Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

TheLeviathan

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    21,583

  • 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
    You're welcome to your opinion. Labeling the idea of this being a strong start the symptom of "embarrassingly low" expectations seems to be the real problem here. You made it about that when the first post, and subsequent opinions, said nothing of the sort. I, for one, still have high expectations and am still quite happy with this start. They need not be the same thing, as you have tried to tie together repeatedly.
  2. TheLeviathan
    I imagine this is what Ryan loves most anyway. Good for him.
  3. TheLeviathan
    WAR for a DH - I literally could not have come up with a better example of the irrelevancy of caveats if you can't think, for two seconds before you post it, that you may not be using the best metric for your argument. And you used that very example in the last few hours Mike. And you weren't alone. That, right there, is the problem. WAR is the default and too little thought is put into the idea of "does it apply to this situation" or, better yet, "might it NOT apply in this situation" I want you to APPLY the caveats. Not just say them.
  4. TheLeviathan
    Must nor have been clear - screw the caveats. Incorporate the flaws BEFORE you use the stat. Like, for example, before you quote it about a DH. How can I believe someone takes those caveats seriously when their use of the stat contradicts it? Seems doubtful you take those limitations seriously if you ignore them but for some meaningless caveats.
  5. TheLeviathan
    We can't find leadership from someone who doesn't play DH? You know, the one place we are nine guys deep?
  6. TheLeviathan
    It's not a straw man if it's true. I even addressed your very argument above. Yes, everyone throws their caveats around about what WAR is or isn't.....and then utterly disregard them in practice. It's like saying "Hey, it's a bad idea to get drunk any day but Saturday. I realize it's not something we should do. Now,about getting absolutely hammered on Thursday..." At some point I stop taking the caveats seriously when it becomes abundantly clear you don't take them seriously either. This Verlander vs. Porcello thing arose because people were quoting WAR without any context or inspection. Just slapping the ol' WAR number down and saying "case closed!" And that, sadly, is the root of the problem. There is basically no effort whatsoever to hold WAR to those qualifications about it's weaknesses. It's just used, constantly, even when not appropriate. And in this particular debate, it appears to have been inappropriate. Yet it took a voice in the wilderness to yell out "Um...hey...not so fast!" If all the WARheads out there are as concerned and beholden to the flaws of WAR, you'd think it wouldn't have had to get that far....no?
  7. TheLeviathan
    I don't know, couldn't a pitcher just have crap luck over a season? When you think about how much it could influence one pitcher, it wouldn't take as much as you think. In 30 starts, even a handful of games in which there is bad luck with his D could make a sizable difference. Especially if that bad luck isn't counted as errors. Or maybe he just doesn't get as lucky with heroic defense efforts either. With defense, it only takes a play or two to cause a domino effect in a game. Less so with offense.
  8. TheLeviathan
    Of course I'm using hyperbole, anything short of that wouldn't do justice to what some are saying in here. At best you can argue that you're splitting hairs about what a "strong start" means. That's literally the best frame I can give what you've said in this thread. You've used terms like the "bar is embarrassingly low" and "horribly low" as if you think Nick or anyone else is setting up a church in their name. A strong start is simple - so far, so good. We can evaluate that regardless of how the previous administration would've operated. And we should do so without thinking "bold" has to mean something that rarely happens. Bold can just mean confidently going out and doing what has to be done. It doesn't have to mean something crazy or out of left field. So, yeah, am I stretching? Absolutely. But so are you. You've stretched "bold" and "strong" to the point of being incomprehensible and meaningless. And you've taken them totally out of the context they were being argued.
  9. TheLeviathan
    Have they cured cancer yet? That'd be a strong start. Otherwise....what are they wasting their time on? Baseball? As long as this thread is going to be preposterous let's dive in with both feet!
  10. TheLeviathan
    I would like to see these guys fired. They've failed to extract a DNA sample from Mike Trout and clone him 9 times and they've had, like, a whole month on the job already! Losers. Seriously, no one is arguing they deserve statues. They're off to a strong start. They're shopping the right people. Cutting ties with the right people. Added the best available player at a high position of need for a reasonable contract. And they continue to say the right things about what they intend to do here. If you're going to find a way to complain about that I'm not sure why anyone should take your opinion seriously. At that point you're just trolling or overly obstinate.
  11. TheLeviathan
    They signed the best player available at a giant area of need. That's the definition of "strong start"
  12. TheLeviathan
    Are we sure about that? And, even more specifically, are we sure our measurements of it are?
  13. TheLeviathan
    I think you may have gotten lost in the weeds Brock. He just picked an argument he knew he'd have full agreement on to demonstrate that sometimes more careful analysis is necessary to really differentiate performance than simply looking at one stat. It is absolutely possible for a pitcher to have exceptionally dumb luck around him, be it defense or offense. At least that phenomenon is real enough that in any one year sample it bears investigation.
  14. TheLeviathan
    This is a nice nutshell of my issues with WAR. Good stat. Nice when used correctly. Easy, quick cheat to estimate value in many cases. But the second you start using that stat to make compelling arguments across positions and in small samples you lose me. And I feel like the response Joe got is so typical: "WAR isn't perfect, but I'm going to ignore all your concerns, keep using the stat anyway, and make sure I say it isn't perfect again just to make sure you know i know that. But now i'm going to use it like it's definitive again..." And around and around we go. It totally misses the point that, in many specifics instances, it's absolutely inappropriate to use and still very flawed. And while so many proponents acknowledge it's flaws, they still use it like they don't.
  15. TheLeviathan
    I don't think it's realistic to burn the place down and rebuild. They need to imprint their vision on those here and find out who can go along with it and who is too stuck in the past. A few former players associated with the franchise doesn't move the needle much. It's probably more of an olive branch than anything. I do get the concern, the rampant nepotism in this organization has long been my main issue. I'm just going to give these new guys plenty of leeway early on. They deserve that and I don't want to judge their actions by decades of actions by Ryan. I'm not sure that's fair. But I am, just like you, wary of the nepotism.
  16. TheLeviathan
    I still frequent it from time to time, but I think it's going to die just like Simmons' show did. There is just something missing.
  17. TheLeviathan
    I also miss Grantland. The No Smerfs facebook page is usually hopping though.... (Full circle!)
  18. TheLeviathan
    I'm fine with outside voices bringing in players from the past. The decision making to reach that conclusion is much different than if it was Ryan doing the same thing.
  19. TheLeviathan
    I don't want to take a #3 pitcher. I want a young player with upside. Someone who could help transform this rotation. We already have a #3 in Ervin Santana and we should be dealing him too. I don't see next year as anything worth fussing over. This team is too far away for that. Deal the guys who are likely at peak value, who are old enough not to build around, and try to get some pieces that you can. Keep Dozier and Santana and you can expect the next two years when you have them to be, at best, mediocre. Deal them for the right players you can control for 6 or more years? Now you have some hope to be better than that.
  20. TheLeviathan
    I mean erratic because he's a borderline bench player for two months and then out of his mind for 3 months. And we've seen two years of that. I want a headline piece and one or two other pieces back in the deal. And I hope that headline piece is a pitcher, but I'll take any blue chipper. Let me make this clear: It is highly unlikely that Dozier will be here when we are next contending unless he's an overpaid, declining talent into his 30s. So deal him now, at peak value, or regret it later. That's really as simple as it is. I can't understand the mentality of sit around and wait for this 103 loss team to just transform into a contender. That's not how it works.
  21. TheLeviathan
    Based on Dozier's age and his erratic production, his streak to end last year is probably peak. And you can't get better if you retain a 103 loss team and hope glue and bandaids fix the pitching. This staff isn't getting better without outside acquisitions. And to get something good, you have to trade something good. We should be making high percentage plays to make ourselves better. Trade Dozier for multiple players > keep Dozier and pray. That's what it comes down to.
  22. TheLeviathan
    All teams do this sort of thing. Hopefully they bring something helpful.
  23. TheLeviathan
    The best part about Westworld is now I have even more reason to tune out Walking Dead. Win, win!
  24. TheLeviathan
    Yup, Westworld is some good stuff. Really good stuff.
  25. TheLeviathan
    That needs to still be a thing. Some of you hacks I still have friended with that, but I barely know who is who anymore.
×
×
  • Create New...