PseudoSABR

Today, Gibson went 3 innings, 57 pitches, 3 hits, 3 Ks, 2 BBs, no runs.

I'm encouraged that they want to add three pitchers. However, I'm worried by what the FO views as "competitive" starting pitching--quantity is rarely better than quality.

Agreed.

You might have a point if such considerations were baseless. Elitism isn't a bad thing when it asks people to better articulate their point of view and be more considerate about what they share with others. Asking people to be thoughtful doesn't exclude them, and if your ideas are well-thought out and you convey them convincingly, everyone here will like you. Honestly, no one wants to get into a discussion about how reckless and fuzzy abstract standards can be. Let's just table that, and be smart about baseball. Not baseless. The gist of this thread is saying that people who can't write articles to the "accepted" levels of a select few should not be posting anything. I wholeheartedly disagree. This site should be welcoming to all levels of Twins fans. Those that have their head buried under 4 feet of saber metrics all the way to the occasional game watcher. There is enough room for all. Some people can't do a better job of articulating point, which may be why they are starting a thread in the first place. Some people may just want to discuss and learn in the process. Some people rabble-rouse (you know who you are). You shouldn't be required to have a 5 paragraph, thoroughly researched point to post an article. When you say that somebody can't bring their point to the table because it doesn't meet your level of expectation to begin with is elitist and it is not good. Your reading of the "gist" is just flat wrong. No one's asking for rigor or research (though it would be nice); simply be thoughtful and considerate. That's not exclusionary elitism. (And there's some irony about a poster named "Fire Dan Gladden" coming to defense of the common man. "Room for all." Give me a break.)

I think the dude was being sarcastic with the clubhouse cancer comment (or noting that he'd come cheaply because of that rep), but sinceyou lack a sense humor, so I can see how you could miss that.

You might have a point if such considerations were baseless. Elitism isn't a bad thing when it asks people to better articulate their point of view and be more considerate about what they share with others. Asking people to be thoughtful doesn't exclude them, and if your ideas are well-thought out and you convey them convincingly, everyone here will like you. Honestly, no one wants to get into a discussion about how reckless and fuzzy abstract standards can be. Let's just table that, and be smart about baseball.

Interesting thought and it might worth its own discussion (and y'all know how I feel about the Twins' brass). That said: Several of the college relievers they drafted last draft have started before. The same with the 2011 draft. The old scout complaint that "a guy has only one pitch so he better be a reliever" should be mediated during player development (and the Twins practically never did that - that's part (like 20% - small) of the reason I am saying 'good riddance' to Rantz). So: the margins and definitions of a reliever and a starter are vary hairy. Couple fun Twins names to throw into the mix: Rick Aguilera and Brian Duensing. And they both fought (and one is still fighting) to be starters. Eddie and LaTroy gave the ghost up early. But, yeah, in my book at least 5 of the kids they drafted as relievers the last 2 drafts can be starters. I wasn't crazy about the reliever-happy nature of last year's draft. On the other hand, I think the front office deserves some time to play their hand. It's obvious that they're bringing a different brand of thinking to the table and I'm curious to see how it unfolds. Are we looking at a new Moneyball or have the Twins gone insane? Time will tell. At the very least, the concept is intriguing. The Twins are looking for value. This is exactly the kind of risk we've been asking the Twins brass to take (and the same people criticize both risk-adverse and risk-heavy approaches it seems). It's not a bad idea to look for starters who turned into relievers because of injury or team circumstances, as such players would be undervalued for their starting ability. I'm not sure it will work out in the long run, but it's a moneyball* approach for sure. *I define moneyball as valuing that which is undervalued.

Let me gently correct one glaring error: control of one chamber (the house) does not equal control of congress. In other news, the Democrats did in fact control congress the first two years of the Obama presidency, with a super majority for several months. They actually got a lot done. Not that you liked any of it. But the notion t hat Obama somehow didn't capitalize on control congress is a misrepresentation. However, that doesn't mean that Dems are more likely to work across the aisle in any way other than to save their political asses.

I appreciate the way you feel in regards to what I said, but you didn't post anything that would suggest you felt that way...at least I didn't see it. I quoted PseudoSABR's post to you, because his seemed to suggest that new people here don't know baseball when they get here and therefore aren't intellectual to understand the nuances of the game on and off the field. Some others seemed to agree. While I can certainly appreciate the fact that most of you seasoned posters on this site have gotten comfortable with each other's level of knowledge of the game, I'm not sure new people coming in can't be right there as well. I may have misunderstood his post, but it doesn't seem that way...and that kind of thinking can turn new people off. I meant people new to talking about baseball. That might not be you. But plenty of knowledgeable people can be horrible people to interact with on a message board. I think that if you want people to take you seriously its important to phrase good ideas in a way that elicit discussion and also show some thoughtful restraint. But that's just my two cents. And again, just because someone is new to the site a) doesn't mean they don't know about baseball and that they don't know how to talk about baseball.

Good stuff. Now that's a post we can chew over. /cheers

Lot's of teams passed on Trout... ahhhh............ the classic type of response to support mistakes............ every kid says it....... "everyone else has one" ........people say it about steroids........ "everyone was doing it".... you are obviously correct, and obvious. 21 teams passsed trout, and the twins did too. that makes the ineptitude all OK, eh? i will get over it when and if gibson becomes a star pitcher, because he will have to be a star for that to happen, not just a number 4 or 5. Look, the point is that twenty one teams didn't believe that Trout was worth picking in the first round. I'm not suggesting it's a mistake that everyone made; rather that there was a shared belief based on available data and scouting that Trout was not worth taking about the 21st pick. I'm sure we're equally as guilty for not taking any number of players (as Rocket Pig mentions). Your hindsight--they should have known reasoning isn't convincing. If you have scouting reports or special insight that Trout would turn into Mickey Mantle please share it. Otherwise, your argument is coulda/woulda/shoulda which is juvenile and lazy. Seriously, no one will respect you here if you talk to people like they are stupid. Grant people here more respect; the idiots are few.

Only if he comes with plenty of sloppy seconds.

Obama was clearly back on, but Romney's already an acceptable candidate because of the first debate--so as far as the polls and the outcome are concerned, I'm thinking a small national bounce for Obama (one to two point lead) that will eventually result in a large electoral win, but with a narrow popular vote. I'm still beside myself with how arrogant the Obama campaign's approach was to the first debate. They had the opportunity to give Romney a resounding defeat and they blew it. The presidency won't be affected by their miscalculation, but I bet the down ballot contests will be.

Smerf, I'm right there with you, but it's important to recognize this is TD's first full-fledged offseason. Inexperienced posters are going to be trigger happy; let's face it, many of us have been spoiled by the intellectual etiquette of some Twins fans over the last decade. If intelligent people keep posting (and even taking initiative), the rest will catch on.

Lot's of teams passed on Trout...

I'd like to ask you about accountability. Many of us worry that the recent dismissals and reshuffling of the front office and major league staff represent a form of (and pardon the phrase) scapegoating. Perhaps you can ease our worries by walking us through the thinking of the front office; what were the coaching problems that can be remedied as a result of the moves, how can we improve in that area? How has the front office changed in the past year with you back at the healm, how does it differ from your first tenure with the team? Lastly, in what ways are the Twins medical and training staffs improving?

Best of luck and health to you, Roger. I've been reading your reports since DTFC...

/facepalm

Because you can't see past your own particular political angle. I haven't started a "Lies" tally Dems vs. Repubs - perhaps you should share yours? The notion of one lie being "more" than another is purely based off of perception. We could compare lists on that all day and it wouldn't matter. You don't see the angle because your political persuasion doesn't want you to. I'll recap anyway: 1) Suggesting that people changing their minds from a debate are shallow is truly asinine. Especially given how much both parties use advertising to change minds. If you watched the debate, paid attention, and thought about it - to me that's a great thing. Regardless of political orientation. We should be pleased people are tuning in rather than disparaging them for taking it seriously. 2) The primary process presents distorted candidates - it did for McCain, Obama, Hillary, Romney, etc. It's something we're all going to have to accept as long as it's around. 3) Distortion is a common political ploy that neither party holds a monopoly on. It's absurd to suggest otherwise. 4) Obama lost that debate at a time when a decisive win could have made his re-election pretty much a given. If lefties want to come up with excuses for that I find it pathetic. Apparently, yesterday, even Obama was tired of hearing it and came out and said the same thing. I don't disagree with 1 - 4. I simply disagree with your equivalency of the lies and the distortions. It's like you're trying to undercut the significance of Romney's switcharoo, by pointing out that all campaign ads are dishonest. Romney's makeover should disturb you and it is UNLIKE previous candidates.

This. What the **** is Romney's plan? All best parts of the best ideas that we've seen so far? Oh boy!

The notion that the distortion from left versus right is equivalent in degree or amount is asinine. Sure, Obama and liberals distort the truth and their positions for political convenience, but it is nowhere near the same kind of distortion that happens on the right. The right doesn't believe in evolution; many think Obama is a Muslim The equivalency you are trying to make is absurd. Again, sure both sides lie, but the scope of the lie and the amount of lies actually do matter. Recapping the position changes: Obama did adopt a healthcare mandate and a more hawkish policy on foreign, but beyond that I think you'd be hard pressed to find substantive differences between Obama's primary policy and his general election policies. As for Romney, it's EVERY SINGLE ISSUE, from abortion to taxes to healthcare. I just don't get why you'd try to equate the two candidates, in terms of their distortion, when it's so clear one is so heavy in the red. I just don't get your angle.

awesome

Look, it depends on price, something everyone agrees on. And you're drawing an arbitrary and disingenuous line with the 200 innings, as has been mentioned JJ was in 10% of that three out of four seasons.

Clearly we need to cap the embedded quoting thing, or use a different graphical mechanism, because this thread is unreadable. That said, I wonder if Oakland would look to move this Anderson fellow.

You're aware that both sides utilize these things called advertisements that are less substantive, often far more hyperbolic and riddled with lies, and strategically designed to mislead far more often and far more effectively right? Just want to be sure, because - if you are aware of this - it makes your point seem a lot less reasonable. He's not talking about advertising though. Sure Obama's ads distort the truth, but it's far different for a candidate to be the mouth piece for such distortions. That said, this is the first time Romney's been a palatable candidate for the center; so a lot of people I believe are unaware of his prior positions, and just how much he's swiveled from the summer. I don't believe that many Americans are swayed by Romney's debate to actually vote for him...though I do think, many more are churning the idea over.