Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

TheLeviathan

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    21,007

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    47

 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 Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by TheLeviathan

  1. TheLeviathan
    If you are strictly referring to the player at the plate, yes, OBP is equal. A walk and a single, for just the hitter, is the same. But the impact on other baserunners is very different. It's real simple to me - would I rather have a guy with a .341 OBP that was ALL walks or ALL singles? Singles all the way because then at least occasionally I have 1st and 3rd rather than 1st and 2nd. That was my point.
  2. TheLeviathan
    Please don't misunderstand, I haven't totally given up on Hicks and I don't need him to hit 25 homeruns from LF. But I do need him to be about 100 points higher in OPS and likely a much better baserunner as well. That's a steep improvement hill to climb and I'd like to see him working towards that in AAA to start next year.
  3. TheLeviathan
    Well, for one - he isn't a longterm CF because of his own erratic, subpar play and the future of the organization. So if you're a corner OF that can't hit and only walk - you are hurting your team. Just taking walks is not going to be enough if you can't wedge any power or production beyond an empty .220 batting average. This is one of those times when the advanced stats do a disservice if they lead you to believe every OBP is created equally.
  4. TheLeviathan
    Makes sense since, again, Buxton hasn't played in basically a year and at A ball for most of it. He and Sano are not on the same plane of projectability for the big leagues and it's not even close.
  5. TheLeviathan
    If Buxton is in the big leagues - it better be with the expectation that he's ready, not based on what his production will be.
  6. TheLeviathan
    Lot of Bourjos talk above your post too.
  7. TheLeviathan
    Sano and Buxton haven't followed the same development path so I have trouble lumping them into the same decision. Sano has shown the ability to dominate AA - he's ready. I have to see that from Buxton before I'm ready for him to come up.
  8. TheLeviathan
    Using empirical evidence doesn't preclude context or player development curves. For example, there was empirical evidence to believe Phil Hughes would be better away from NY. There was minor league empirical evidence to believe an investment of playing time in Koskie or Hunter was a wise idea. Sometimes empirical evidence is contradictory and you need to weigh the pros and cons, sometimes it flies in the face of the eye test, and sometimes it supports it. The key is that it is consulted and consulted heavily in decision making. I don't need it to be the 100% reason for managerial decisions, but having it a major part is absolutely required.
  9. TheLeviathan
    "Too much influence" is a complete independent problem and I'm going to do my best to make the most sense out of this post that I can. Managers should be in control of what happens during games and there are a bevy of sabermetric ideas that can be employed from lineup construction, to matchups, to shifting, to the running game, and anything else the manager normally calls the shots on. Sabermetric thinking isn't just referencing new fangled stats (that's part), it's really using any empirical evidence to make decisions rather than eye tests and gut feelings.
  10. TheLeviathan
    That would make a lot of sense....had he said that. In any case, I don't put much stock into that interview, but I do think a manager needs to be comfortable using new school ideas. One of the most irritating things with Gardy, for example, was his lineup construction and how antithetical it was to new wave ideas. SABR ideas should be employed in roster construction and implemented in day-to-day play to maximize their advantage. If Dougie is a guy that can do that - great! He's just a bit more of a mystery on that than Molitor at this point.
  11. TheLeviathan
    And vice-versa - Molitor being older doesn't preclude him from being new school. There seem to be a lot of sweeping conclusions being drawn based solely on age.
  12. TheLeviathan
    I'm unclear what you're asking. My point was that Nick's suggestion that SABR theories are more for GMs than Managers is not something I can get behind.
  13. TheLeviathan
    I guess I don't understand why this distinction is all that important. We have to do that for either guy. What can be said on SABR is that we KNOW Molitor believes in parts of it and has been a major part in implementing it with the big league club. Dougie is a mystery, but his comments indicate he's not as likely to be a proponent. One of the biggest day to day weaknesses of this club the last few years has been an unwillingness to embrace SABR ideas in a day to day context, I think characterizing that knowledge as more for GMs than managers is a really hard opinion to swallow. In fact, I couldn't disagree more vehemently with that characterization.
  14. TheLeviathan
    SD Buhr nailed my thoughts, this came off as a Dougie pimping, Molly downplaying article. I'm really not sure this was the most fair presentation of the debate and certainly didn't fit the title. I'm ok with either of these guys, but I was hoping when I clicked on this to hear the actual merits of both candidates. I did not get that here until SD's comments. So it appears to me that this is what each guy has going for him: Molly More open to SABR thinking, shifting, etc. Our two best position prospects are vocal cheerleaders for him Keen mind for the game More of a "teacher" type of coach Dougie Has actual managerial experience (including winning baseball at his level) More of a "motivator" type of coach Younger and more identifiable with young players Has more recent experience in other organizations I can see the case both ways - maybe we can have both with one serving as the bench coach?
  15. TheLeviathan
    Yup, I'd have him on my list for sure. Cingarni, Straily, and Morrow might be on my list too depending on cost.
  16. TheLeviathan
    I think that was my big beef - the Royals could very well slide back to obscurity. They might also take the revenues from sold out Kaufmann the last month and bring Shields back. I think the intention was pretty clear - the time to wait was over, it was time to be relevant again. Their game tonight proves that a success no matter the outcome.
  17. TheLeviathan
    You're minimizing the success of their season this year on the assumption of what is to come. The mission they accomplished was what I posted above - relevancy and still having a decent supply of assets on the team. Trying to knock that accomplishment down based on the assumption of future failure seems like sour grapes and I don't get why. The Royals can have had a successful season and it says nothing good or bad about the Twins. My point is that if we judged any of the division winning Twins teams of the last decade in the same manner we'd probably call all of them non-successes. I totally disagree with that. The Twins got swept, A LOT, but it's still an accomplishment to be one of the few standing when the dust settles with a shot at a championship. Every time the Twins accomplished that the last decade is a success in my book. I wouldn't judge the Royals more harshly than that and I think most of what we're hearing in this thread is pretty unfair.
  18. TheLeviathan
    Pick any single season from the 2000s. 2008? Apparently a non-success. 2010? Didn't win a game after in the postseason. I don't see the point in arguing that the Royals future is doomed past this one game. That's way too bold a claim for anyone to make with any solid footing. You can believe that to be true, but they could very well continue to compete. It's far from a given that a run this year with no title means the end of their relevancy and it seems that you and others are making that rather large assumption a bit too confidently.
  19. TheLeviathan
    You're talking about losing one game and being out versus losing three games and being out. Given how the 2000s Twins played in the playoffs, the difference is moot. For example, I wouldn't call the 2008 Twins and unsuccessful team. They had a successful season, they just got beat in a dramatic game. Baseball is unique because of the lack of teams that make the playoffs (roughly half of what makes it in the NBA and NHL) and the grinding, grueling schedule. Any time you survive 162 games - be it because of weak division opposition or not - and have a chance to win a pennant - then you've had a successful season. Whether your first series is best of one or best of three seems like an odd line to draw between success and non-success.
  20. TheLeviathan
    Relevancy, a very successful season, and all the assets they got in the Grienke deal plus whatever compensation they get if they release Shields. My god, if people applied the same rigors of "success" to the Twins of the 2000s there would be riots on the forums. But I guess playing 165 games before going home empty handed is WAY better than 163 games.
  21. TheLeviathan
    You're one of the first posters to come rushing in when Thrylos or someone else bashes the 2000s Twins for not winning anything and being unsuccessful. And you're right. Making the playoffs in baseball, over a grinding 162 season, is an accomplishment. The playoffs are a crapshoot and I'd never call making them a non-successful season. Especially when you haven't made them in three decades. I'm not sure why you feel the need to keep implying that's a bad thing. Good for the Royals, even if you want to rain on their parade for whatever reason that may be.
  22. TheLeviathan
    Molitor or Dougie please.
  23. TheLeviathan
    I kind of have, You should consider how you came in swinging with calling this season a non-success. By that same logic the Twins were a non-success for all of the 2000s and you are vocally opposed to that argument everytime someone posts it. And rightly so, but your arguments here are completely opposite here. The Royals' move was a success and good for them.
  24. TheLeviathan
    Some teams play 165 and you call that a success then? Being one of the final 10 teams playing is a success, trying to minimize that seems like sour grapes.
  25. TheLeviathan
    I'm surprised and now excited to see this play out. Great run for Gardy and I hope he finds success with what's next, but this was the right thing.
×
×
  • Create New...