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
    I don't think I actually posted this, but a few weeks back I thought this exact thing. When have the Twins ever said "Target field will help us retain and attract better players". The whole "attract" part is never mentioned. Ever. Always "retain".
  2. TheLeviathan
    This is precisely the problem - "evening out". The best way to substantially improve the club isn't to move the 850+ OPS at catcher.
  3. TheLeviathan
    I'm not sure how valuable an .800 OPS with no power playing first for 23 million is. Regardless of how fresh he is or how much his longevity is extended.
  4. TheLeviathan
    When did anything within the same universe of this come out of my mouth? The claim was that his offense "suffers" by playing catcher. The implication is that it will be better then at 1B. Except the data shows the exact opposite. I've made no such claim about what will or won't happen and I've damn sure never said his offense will suffer by a move. What I've done is shot down the claim that catching has caused his offense to suffer. There is no evidence of that. What evidence there is contradicts that claim. If you want to conjecture about what would or wouldn't happen - go for it. I've seen nothing to date that moving him to first is going to magically transform him and the one issue I KNOW will happen is moving a bat like his from a premium position will hurt this team badly. I'm not willing to take that risk (with the myriad of other problems this team has) on the hopes he becomes even better as a 1B.
  5. TheLeviathan
    Exactly. And even if you agree with this philosophy in general, there is such a thing as too much of a good thing too. At some point close knit becomes "shut in".
  6. TheLeviathan
    How does playing him at first change this? You go from having a great player and two open spots (1B and DH) to an average player and two open spots ( C and DH) with one of those spots much more difficult to fill. Move him when you solve the replacement catcher. In the meantime, spread him around while the team is terrible and hope he can full time catch when the team is ready. If he can, you significantly increase your likelihood of a great team. It cant be stated enough, it is a significant step backwards for this teams future to lose Mauer's position value. I wouldn't willingly kill that value.
  7. TheLeviathan
    That's like arguing if the government removed murder laws it wouldn't have played a role in a crap-ton of murders happening.
  8. TheLeviathan
    And it's not true. I'm baffled that an opinion, completely unsupported by facts and totally reliant on conjecture, is throwing the "small sample size" stone. Baffled. I'm not denying the possibility it might help him, but it hasn't so far. So you're just hoping and you're taking a very significant, KNOWN risk in the hopes that your unknown improvement will happen. This team has enough issues without actively creating more.
  9. TheLeviathan
    What exactly is your bar for this? What qualifies as a full time catcher? You realize that in scenario A you are trying to upgrade from Mauer at catcher right? And that, short of maybe 1 or 2 guys that isn't really possible? As opposed to keeping him at catcher and trying to upgrade over a paltry set of first baseman. To me, that decision is easy: upgrade at 1B. It's easier to find. And cheaper.
  10. TheLeviathan
    If he's been doing them for years....wouldn't he just say "yeah, we've been looking at stuff like that for awhile" rather than crying "WITCH!" every time something like FIP is brought up? It doesn't seem like a plausible explanation. He's repeated many times his adoration for human scouting over metrics. Which is fine, I'd just like it to be brought more into balance. Or the metrics less shunned.
  11. TheLeviathan
    I'm never comfortable with the notion that we're "at a critical mass" or that "modern times" have hurt our ability to help our fellow man. We've been doing that for a long time. If anything, we're helping our fellow man far more now than we ever have in human history. It's hyperbole that detracts from the good reasons to institute universal health care. Where the greed truly lies is in the political class. If there is a point of critical mass, it's because the balancing act of achieving their own power is slowly eroding the foundations of a stable economy/society. We're seeing those issues become more and more severe each time we have to pay the piper on one of those short-sighted, power grabbing moments. And it's both sides doing it.
  12. TheLeviathan
    The falsehood is arguing to move him because he's performed better when not catching. That isn't true. If it was, it'd be a compelling argument. But it's not true in what evidence we have. Then you THINK he'll hit better. If you claim that he HAS hit better - you're stating a falsehood. And it's one repeated on this issue often by posters here and by talking heads in the local media.
  13. TheLeviathan
    The private sector couldn't have done what they did if not for government action. There is accountability on both sides of it. And it's not as if the government did it out of a sound policy, they did it to win votes and short-sighted objectives.
  14. TheLeviathan
    You claimed he's a better hitter when he's not catching. There is no truth in that statement. You can claim small sample size until you're blue in the face, but you made a very definitive statement that is not supported by the stats. If it was true you'd have a persuasive argument for moving him. But it's not true - so find a better argument and drop that one.
  15. TheLeviathan
    This isn't a "convincing" matter. The claim was that he hits better when he's not catching. Other than his injury shortened 2011, that has never been true even in individual seasons. So it's both not true over his career and it's not true even in isolated seasons. Again, I'll repeat:There is zero evidence that shows he is a better hitter when he's not catching. Zero. So you can't make that claim. As for next year - I'm fine resting him more in bad seasons, but I don't "move" him anywhere at this point.
  16. TheLeviathan
    Cmon. Why this black and white stuff? Not all regulation is bad and not all of it is good. This is such a flimsy talking point and it completely ignores what was said in order to smash a silly scarecrow. There are clowns in politics that believe all regulation is bad, but no one has said that here.
  17. TheLeviathan
    Please provide some evidence that he is a better hitter when he's not catching. The stats don't back that claim. Until they do, it's a false claim. This isn't a matter of opinion or excuses....stats tell the story. As for the DL, the day may come to protect him but you can't ever completely do it. The only certain thing is that you dramatically reduce his value to the team.
  18. TheLeviathan
    He's been a better hitter as a catcher. C - 408/481/889 1B - 397/435/831 We need to just kill that falsehood. The Twins are best when that 800+ OPS is behind the plate and he should continue to play there primarily until Pinto or someone else can full time.
  19. TheLeviathan
    That's a bizarre stance. From this article - Ryan appears to be anti-Ryan. He refused to fire a manage because of what he perceived to be his own failures.
  20. TheLeviathan
    I don't think the right way to spin this is that we're getting a guy who needs things to be easier to be successful, the point is that if we sign a guy and put him in a better position to pitch better - we'll receive a better bang for our buck. I think Hughes and Johnson represent the best chances for that scenario.
  21. TheLeviathan
    They won almost half those games despite 100 or less throwing yards and several other hokie methods. I said it last year that their success wasn't a good thing, it only further delayed the rebuild.
  22. TheLeviathan
    They went 10-6 out of luck and a crappy schedule.
  23. TheLeviathan
    I give this move two huge thumbs up. Excellent news.
  24. TheLeviathan
    Every year people overreact and think they can deduce the magic formula for winning it all by analyzing the teams in the Series. It doesn't exist. I'm with John - it's a crapshoot once you hit the playoffs.
  25. TheLeviathan
    One could argue the managerial decisions were every bit as liable as the actual bullpen performance. The real downfall was what Smerf alluded to - Boston's starters matched Detroits which negated a huge strength.
×
×
  • Create New...