PseudoSABR
-
Posts
6,120 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis
Minnesota Twins Videos
2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings
2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Minnesota Twins Players Project
2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by PseudoSABR
-
That the West won't go to war over Crimea? Gutsy call Russia! Again, Russia might retain Crimea as part of their territory, but democratically empowered border states will just move further towards the EU to retain their sovereignty. I just don't see how that's a smart play. Brute force ain't what it used to be on the stage of world politics. I just don't see the smart play here. What the heck was the Winter Games about if not establishing diplomatic goodwill; whatever gains the games made, Putin undid with Crimea.
-
Ringing loud as in wanting to have no diplomatic relationship with Russia, sure; this just moves such countries further West. I just don't see how this show of strength works in Russia's long term viability of as a world power. It seems comical, early-twentieth century tactics.
-
If this is what strength looks like, I want no part of it. Eerily similar to the kind of rationals of decade ago.
-
I just think the notion that Diaz is a bottom half top 100 is a shot in the dark. I don't think there's legitimate data to base that on. The Cuban infielders who signed for more didn't even crack the top 100s. BA rated Guerrero in the top 150 IIRC, whose bat projects far better, and looks to field the same position. St. Louis could be paying for Nick Punto, which actually has value, just not for the Twins.
-
A triumph. Really rewarding show, for those with the stomach.
-
Heyman: The Twins made a 3-year offer to Ervin Santana
PseudoSABR replied to Thrylos's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
Jesus, the commitment to Correria and Pelfry is one and two years respectively (at worse they are short-term overpaid bullpen parts, Pelfry in particular might look good there), there's plenty of room for Santana if the Twins' brass feels it's appropriate. -
Way to go out on a limb. It doesn't sound like his defense plays at SS, and he's got little pop so the Rosario comparison seems convenient at best.
-
I'm really not sure how many gamers there are on the board. But I have to admit I'm enjoying this game more than I anticipated; and more than any game I've played in more than a year. I've never been a hardcore South Park fan, and haven't caught a new episode in nearly a decade, but this game is laugh-out-loud funny at nearly every turn, and there's so many references from the original five seasons that I don't feel at all lost in the humor. I've had a severe cold this past week and this game has made life some what bearable. Check it out, if you've got time to waste.
-
Article: Inside, Outside And Truth
PseudoSABR replied to John Bonnes's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
Really nice article. Sometimes we lose sight of the human susceptibilities in development. I'm glad to hear that Gibson didn't feel worn down or overused. -
SPAM in your visitor messages area
PseudoSABR replied to a topic in Twins Daily Issues & Suggestions
"Oh, a visitor message!" I wasn't so special after all. -
Article: Twins Don't Need More Starters
PseudoSABR replied to Nick Nelson's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
Good take, Nick. The Twins need evaluate the players they currently have and who will play a role going forward. If we were closer to competiveness, I'd be more for taking flyers on these guys. -
I wonder how much ego, or how much previously held evaluations play a role in these lists. It'd be interesting to see what percentage of prospects change year to year, and how often and how high players who didn't make previous lists make current ones.
-
He still qualifies as a rookie, doesn't he? It'd be strange for BA to use there own rookie standard.
-
I know a good dentist to verify that for us. He's somewhere in New Mexico last I checked, doing something with...chemistry.
-
No, you want to re-enter the debate completely on your terms, and address none of the criticism. The rule is hardly hard and fast* (you've double, triple checked this, no?). It's fair to say that I misunderstood the nebulous rule, and I accept my mistake in that, but my point: the rule is petty and arbitrary. Sometimes it's above a certain number, sometimes it involves the number of words it takes to write it out, sometimes it involves round numbers or large numbers, but largely it's a matter of style. Still, THE CAPITALIZING FOR EMPHASIS is just weak and wrong. *"Write out numbers that require no more than two words remembering that a hyphenated number between twenty-one and ninety-nine counts as one word." So 100, should still be one hundred (or a hundred, or one-hundred, heh) according to this. This crap is hardly concrete. https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/593/01/ http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/grammar-rules-and-tips/rules-for-writing-numbers.html http://www.grammarly.com/handbook/punctuation/hyphen/11/hyphen-in-compound-numbers/
-
I'm interested in Ben's thoughts. I think Fielder will benefit from Texas, though his career is probably bound to decline from here on out. Freeman is good value for an aging Fielder, though, I'm not sure he'll match Fielder's production over the next three years. The rest of the trade is Meh to me. Maybe you're right that you'll find another window to contend in the next year or two by back-grading for younger players with promise, but I think you sold your winning-run short, and I question that you'll get to such heights again.
-
The Jesus approves. Welcome.
-
Evidently, they see him as a lefty reliever.
-
Again, you're valuing polish over things like clarity, precision, extension, and persuasion. It's not that some of us have to have our opinion heard right now, it's that when we do proof our posts we have grammatical polish as a lower priority over some of the other qualities of writing I mention; it's the way we are wired. Just because it's easy for you and a priority for you, doesn't mean that it should only take 30 seconds to proof posts. The following is largely to prove a point and not to deride anyone here. Please consider, the insistence on the ease of proofing seems a touch arrogant, as is the unwillingness to understand the context of how and why mistakes happen; more over, that people actually get bothered by it, seems haughty, thin-skinned, and petty. The character flaws cut both ways. (Also your use of capitalization for emphasis is ungrammatical (RIGHT NOW); numbers above twenty should be spelled out (100), as you do in the following sentence (hundreds).) Don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house.
-
Honestly, has that been happening here? I think we'd all agree if something is unintelligible it's far beyond the forgiveness/pettiness threshold.
-
I don't want to hound this to death. But--for you--it detracts. Not for me. That you can't overlook errors, or that it detracts from the content, says something about your priorities or preferences, not something universal. I've been teaching writing for more than a decade. One of the strategies I use is that I correct my students' grammar, but never deduct points, and I emphasize them cultivating a voice that is persuasive and organized--and those students with severe grammar problems inevitably get better and better at grammar as there desire to be heard increases.
-
For you it takes a minute or two. For me, I keep working on precision, and find new ways to express my ideas when I read through my prose. I have to willfully stop trying to communicate, and concentrate on cosmetics, because other people think I should--not because it has actual intrinsic value. It is a concession of my priorities that I make (something that goes far beyond what others would call my former laziness). It's taken me years of effort and thousand of pages of writing to get my brain and my habits to abide by such. A minute or two for you, years for me. (Those who've watched me post since the ESPN board probably can attest to my improved polish, especially in the last couple years). Again, don't assume everyone's brain works the same way. We're all wired differently.
-
There's a certain blindness in the other flaws I mention. Laziness seems an inadequate, and rather self-serving, explanation. "It's because I work so hard that my grammar is polished." Well, it might just be easier for you, because your brain latches onto details and is hardwired for rules. That my brain deprioritizes the cosmetics of prose for other factors, doesn't make me lazy, it makes me different. I still don't think that grammar or cosmetics in general matter all that much in actual communication of ideas--though it certainly can some times. And it is out of social graciousness that I make an effort to write with polish, not that I actually think it's so important. For instance there's this paragraph: "Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteers be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe." I would suggest lee-way in allowing others to show their deftness where they are most strong suited--and see our priorities as just our own singular set of priorities (perhaps shared culturally, academically, etc., but still likely our own), and not a some biblical standard with which everyone should abide.
-
Laziness isn't the right word, maybe arrogance, maybe stubbornness, maybe refusal to assess one's weakness. People's minds work differently. And your priorities need not be everyone else's. For my part, I have to check and recheck my own sentences because my mind moves faster than my fingers do, so I make both typos and transplant common homonyms--one of my writing mentors thought I was dyslexic--I'm not sure that's the case, rather that my mind sees what it wants to see; it corrects the mistakes and fills in the blanks, so I don't readily see them. I have to work harder than I imagine others do to make my grammar polished; that I sometimes don't catch mistakes, doesn't make me lazy nor necessarily careless. Plenty of people express lazy thoughts in perfectly polished prose. Others' grammar might be polished but they lack precision with their vocabulary. Etc. There's a lot to get worked up about when people express themselves through imperfect language guided by imperfect rules. The point is that your pet peeve--is just that--yours, and is not necessarily indicative of someone's character.
-
Word filter for common misspellings? I think these are innocent mistakes, if careless.
