Jump to content
  • Create Account

Mark G

Verified Member
  • Posts

    93
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Mark G's Achievements

  1. We already have the stopgap SS, and moving Polanco and Arraez around, again, isn't the answer. We need a stable infield, not a fluctuating one that moves every time a contract comes up or a player is signed and we put him in a position we already have filled. We have played enough musical chairs with this team, both in the field and in our day to day lineups. Find players you trust, put them in a position to excel, put them in a batting order that makes sense, and trust them to play the game. And if you don't believe in that, explain why; maybe it is me that is KaKa.
  2. I know I will catch it for this, but I hope so. He has the glove, and he is just as much a candidate for a bounce back season as anyone we are talking about here. He is a lifetime .265 hitter who was doing alright until he came here. I think he would do much better with a different hitting coach who has a different approach. He would have to be willing to take less than 10.5 mil, but he most likely won't get that kind of offer anywhere else either, so he might listen. And if an in house guy breaks out and proves himself better, we can celebrate; in the meantime, we need a stable infield and moving Polanco and Arraez around again doesn't accomplish that. Just my extremely humble opinion.
  3. I have always had my doubts about Jeff Nelson. He grades out alright overall, but he is a St. Paul boy, and has appeared to be afraid to be seen as a home town ump when umping the Twins. I am not in his head, but he appears to bend over backwards to not appear to favor his hometown team; it shows much of the time, and has for many years.
  4. Right on. Once again, all runs on home runs; keep it in the ballpark and we are impotent. 0-9 with a runner on 2nd the last 3 extra innings; guaranteed to lose.
  5. I fully agree on two counts. We have the technology to call balls and strikes accurately, and we need to start using it. Balls and strikes are too much a part of the game, and too important to have as many as we see wrong keep going. What a pitcher would throw on 1-2 vs. 2-1 can mean everything in too many at bats. I watch many of the games on the computer where the screen is, and the number that are clearly wrong (both ways) are far too many to continue to tolerate. 2nd, I read the NY Post a few days a week, and the difference is stark in how they cover their teams vs. how our media covers ours. You wouldn't want to be on the Mets right now, trust me. And the Yankees have been excoriated up and down for several weeks now and they are 16 games OVER .500. We are 18 games UNDER .500 and all we do is look at the minor leaguers and estimate how they would do in the lineup next year. Betsy, in the Pioneer Press, might just as well be a PR person for the Twins FO with what she writes; never even so much as a critique, much less a criticism, and the Trib isn't exactly calling for heads to roll either. And some should, maybe, the way this team has been mismanaged. I miss the days when sports writers were our voice, not the teams. But I digress. You are spot on on those two points.
  6. They rank well in those categories, but the numbers can be misleading. The number I look at the most is the old stat of the team scoring 3 runs or less and 4 runs or more, and what the records of each are. We do things like today; 6 homeruns, 8 in the last two games, and that jacks up the numbers but not the record. Through tonight the Twins have scored 3 runs or less in 47% of our games to date and that, more than anything, is why we are 16 games under .500. I have never been much for the SLG and the OPS. I look at runs produced, which comes from runs scored and RBI's. And to do both, you need more than solo home runs now and then. The launch angle and the MPH exiting the bat are fun to see once in a while, but I will take a good average hitter every day, and we just don't have enough. Having said all that, yes, pitching is still a major problem we need to solve.
  7. Yea, and pretty badly at that. I have said for years that Buxton should be getting 30-40 bunt singles a year with his speed, but he doesn't want to. So when we need it the most, he isn't able to. And no one on this team cares, because the bunt goes against the analytics. Frustrating to watch at times.
  8. Best post I have seen in a while. There are times when I wouldn't let Rocco coach my neighborhood little league team.
  9. 4 runs before an out is recorded. 11 innings later we come up with a total of 3 hits and 0 runs additional. 0 for 6 with a runner at 2nd in extra innings. Oh, and did I mention that all 4 runs came on home runs? When the pitcher can keep the ball in the ballpark we may be the worst team in this old man's memory; we simply do not move runners along and in to score, even when the runners are handed to us. And check out the ERA's of the 2 pitchers who handed us the 0 for 6 in the extra innings; and the 6 hitters were the top 6 in our lineup. A word to Rocco: put your computer sheets down and play the game of baseball. The team isn't hitting 307 home runs anymore; you need to score the old fashioned way.........or do you not know how?
  10. Wow, I suspect I am putting myself square in the crosshairs here, but I couldn't disagree with this more. As the article stated, we knew going in he had a light bat. We knew he would give better defense. And, again as the article said, he proved it. We expected to be a good hitting contending team that could live with a light hitting good glove shortstop; the fact that the rest of the team fell on its collective face is the reason we are where we are, not Simmons. From what I remember being told when we signed him he lived up to his billing almost entirely. We did expect an average higher than .218, but we knew he was a singles hitter who was not going to make or break the offense and he has done pretty much what he came here to do, which was to give us a solid glove at SS while Polanco settled in at second and the prospects came around. Not only do I believe it was, and still is, a good signing I would sign him right now for 2022 to give the prospects another year to mature. And hopefully we won't have the 3rd worst (or close to it) ERA in the league and Kepler will hit more than .207. And Buxton will stay on the field. And Sano will learn how to play first and hit more than .214, And I could go on, but don't need to. Simmons wasn't, and isn't, the problem. A contending team not only can afford a light hitting gold glove caliber SS, it should want one (the glove, that is). The team had a meltdown, not Simmons. I can't believe I just defended this FO's decision. Maybe there is hope after all.
  11. On the opposite end of that, yes, it is possible to win with 3 runs if the pitching holds up, but so far this season we have scored 3 runs or less 47% of the games we have played through Wednesday night. The 3 run rule will hold up only so long; we need to open up the offense to more than waiting for the 2 or 3 run home run. We have a grand total of (non pitcher) 6 sacrifice bunts the entire season, and 44 total stolen bases. When is the last time we have seen a pure hit and run out of this team? When you can not (will not?) move runners along the old fashioned way, you need 3 hits an inning or a long ball to score any runs. Hence the 47%. That is the management in the dugout, not the players, and we are paying the price for it. So we can talk about pitching all we want, and believe me, I want to, but we need a different approach offensively as well. And this analytic group in the dugout isn't going to give it to us. Which also falls on the FO; they couldn't wait to bring these guys in.
  12. I concur. I have been shy about saying it myself, but Colome has looked pretty good for awhile now, and I am finally starting to trust him in the 9th again. And Alcala has good stuff, he has just given up too many gopher balls; since that has settled down he has looked good as well. And I am liking Gant as back end possibility; I wouldn't write his name in ink just yet, but a light pencil seems appropriate until he proves me wrong. Good observations.
  13. I agree with everything you laid out in the above article, and what you just posted here. And I could have saved you the hours on the internet, too. Almost anyone in my generation of baseball junkies could have told you exactly this without a single stat or WAR, just our eyes and paying attention to the box scores every day. Don't take that as some kind of insult, I say it somewhat tongue in cheek knowing that folks today rely on the analytics. I only point out that sometimes it is overrated (highly overrated?) compared to just old time seeing for yourself. But you are spot on, however you came to the conclusions you did.
  14. They put a rookie in the game at different positions he has never played before (or very seldom) in his professional career and hope he doesn't fall on his face. He doesn't make an error, and he is now Mr. "clutch" at .239 and one good game at the plate. Or at least that is the message I am getting from the article. "He is not a rock star at all positions, but he can cover them if need be" might describe 30 or 40 players in the league. What is wrong with finding a position he is a rock star at and leaving him there instead of trying him out at every position but pitcher and catcher? Maybe if he grows as a hitter they will, but in the meantime we simply do not need anymore .239 hitting utility players. Find a home for him and let him play there! Or play himself out of it, but enough with musical chairs, the baseball version! It isn't working!
×
×
  • Create New...