen.As Seth said, I'm certain Granite is not "afraid" of the Yankees. "I was afraid of..." is just a thing we say when explaining why we did or didn't do something. To read anything else into it is to take it way out of context.The whole sliding into first thing to not get hurt is an interesting thought. I'm not an athlete by any stretch, but playing slow pitch softball I've tweaked muscles when I stretch for that last step down the line and land on the bag the slightest bit awkwardly, and that's without a foot to think about stepping on. Granite is obviously in good enough shape that he's not going to pull a muscle landing on the bag, but I think trying to avoid stepping on a foot is totally legit. Granite himself said it was dumb, and I think it probably was, but it's also just not a big deal in my opinion.

That one time, when Buxton (or was it Sano?) did that one thing! Come to think of it... it was Mauer. Yes, that thing for sure.

I also think it's good to separate regular season from post season stats. Post-season stats are fun to look at by themselves. Can you believe... Mariano Rivera had 42 postseason saves? (and pitched in 96 games!!!)Andy Pettite pitched 276 postseason innings? (and has 19 wins!!!)Derek Jeter played in 158 postseason games? (and has 200 hits!!!)

Does Slegers getting the start mean Gee has been sent to the bullpen? Sorry if this was covered elsewhere and I missed it.

Yup, this is entirely plausible and reasonable, but Souhan didn't say a single thing in his article to indicate that this was the case. You're giving him too much credit imo. Souhan could have written a real article about the effects of weight and conditioning on injury recovery and what that means for Sano, but he chose not to.

I have to agree with those saying not to sell Twins Daily short. The content on Twins Daily is phenomenal and has developed to the point where it has almost become my single source for Twins news. Seth provides player interviews and human interest stories that are much more in-depth than anything you can find in the MSM. Parker provides analysis that is more technical and detailed than anything in the MSM. And, most of the folks on Twins Daily are respectful about leads and giving credit where credit is due. I learn about trades and transactions on Twins Daily, but I never get the impression that Twins Daily "breaks the story." Every time a Twins Daily post or article refers to a trade it starts with the name of whoever broke the story, usually with a link to their tweet. This is definitely not what Souhan calls "Jabba the stat, sitting in his basement... acting like he broke the story". Until now, the only big thing that was missing on Twins Daily was a "game story", something that broke down each game, and now Tom has expertly filled that void. I absolutely love the features Tom includes in his game reviews, like the current standings, WPA, and bullpen usage. And he includes a few highlights, so I get more out of Tom's write-ups than a full-blown game story by a beat writer. Way to go Twins Daily!

2 Things... I would use real quotes and real data coming from real people, even if those people are anonymous. Souhan actually did some of this in the blog post. I think the conditioning of a professional athlete is absolutely fair game for a newspaper article, but not when the article is written in a way that communicates you are accusing Sano of simply eating a bunch of junk and getting too fat. Instead, you can write an article that communicates that Twins officials are concerned about his conditioning, and include real reasons why they are concerned, with real examples of how weight and conditioning can impede what Sano is trying to do as a pro. I would talk in specifics about things that are measurable, avoiding generalities that can be construed as personal attacks. Even interpersonal things can be approached from a specific and measurable angle.

I'm a bit late to the party here but would like to share several random thoughts... In my opinion, Souhan's blog post contained better reporting than his original article. The blog post actually contains some specifics, such as that "a Twins official I've known for a long time told me that Sano's weight was 290". I'm dumbfounded as to why he left specifics like that out of his article. While I still would have found it a stupid article, at least it wouldn't sound as much like he was just making stuff up to fit his narrative. Another example... in the article he says "Pablo Sandoval comes to mind", where in the blog post he says "They mentioned Kent Hrbek's early retirement, Pablo Sandoval's career decline..." Again, better reporting in the blog post than the article, of course then he has to go on and take a potshot at Perkins.Souhan's portrayal of "untethered bloggers" strikes me as ignorant, petty, and vindictive. He refers to them as "Jabba the Stat, sitting in his basement, wearing his Kimono, eating his Cinnabon." Seriously Souhan? Just like his criticisms of players, he takes a lazy approach to criticizing bloggers. Rather than actually taking some blog content and critiquing it, he resorts to name-calling and insults. Of course, if he would actually read some of Gleemans' stuff, for example, he might have to admit that Gleemen is just as good a writer, if not better, than he is.Does Jim Souhan actually know any of these "trolls, liars, plagiarists, and frauds," to use his words? Actually, I don't have to ask, he himself says that he doesn't know them, and claims it's because they are cowards because they won't take the step to show up in the clubhouse. Well Jim, in order to back up your claim of them being trolls, liars, and plagarists, I dare you to show up at the next Twins Daily pub crawl. You might be surprised at how reasonable and sane they actually are.Finally, I did think it was cool that he called out Seth Stohs and Brandon Warne as guys blogging in a way that requires a bit more accountability. It shows me that Souhan at least has the sense not to lump all bloggers in to one bucket, even if I disagree with the bucket he lumped the rest of them in to.

I agree that Sano would be more valuable at 3rd than 1st, and would also be surprised and disappointed if his size was of zero concern to the FO. I'm confident it is a concern for them, and I hope and expect they have very specific strength and conditioning goals for every single player in the organization. I think there's a lot more agreement than disagreement specifically about Sano's weight. I think very few people believe he is a better player at 280 than at 250, and most people believe he would be a better player at 250 than 280. The beef I have is with Souhan bringing this issue up the day after Sano sustains in injury unrelated to his weight, and writing a puff piece about it without a single quote, seemingly because it will generate clicks. Sano's diet, weight and conditioning are between him and the team. If he or the team is open to disclosing any of the plan or their concerns to Souhan then it would be perfectly appropriate to write an article about it. If they aren't interested in talking about it, then in my opinion the article becomes a hatchet job.

This wasn't directed at me, but I'm happy to reply with a lot of specifics. All quotes are taken from Souhan's article... "But there are those in the Twins organization who are concerned with Sano's weight..." This sentence fragment encapsulates Souhan's lazy reporting perfectly. He makes a sweeping generalization with an appeal to authority without including any actual specifics. He doesn't have a single quote here, or anywhere in the whole article for that matter. Good reporting would have at least an anonymous quote, and better reporting would have had an on-the-record quote. Throwing out a statement like that without even an anonymous quote is lazy reporting. Perhaps none of his sources would give him a quote, in which case he shouldn't have written it. "According to my information, Sano's weight has gradually risen all season and is now well above 260 pounds..." This one makes me want to vomit. According to my information?!?! What is this, a gossip column? Again, lazy reporting. What is his "information" based on? Was he snooping at his medical records? Did he get it from someone on the team? Will they say something on record about it? If not, will they say something anonymously? If not, don't write it. Period. "Pablo Sandoval comes to mind..." Have you actually looked at Miguel Sano and Pablo Sandoval? This is very poor and lazy comparison. It's like Souhan thought to himself... "who's a third basemen known for being overweight? Sandoval... here we go." Miguel Cabrera would be a better (but still not very good) comparison, but that wouldn't fit Souhan's narrative because Cabrera is a 2-time MVP with a hall of fame caliber career. "When you’re built like Buxton, dietary discipline is an option. When you’re built like Sano, dietary discipline is a necessity." Okay, this is a nice turn of a phrase, but look at the actual content. I couldn't disagree more. Right now Buxton's #1 asset is his speed. If he gains 30 pounds his #1 asset is neutralized, and it's questionable whether he's even a big leaguer. Sano's #1 asset is power. If he gains 30 pounds he'll probably hit just as many home runs, but as a DH instead of at third. I'm not saying it's fine for Sano to gain 30 pounds, but I am saying that it would probably hurt his game less than it would hurt Buxton's. In my opinion Souhan is making a lazy and illogical argument because it sounds impressive. "This isn’t about work ethic, and it certainly isn’t about weight shaming. It’s about diet. Sano’s bulk simply makes him even more vulnerable than most ballplayers to the pitfalls of the big-league lifestyle. Food is everywhere, and young players often eat the worst of what is available. I’ve seen clubhouse attendants carrying in large bags of fast food before games. The lifestyle dictates that players are often up late, while hungry and with lots of money to spend" What is the point of this section? Taken in context and reading between the lines Souhan is saying Sano is surrounded by junk food and is gaining weight, so he must be making poor dietary decisions. Note that I said "reading between the lines;" I wouldn't have to read between the lines if Souhan would actually say something specific and meaningful instead of speaking in generalities and making implications. He claims that this is not about weight shaming, but "and it certainly isn't about weight shaming" is the only sentence in the article that doesn't feel like weight shaming. "Sano should play at about 260 pounds, if not 250. He would have more energy, would run better, would have a better chance of staying healthy and would remain powerful enough to hit the ball out to any field in any ballpark. He would also be able to remain at third base, where his strong arm is an asset." Okay, now most of this paragraph I can agree is probably logically accurate. He probably would have more energy, run better, etc. at 250 than at 280. However, once again Souhan takes a lazy approach to it. If this is so self-evident, than can't he at least get one quote on it? Maybe the team physician? Maybe a trainer? Maybe a coach? Maybe even his neighbor who is a physician? I could keep going, but I think I've made my point.

Remember Boof Bonser? He threw 273 innings with a 4.77 ERA and everyone said his weight was holding him back. So, he lost 30 pounds before the 2008 season and proceeded to post a 5.93 ERA, get demoted to the bullpen, and never post a positive WAR again. I'm not trying to compare Boof to Sano (although I guess I am by posting this in a Sano thread), but just want to point out that there are counterexamples to weights loss = better performance. Statistically speaking I'm sure that there's a negative correlation between being overweight and performing well, I'm just not convinced that any of us know what is best for Sano.

That's nice, but then why write the article a day after he gets injured? Souhan is obviously trying to make a splash, and I find it annoying. Ever since he slandered Slowey without even so much as an anonymous quote I've had no interest in his writing.

I'm not hoping for a middle ground... I'm hoping for .317!!!

I don't think you're giving enough credit to the players they did try, like Schaeffer, Mastroianni, and Robinson. Sure, as I type them it seems ridiculous as neither of the three amounted to much, but hindsight is 20/20 and I really don't see how Walker was that much better of a prospect than these three. If Mastroianni had been stuck in AAA while they tried Walker, and Walker hit .100 while striking out in 55% of his at bats, we'd all bemoan the fact that we never gave Mastroianni a chance. Now I can't prove that Walker would have hit .100 and struck out in 55% of his at bats, but you have to compare apples-to-apples. You can't say "but Mastroianni had a .573 OPS", when prior to deciding which one to call up you don't with certainty what either ones OPS will be. You have to look at each player, the skillset they bring, and the likelihood of success in the bigs. In my opinion Mastroianni was just as likely to have success as ABW.

Is anyone else concerned about Garcia's transition from the NL to the AL? Perhaps I'm still reeling from the Nolasco fiasco, but Garcia looks to me like no better than a 3/4 in the NL every year except 2015, and I'm concerned that it makes him a 4/5 in the AL, which isn't all that much to get excited about. Also, please tell me I'm not the first person to come up with Nolasco fiasco.

Yup, and I'm guessing that's the driver of the difference between his bWAR of 1.9 and fWAR of 0.9. In this case I believe the bWAR. Santana is dramatically outperforming his FIP, and I think Buxton is a huge reason why.

Very cool, thanks for sharing this Seth. Reusse used to rub me the wrong way big time. I've never liked it when sportswriters take personal shots at people in an attempt at humor, and he does that as much as anyone. However, I've really come to appreciate his baseball knowledge after listening to him on 1500 for the last few years. He's a true baseball lifer and student of the game, and can draw the most interesting anecdotes out of guests on his show. He's forgotten more about baseball that I will ever know.

I think the confusion boils down to what words are used. Taking the words "problem" and "solution" in a logical and literal way, you can't really have a solution without a problem to solve, which I think is another way of saying what you just said. Perhaps the original post would make more sense if the word "solution" were replaced with "innovation." But "problem oriented vs innovation oriented thinking" doesn't roll off the tongue like "problem oriented vs solution oriented thinking." The point here is that it is much more energizing and effective to focus on how to make things better than to focus on finding problems. For example, it could be that the net benefit (i.e. benefit minus cost, or wins minus cost in baseball terms) of making a relative strength even stronger is higher than the net benefit of reducing a weakness. This wouldn't be identified by a thought process that only searches for problems and how to fix them.

So after today's game Royce has a triple slash of .500/.500/1.250 (1.750) Let the promotion calls begin!

Yup, happened today in the bottom of the 1st: GCL Twins Bottom of the 1st Akil Baddoo grounds out, second baseman Jaime Estrada to first baseman J. C. Escarra. Royce Lewis homers (1) on a fly ball to center field. Victor Tademo called out on strikes. Jared Akins strikes out swinging.

I don't think it's nearly the open and shut case that you make it sound. I can just as easily say that it's called the 2017 All Star game because it happens in 2017. There's no rule that says you can't consider the 2nd half of the previous year, and it honestly makes more sense to me that you should. You (Thrylos) just made a point about how selecting the players should be objective. If you want it to be more objective, wouldn't it also be a good thing to use a larger sample than 80 games to determine the best players? Of course very few people consider the 2nd half of the preview year when voting, but I can't agree with any argument that says it would be objectively wrong to do so.

Yup. Even more impressive than Santana's complete games are his shutouts. He has 3, Kluber has 2, and four other guys have 1. That's 9 total shutouts and he has 33% of them. That alone is probably enough to get him in.

What's your guess? I'm thinking it will be Sano and Santana. Dozier's got a shot, especially if the 2nd half of last season is taken into account. Perhaps Berrios if he has another 3 really strong starts? Does Kepler have a shot?