Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

TheLeviathan

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    21,282

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    48

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by TheLeviathan

  1. TheLeviathan
    What is the conceivable path? A string of good fortunate? I don't consider that "conceivable" in any meaningful way. Unless it's also "conceivable" that I could buy a house with a pot of gold I get from an Irish fairy. Is it "not impossible"? Sure. It's also ridiculously improbable.
  2. TheLeviathan
    If we're talking flukey, 2015 was the fluke here and not a particularly compelling argument for your position. When there is next to nothing on the free agent market, little in the way of immediate reinforcements, and still some huge defensive question marks....I do call that next to impossible. I hope the new head honcho deals more with probabilities than "well, let's do this because it's not impossible that we could be right!" If we constantly look for "not impossible" solutions, we ignore the multitude of ways they could get worse or go stagnant. And it absolutely abandons hope of being significantly better in the near future. Some of you are plainly advocating that 2018 doesn't matter as long as we can turn this 60 win team into a 70 win team. I say screw it. 70 is just as bad as 60, either way you're losing and not going anywhere. And in you scenario, we held on to our two biggest assets for nothing. If I'm not going anywhere I'd rather lose 60 again with the hopes 2018 can bring 80+ wins with the right moves. After all, it's "not impossible" we could deal Santana and Dozier and win 100 games with the talent we get back. If that bogus argument is still in play.
  3. TheLeviathan
    Sometimes a step back is required to take two steps forward. As others have said, there is no conceivable path to turning this rotation into a playoff contender, so aim for 2018. I know that's a bitter pill to swallow for some, but no less necessary.
  4. TheLeviathan
    Santana is a fine pitcher, I like him, I appreciate what he brings, but I'm also not going to let some delusion about 2017 guide my decision making process. If we can deal Dozier and Santana and land at least one (if not two) major league ready young starters - we should do it. Santana's clock here is ticking and, like Dozier, this offseason is the ideal time to trade him. Too often lately we've let sentiment and false hope guide our decision making and that's one of the reasons our roster is a mess. We'll be continuing that trend if we go into next season thinking we need to keep Dozier and Ervin. Don't deal them for peanuts, but for the love of all that's holy - shop them!
  5. TheLeviathan
    I still hope Santana is dealt this offseason.
  6. TheLeviathan
    If we roll out Rosario, Buxton, and Kepler for a full season in the outfield we may see dividends right there. The problem is from catcher and around the infield we have a ton of question marks.
  7. TheLeviathan
    I want to root for the O's just for how weirdly they have gone about contending. Have we seen a team like this in recent memory? Virtually no speed whatsoever and bad starting pitching and they are winning with some crazy slugging numbers and a lights out bullpen. It's so unique I have to tip my cap.
  8. TheLeviathan
    Kudos to Dozier and Bruno for finding and fixing the issue.
  9. TheLeviathan
    This organizational hierarchy can't get blown up fast enough.
  10. TheLeviathan
    On what basis do you make that claim?
  11. TheLeviathan
    I don't disagree, I was just responding to the idea that the rotation is an "unanswered" question. I think the answer is there, it's just not one we like. As far as particular pitchers are concerned I'd agree there are some questions - Will we move May back? And do we move Santana? But regardless of those answers, the question of "Do we need pitching help" is an obvious "Yes. Lots of it" That one is answered.
  12. TheLeviathan
    I guess I don't consider the rotation a question, insofar as not knowing what to do. I think that question has long been answered - we need a LOT of help.
  13. TheLeviathan
    I hope they are terrified about some of it. Some of what they did was just unwise. I agree with your larger point, but there are lessons to be learned from Arizona. Most notably, to be careful about what you judge your team to be and to need before you go out and try to change it.
  14. TheLeviathan
    And Twinsdaily sided firmly with Oakland! Woofta.
  15. TheLeviathan
    I think drastic changes are called for. Drastic, reasonable, changes. Brock is right about this analogy: yeah, you can't make the car run worse, but you can do serious damage to how quickly it is before you get it up and running again.
  16. TheLeviathan
    Sure, if everyone got a .150 OPS boost that would be awesome. The point is, if you have a bunch of .700ish OPS players, would you rather have them consistently be that or spend half the season being unplayable and the other half on fire? Personally, I'd take the consistent bunch. I wasn't blaming Dozier for anything this year, just speaking more generally.
  17. TheLeviathan
    I tend to agree, but that's why I don't think a feast or famine player is as good as a consistent one. A lineup of consistent players gives your more than one person who are liable to produce for you over the course of every game of a season. As opposed to hoping a rotating bunch of hot hands can make up for the rest of their teammates.
  18. TheLeviathan
    Team wins don't really matter much to me when I'm evaluating trends in a hitter's results. If we want to extrapolate that to team success that's another matter. That five month gap can mean a lot or mean nothing and for many (most?) players it generally means nothing. I could just as easily argue that a logical cut-off of evaluation could be between adjustments by Dozier. We make similar cut offs when we judge young players (like we are with Buxton). The truth is, that five month gap is arbitrary as a cut-off for player production. We use it for convenience sake, not because it has any special meaning. (Unless there is a specific reason to believe it does, like injury rehab) We also make many cases for player evaluation based on cutting off statistical analysis at various points. We talk all the time about things like "Since June 1st Brian Dozier has slashed...." or "Since being moved to the top of the order" or "Pre-allstar". All of these are arbitrary. It doesn't invalidate them. Short of taking the whole players career into focus, we're always relying on arbitrary time frames. That isn't a valid argument against a statistical study, especially if it takes a large, time consistent sample size.
  19. TheLeviathan
    Any time period we choose to judge a player is arbitrary. If we choose April to September, it just seems more significant because that's one 162 game season stretch. But really, how different is that than me saying April 2015-September 2016? It's still random with the most notable trend being it's the same baseball player. While I don't deny I want to arbitrarily pick a stretch of consistently bad play that crossed seasons, it's no different than you. You just want to cut those dates apart arbitrarily. When Danny Santana sucks in 2016 like he did in 2015, we don't cut those dates apart because the season ended, we look at the whole of the data. Hell, if we didn't use cross-seasonal data to analyze players it'd be rather silly. Baseball reference could really simplify their site too!
  20. TheLeviathan
    My theory would be that when guys are feasting, their huge surge in production has a less meaningful impact on wins and losses because some of that surge is probably surplus that doesn't really decide games. But long stretches of awful play can have an impact.
  21. TheLeviathan
    Why does it matter how people remember his seasons in five years? We spent the first two months of this season with a sub .600 Dozier hitting in prime positions in the lineup. We spent the last three months (when we were fringe contenders) with a slightly better, but still pretty bad, Brian Dozier hitting in those same spots. I don't think anyone has shown evidence either way, so I'm going to go with what is the most intuitive: feast or famine guys are probably less valuable than guys less prone to erratic production. But I'd be really curious to get an answer on that.
  22. TheLeviathan
    Depends what I'm taking in it's place I suppose. Guys that are this feast or famine aren't ones I feel very comfortable building a team around.
  23. TheLeviathan
    I would like to see more FA spending when appropriate. I'd like the next time we're contending to pull that Cliff Lee type of trade from years ago. So I'm with you, but the timing and the context are important. I don't think the Twins are in a spot where making moves like that would be prudent. They need to be aggressive adding pitching this offseason, but that price is likely going to have to be paid via trade rather than cash. At least this year.
  24. TheLeviathan
    Except we'd have only a few more wins, no Buxton and Berrios and more, and be committed to Grienke for boatloads of money. Those few extra wins don't seem worth it.
  25. TheLeviathan
    You realize the vast difference between the two sides of the trade you're proposing right? It's not like that it's a straight swap. You'd have to add Buxton, 100+ million at least over the next few years, and several other prospects (like Berrios or Gonsalves and more) before that swap would be equivalent. So....I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
×
×
  • Create New...