PseudoSABR

I know it probably doesn't exist. But would anyone else like access to a live stream of the Twins camp? I often just have the TV on as background noise while I work from home, and I'd much rather have that on than listen to Sportscenter for the fifth time.

Doesn't Pinto have a hurt throwing shoulder? I read that somewhere. Pinto will get his chance, but it won't come in April.

Why didn't you include BA's ranking of the Twins prospects? Otherwise a helpful prospect review.

My guess: Worley in the rotation, Diamond in the pen, Deduno on the DL (and then rehabs as a reliever), Parm on the bench. The Twins aren't close enough to competition that they should be giving up on any potential assets, even if there are better younger players who could replace them.

If he can't stick at short, there's really no point. I'm all about adding assets, but adding to the redundancy of second or third base doesn't seem prudent, unless he can hit the bejesus out of the ball.

Saul, re-PM me. My inbox was full and stupid. Good luck with your new show.

We need Dr. Stat, STAT!

Press Release Get healthy soon, TR!

The Twins signed two relatively good-health starters, who under performed their peripheral statistics. While we might argue that the talent of Santana, Jimenez, and Garza is better than what Twins fetched, the attached draft picks and relative health and inconsistency of the these three are prohibitive for a team so desperate for pitching and far from contention.

5th starters have value in that they aren't 10th and 11th starters. (And one of these 5th starters, Worley, was our number one last year, yipes). You're minimizing how bad the back end of the rotation has been and having better depth against failure and injury, will significantly improve the clubs chance for wins. Sano and Meyers in particular have a chance to meaningfully and significantly contribute this year. For all the Sox players you mention that could improve, the Twins have a similar number of players who should as well. Your argument seems to simply grant for the Whitesox what you are unwilling to grant for the Twins.

The Twins have much better depth in the rotation, their best prospects are close to the show, and the young players are more seasoned. It's hard to fathom them doing equally as bad as last year. I expect substantial improvement; though how much improvement largely depends on the contribution from their prospects and other youngsters.

Jim Callis was actually pretty high on him, during his chat with the Talk to Contact podcasts guys. Callis projected Eades a number three starter.

It's difficult for me to dismiss the change in organization. The Twins expect guys to do certain things, I'm sure there was a period of cultural adjustment, and moreover for the Twins tutelage to show up in the results. The home away splits in Mays profile from last year are uncanny--Hughes like.

My sense is that there's deep sense of self-loathing, like the base instinct is that they aren't worth their own flesh, but more I believe that it's also important that the act is essentially cowardly, as the violence falls well short of suicide. There's people that cut as a cry for help or to harm those that love them, but they aren't the habitual cutters, that do so in secret and with shame. I dated a women who cut herself before our relationship (she was tragic, talented, beautiful). Her scars were omnipresent along her forearms. She wore fashionable arm warmers to be subtle about it, later she covered them with tatooes. It was clear that there was some deep shame that my love could never undue, in fact, she seemed to covet this shame, her desire for ruin; it was important that no one take that away from her. While she didn't cut herself while we dated, she came to abuse (though she's now in recovery, good for her). Drug abuse, self-harm, seem to me, symptoms of the same tragic sensibilities that so many really beautiful people possess.

Honestly, it's a lot more complicated than that. There's a certain allure that people have for self-loathing, whether its suicide/cutting, herion, or even eating. It's not mere escape or hedonism, and overcoming it is not simply a matter of will. No doubt we've all overcome poor decisions and circumstances, however, our capacity to cope, clearly, changes from person to person. I think it's unfair to weigh the tragedy of someone else's life against my own.

While, it's hard to disagree with the sentiment of John's point, the language and tone here feels a bit confrontational and dismissive. Indeed there's an awful lot of gray area between flame-bating and being provocative/driving-home-a-point, between an immature joke and actual malfeasance. Part of the problem is that the moderators and owners contribute to a polemic community; sometimes their posts (and articles) are provocative, sometimes they, themselves, are adversarial, sometimes they make bad jokes. I suppose it's the owners rights to do with their site as they wish, but accusations of insularity are hardly unfounded. Moderation of course is best when it is lenient with cosmetic breaking of the rules and focus on systemic behavior intent on making a negative experience for others. It's difficult to juggle that, we all realize. When a moderator takes the time to exchange private messages with me about an issue, it makes me want to invest in the community here. However, when I find that my post has been deleted, without the opportunity to amend it before hand, I feel shunned. It's rude. (I've experienced both methods from a variety of moderators). While I understand the logistical problems of avoiding blanket deletion, such polices aren't exactly welcoming. I have no right to expect graciousness from the owners or the moderators, but it would go a long way with me at least. That some of us came over from BYTO has always seemed something of stigma with the moderators, I felt more that "we're keeping an eye on you", rather than welcomed. Many of us have been discussing Twins baseball for more than a decade at a variety of domains, many of us know each other and have a cultural discourse that goes further back than TD or BYTO. There was something of a community in place that allowed this website to exist, and in turn, that community couldn't exist now without this website. Something else I'd like to point out is that the moderation is almost exclusively made of the most active posters in Game Threads, while I think all of these people are great, it's not exactly a diverse sampling of the posters on the board. As far as solutions, I would love to see an under review option for suspect posts, and opportunity for posters to clean up their own posts. I know I've been asked to clean up things before, which I'm happy to do. While we have no right to expect respect to be a two way street, I hope that the owners and moderators acknowledge that there really isn't any other place to have meaningful Twins discussions; and for me personally, to interact with people I regard as friends, even if it's just baseball we're talking about. I'm thankful for Twins Daily, but some of the complaints lodged recently have some legitimacy.

This isn't just any drug. What Heroin does for people (and look, its appeal is absolutely limited, nonetheless real and persistent for those afflicted) is something that the scope and possibility of their life does not provide them. I recall meeting a young poet who got messed up in high school and had since recovered. I asked him soberly and seriously what it was that drew him in and kept him hooked. He explained that the drug provided a totally convincing experience of safety and relief; that all those abstract, existential worries were suddenly relieved--things indeed would be just as sublime as we'd hope. Just a couple years later I saw the young poet at bar, and we played pool with some mutual friends. He seemed strange, his pupils, posture, manner, etc.; he was on it. And I asked, and he said, what did it matter, are you happy, I'm happy; I'm happy, man--just stop. And what could I say as sad as it all was, I had no better version of reality for him. My read (sadly it goes beyond my one shared anecdote) is that this is simply another symptom of our pervasive misunderstanding about mental health and the psychological trauma some (many) experience withing the current cultural and economic climate. Civic responsibility (sadly) poo-poos mental health, just like it poo-poos the role of the arts. These things go hand and hand, folks.

Correia is only going to have value during the season, when pitchers begin to go down with injury, and the upside of guys like Capuano vanishes. Correia's healthy mediocrity has value, but it's at its lowest point during the offseason when the wish of semi-injured players seems material.

What assurances do I have that the gut feelings have been objectively eliminated from these metrics? Each metric produces varying results because they weigh different aspects of different values--which is a reflection of their bias. Again, there's no mathematical innocence or objectivity at work here. For instance if you believe that walks are more valuable than hits in determining winning outcomes--how do you determine that difference? Do you look at runs scored? The same runs that we might dismiss in having value in determining player worth? Objectivity is a tenuous goal when we are looking at a phenomenons that are invariably abstract and lack reducible modalities. There's non-mathematical biases at work when you start dividing the field into zones or when you attempt to combine defense and hitting and baserunning into the same metric. As useful as it might be, the need to quantify an abstract phenomenon changes the nature of the phenomenon. I worry that the quality assurance of such metrics simpy confirms the makers' deep-seated biases (Well these numbers look right because I generally value speed and defense than average). How do you assure the accuracy of these models if not by the models themselves? These kind statistical models night only be self-affirming. For my own part, I like to look at individual pieces of data--but I like to do my own 'math' when determining a players total value or rather do my own thinking in which aspects of the game have more weight than others.

As did I; and I'd take either of our packages over what he obtained, (the A's 6th prospect and the Braves' 4th); all the packaged were selling Choo oddly short. I don't claim to understand Steve's motives; but last offseason he didn't defend his moves by asserting his baseball philosophy or acumen-- he was staunch with his "I get to do what I want with my team."

What do you guys think of the Choo (for Max Muncy and Jason Hursch) trade today? I worry that Steve may be trolling with his team again.

http://i.imgur.com/dX6HXSM.jpg

While we know we're always working with a probabilistic model when dealing with projection, there's a lot more at work than a simple mathematical formula--and hopefully, if that were simply the case we'd see more sophistication and variation than such vanilla regression towards the mean. That a metric of pure data could deduce something like plate appearances based on such abstractions as injuries and minor league development and assumed playing time is damningly tenuous. There's biases (inevitably) at work both in terms of what data gets input-ed and what bases the mechanics of the formula are built. That we pretend that such prognosis are somehow mathematically innocent seems silly to me. The thing about good prognosis models is that they should seem organic in the macro. I don't mind that projections are based on formula; but I want that formula to do better than some of the commonly held base assumptions (we already have that). Again, I'd like to see a projection formula that produced nuanced results player by player, and don't simply carry the assumptions of the aggregate to the particulars of the each specific player. In my mind, there's difference between playing the odds and earnestly prognosticating specific player production. If current statistical modeling doesn't grant much confidence in specific player production (as with Mauer), then why make publicly available such prognosis? Again, what value do they have (as suggested with the population of 1(n=1))? If the point is that such endeavors are better when the lens is pulled back, that the projections are more useful for projecting team wins than individual production, I think we can agree.

I get that. But really, if you go look at each player on the Twins roster, even for the atrocious pitchers last year, their projections drift towards the mean. Which is likely in the aggregate, but when I see it applied to every individual on an entire roster, well that looks formulaic if not a bit lazy. I just question the actual use of such projections if they rely on what uberfans already acknowledge as common-placed assumptions.

Oh, everybody regresses to the mean, how thoughtful!