PseudoSABR

Kevin Brown's contract was pretty gawdawful too, IIRC.

Look, CDog. Asking whether the Twins are mad at Willingham is totally backhanded and not at all "asking someone to clarify." It totally misses the context Nick's comment, which is unforgiveable if you consider yourself an educated fan. The reality is that the Twins have had many public contentious relationships with their players about health--Perkins might be the most commonly cited example, but these kinds of issues of cropped up with numerous players. Whether it's the players being dishonest themselves or the Twins medical staff being inept the Twins have handled player injuries poorly both internally and publicly--to say otherwise is nothing more than tone-deaf homerism and other better-informed posters will call you out on it. And as along as your open to criticism (which I somehow doubt), we'd all appreciate if you took a bit more time and reread your posts; they are difficult to muddle through and are logistical nightmares (One example: using the word "Fourth" in the middle of your second to last paragraph of the prior post is completely nonsensical). People will take you more seriously the more seriously you take yourself. There's no need to reply to me. I'm not interested in debating these issues; I just wanted to clarify in case of the off chance you were sincere in your ignorance or openness to critique.

Does Blackburn actually have options?

I agree. He's a good hitter, his ability to rope liners over the middle infielders doesn't look accidental. His approach looks smart and consistent. Unless he regresses, it's hard to believe he won't consistently hit .300 given his speed. I think he'll continue to learn to take walks as well...I can dream on .400 OBP can't I?

Well, my sarcasm has been lost on at least one poster .

I'm not denying Skinner's influence on psychology; I'm denying his applicability to the argument and that behaviorism is something new to anyone here. I wonder what Lacan or Irigaray would say about the yips (or rather, who cares). I'll stop now. Apologies to the non-snark crowd.

Well, the attribute's value would be relative to the rest of population of baseball players, so whatever minimal percentage you want to assign, it should still have a tangible affect in even an elite population. Pardon the glib example: If everyone has 99 Poise, the guy with 98 Poise is the ****ty non clutchy guy, right? I totally agree, hence my evoking (or failing to) the word 'poise' into the conversation. No one's going to get better under pressure, they will simply maintain their poise. I think we're on the same page, mostly.

This whole paragraph is patronizing (The "true Father," for example). You're not the only one whose taken a handful of psychology classes or read a book. BF Skinner and his behaviorists are looked at with total suspicion these days, but I'm sure you know that. BF Skinner is about as 'scientific' as aromatherapy, in any case there's nothing in your post that evidences your points about baseball, you're merely educating us on points most of us are pretty familiar with. You didn't use those quotes, I'm making fun of you to show the ridiculous slippery slope you've created. And it's obvious to so many here (again, hence why you are patronizing) that human behavior can't be quantified. Look, you'll get a lot further in discussions if you stop assuming that the other posters here aren't as well-read and smart as you. Heck, I'm probably on your side in this argument (at least in spirit), but you're posts are so sloppy and disingenuous that it makes my skin curdle.

I think you're pigheadedness on this point is only saved by the unquantifiableness of abstract human characteristics. Because you really can't say what percentage of baseball players are actually affected by pressure or perform with excellence in spite of it; we have no one way of knowing, right? Jokin suggests lots of players are affected by pressure you say .001 percent, you're both just guessing. Look, I'm not arguing in favor of clutchiness but you're being awfully stubborn about admitting there might be something to pressure/poise/whatever, in spite of the fact we can't really measure it.

Look, in my prior post to the one responding to yours I state myself that being unable to quantify a factor doesn't forbid its existence. But this post is again glib and even patronizing. If you have no desire to be taken seriously, continue right ahead. But I'd recommend picking your battles. It's perfectly fair for people to scoff at "winning attitude" and "clutchiness" because really they are likely made out of baser attributes, like poise, as I've mentioned. Meet the postivistic posters half way by getting them to agree to some abstract attributes, rather than inventing ones like "capacity to find the silver lining in bad inning," or "ability to handle booing during an at bat."

It may work in the Twins favor that they play in the AL, as the other teams with top-flight starters all play in the NL, and the Braves may not want to deliver a young starter to teams their directly competitive with (all other things being equal, that is).

Sano with three errors and was eventually lifted for a pinch hitter after two at bats. No Ks though!

If Butera's on the team, I wouldn't mind seeing more of him replacing both Mauer (moving to first, if need be) and Doumit defensively after the 8th.

Look, no one's going to take "winning mindset" as a serious characteristic that people actually possess. I think everyone can agree psychology affects baseball (how could it not?), but you can be much more precise in how you go about identifying such elements. Of course people are going to cynical of concepts that can't be quantified, so you're going to have to be far more convincing than glibly mentioning the Yankees.

I wonder if we might get somewhere more profitable if we redefined terms. I think clutchiness is too slippery and something evaluators of talent wouldn't know how to identify within the player, but rather clutchiness is created out of specific conditions, conditions so rare that any data set seems untrustiworthy. But with that said, I can completely relate to the notion that what we know about the human condition suggests that there's certainly an element of grace under pressure in all human activities--we can all admit that such notions are abstract and ultimately judged just as abstractly with our intuition rather than our rationale. What I'm wondering precisely, is that rather than argue over the existence of clutchiness, we find common ground, in another abstract concept but one that I believe scouts actually look for. Poise. I think we can agree the concept is easily associated with pitchers. An old Baseball Think Factory article*, lists it among attributes that a pitcher is judged by (including some other slippery concepts like baseball instinct and aggressiveness). I think there's a hitter's counterpart for such a concept that everyone can admit probably affects how a hitter performs. In any case, such attributes are going to be mutable and dictated by conditions larger than the in-the-game situation. While sample size and quantification problems prohibit anyone from "proving" or "establishing" abstract characteristics like poise and clutchiness, I think it's just as silly to assert that such qualities don't exist (or don't affect baseball outcomes) because of they are irreducible and unfungible. *http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/primate_studies/discussion/mckarmey_2003-07-28_0/ " Pitchers are graded for fastball velocity, fastball movement, control, curveball, slider, change of pace, "other" pitch, mechanics, poise, baseball instinct, and aggressiveness"

Dude, I'm happy he's working out for you. I was skeptical. It's easy to count against speed for some reason.

Sure, but that hardly explains his current hot streak--or rather doesn't dismiss the hot/cold streaky player we've seen over his minor league career. Perhaps there really is a psychological boon gained by not batting in the middle of the order, but its hard to hang one's hat on the premise.

There's Span the player and there's Span the contract. The sum of both is worth substantial pieces, whether at the deadline or next offseason. Given the public rumors over that last year, the Twins seem intent on capitalizing on Span's current value, which can only decrease over time...

Riiiiiiiight.

You know how I can tell Heyman knows baseball? The way he holds the bat in his photo on the blog.

Savvy move. Nothing not to like. Doumit is still a good trade trip if Parmlee or Herrmann force the issue.

Ramos will continue to play for the Nationals far longer then Capps will for the Twins and at far more inexpensive contract. Using WAR to compare a veteran traded for a prospect is totally disingenuous, and would look even more foolish if Ramos wasn't out for the season.

Supposedly he is. It's been a while since I've read anything about his defense, but the notion of him needing to move seem quelled over spring training. I'm a bit pissed I took Harrell and his shutout out for Bauer who was only allowed to pitch four innings. Wack! I'm still having a pretty good week though.

Right. His name has been buzzing in my head; I'm not sure if we disliked the third round pick or had some hope. I did some googling (not research) and found http://voices.yahoo.com/pitching-starved-twins-dean-hill-11082706.html . It's fan fiction, but maybe there's something to wish on... btw, anybody, how do you create a link to just text...not familiar with the code around here

What makes you say that?