Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

TheLeviathan

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    21,580

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    49

 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 TheLeviathan

  1. TheLeviathan
    Biden 24% Sanders 16% Warren 15% Buttigieg 15% Front runners are starting to create separation in Iowa.
  2. TheLeviathan
    None of the rural community I know of is happy with subsidies. Subsidies rarely impact family farms, they simple aren't to scale enough to matter.
  3. TheLeviathan
    I'm guessing they are doing this to help him reset. I'd guess Romero is the call, but I hope I get a pleasant surprise.
  4. TheLeviathan
    I've long said, if you think a certain deficit becomes insulting - institute a mercy rule. In lieu of that....play the game.
  5. TheLeviathan
    4 shutout innings from the bullpen. If the last 72 hours taught me anything its to now conclude they will be perfect the rest of the year. Long term extensions for all!
  6. TheLeviathan
    Thought crossed my mind.....
  7. TheLeviathan
    I'll take Javy Baez.
  8. TheLeviathan
    Im not sure context matters either. Just play baseball until the game is over by the written rules.
  9. TheLeviathan
    I reopened a thread on this. Our pitchforks and torches need not leave this thread. It earned them.
  10. TheLeviathan
    You used a small sample.
  11. TheLeviathan
    If one were to compare baseball (either as a crapshoot or not a crapshoot) in that sense.....would that be a rational use of the term? Baseball isn't random like throwing dice, so I try to interpret the term with the best of intentions. Go back and look at what Bob said that got this tangent rolling and I think his intent was pretty clear: you can add players but their effect size is rather minimal because of the variance factor. That Levine can be justified by the numbers that dumping assets into acquisitions for playoff wins is unwise. I sometimes agree and sometimes not with that last part. I think that's what separates the best GMs. What I do think is true is that the numbers do bear out that these sorts of midseason and playoff-focused acquisitions are not nearly as impactful as people think. At least for the actual playoffs. But there is a subset of posters that will ignore the impact of playoff variance and overinflate the impact of trade acquisitions. On that basis they claim "Not a crapshoot!" and on that basis they are most definitely wrong.
  12. TheLeviathan
    Variance doesn't explain everything, certainly. But it's a major factor that you have limited control over. The post I took issue with said the playoffs are "not a crapshoot". Well, what's a crapshoot? If you argue that "crapshoot" means totally random thing you have no control over I'd suggest you aren't using the word "random" correctly and what you've said is mostly meaningless. Your terms are wrong and you've basically made the equivalent of a one word strawman argument. If what you mean by "crapshoot" is that it is subject to small sample variance, then there is only one correct answer: Hell yes it's a crapshoot. That is what most people mean, so the contention that it is not is simply not true. We have data showing that. Now, lots of factors come into play in the playoffs. Certainly talent disparities are a major part of that, but on the major league level those disparities are generally not that large. Not enough to remove the tyranny of variance for sure. There are intangibles that come into play as well. So can you close those gaps? Yup, for both talent and intangibles IMO. You can even target players you think might specifically be valuable weapons against other particular teams. But those changes are incremental because of how narrow the gap is and how powerful the variance can be. So, yeah, incrementally make this sucker better. Playoffs are still a crapshoot though, so brace yourself,
  13. TheLeviathan
    And if you want to die on the hill of random....take it up with Harvard. What I think you mean is variability and, statistically speaking, baseball has a lot of it in the playoffs.
  14. TheLeviathan
    I just have to point out the irony here is.....astounding.
  15. TheLeviathan
    This marks the third time you have confused small sample and random. At this point, given your confusion on it, it doesn't seem like a conversation to continue. I will say this on the larger issue - I believe the run of playoff failures had more to do with the team's psychological make-up than anything else. But being a team surviving the weakest division with less talent than the others didn't help. This team has a much better edge to it. It's already deep and talented. It has the ingredients, which is why I'd invest in it. Heavily. It's why I'm disappointed about Kimbrel. I'd be on the phone with the Giants every day about Smith and MadBum. Because, how do you protect small sample flukes? Well, you try to be as deep and talented as you can be to insulate yourself from perils of a small sample. So adding talent is, really, your only way to do that. However, the degree to which it can do that will always be more incremental than dramatic. Still, I'll take increments when the opportunities are there.
  16. TheLeviathan
    I'd argue each of those handfuls are that and you are wrongly lumping them together. It created the false sense of a pattern. I too expect this team to be better and I too want them to add an ace an bullpen parts. I'm just not going to delude myself about the playoffs. The playoffs crown the World Series Championship. The 162 games decide the best teams.
  17. TheLeviathan
    I already stated that. I understand that small samples aren't "random", that's not my point. Max Kepler didn't "randomly" hit 3 home runs last night. But I'm going to go out on a limb and not draw any huge implications going forward either. Or in assessing Max Kepler. He had a helluva night. Drawing more conclusions than that (which you are) is the mistake. That kind of sober approach to a small sample apparently is completely abandoned when people judge playoff performances. They say a team like the 116 win Mariners wasn't "as good" as the Yankees. No, they were probably better. They got beat in a small sample. If we could run that sample a hundred times perhaps the outcome is different more often than not. Which goes to the Yankees - yes, it can happen. And did. It is a historical anomaly. It's much better explained by a combination of psychology, talent, and good fortune. Not as some massive pattern we can just "figure out" and magically win the next 10 championships.
  18. TheLeviathan
    Pretty sure it was! If we lose three of the next five to the Tigers....should we cede them the division? I will say again - add talent for the playoffs. 100% on board. But the playoffs are always a small sample and all the things that come with that.
  19. TheLeviathan
    I don't think that's true at all. The playoffs are a small sample size, sure the results aren't "random" but they are subject to the kind of wild variations that all small samples are guilty of. You can prepare for them the best you can and then laugh as dudes like Brandon Backe pull a rabbit out of their rear end.
  20. TheLeviathan
    I certainly can understand questioning the authenticity of it.
  21. TheLeviathan
    Just in case you thought this issue had reached it's low point....
  22. TheLeviathan
    That kind of plays into the disapproval ratings. Yeah, people don't like Trump, but if they don't like the other person even more (see: Hillary) then they vote for the lesser of two dislikable hacks. By anecdote, I know quite a few farmers who did exactly that in 2016.
  23. TheLeviathan
    We don't want politicians to change wrong views? I'm cynical he did this for good reasons, but I sorta want people in office willing to listen. I like a lot of what AOC stands for, but I also hope she listens that some of her policies are not well designed. Ditto Warren. Ditto Mayor Pete. One of my biggest issues with the guy in office is that he doesn't listen to good reason. I can't fault Biden for doing so, even if it was nothing more than saving political face.
  24. TheLeviathan
    There are ways to stream that are very budget friendly. I'm sure any of us whipper snappers could help you out in PM if you're so inclined.
  25. TheLeviathan
    They might have been. I don't have a lot of confidence in this bullpen going forward and the ERA ballooning that happened thanks to that game in Tampa and Parker the other night probably made quite an impact. And may be indicative of the future. That justifies concern to be sure. However, there have been people talking about how bad the bullpen is all season and the numbers just don't bear that out. Now, they may look bad if we keep the current bullpen and ride them out, but it's simply not accurate to say they've been bad so far.
×
×
  • Create New...