Jump to content
  • Create Account

Mark G

Verified Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mark G

  1. As we are mulling this over, Max has just hit his 2nd home run in two at bats tonight. Hilarious.
  2. I seem to remember hearing an argument about letting Rosario go because of his less than average corner defense. And what replaced him? IMO, even less than Rosario corner defense without Rosario's run production. I am now hearing the same argument for packing Max and sending him out, as well. All I am saying is until someone actually proves himself better, don't repeat history and end up with both corners being unsettled (unless, of course, he brings a quality arm). Because if Bux walks as well..........?
  3. Until one of the newbies proves themselves to be better, and until we sign Buxton long term (?) I don't have a problem with keeping Max for awhile. Work with him on bunting down the third base line when he is shifted on, and things might open up more. And the fact he can play both right and center at a pretty decent level is quite the insurance policy for Buxton leaving (?) or the newbies taking more time than anticipated. I think he is a reclamation project worth working on, especially at his price. And if the guys coming up beat him out, a trade can be worked out, but what's the hurry? Now, if we can get a decent pitcher for him...........I will deny I ever wrote this.
  4. I have said this before, and it bears repeating; this organization, from the Pohlads on down to the manager (and everyone in between) view this kind of information as being on a need to know basis and the fans are not on the list of who needs to know. They get pre game questions, post game questions, and occasionally mid game interview questions. And yet I have yet to hear them give a straight up honest answer to any of them. Free agents, trades, injuries, long term contract signings........name something, and they won't just be up front with anyone. And, no, they will never take responsibility for the years like this one. Sure will take credit for the '19's, though, and they expect that to be their collateral for all future failures. This crew is no different than any of the others, and it begins and ends in the owners box. Never thought I would miss old Calvin, but at least he was straight up. Do not expect to know anything about what the roster will look like in April until April; we are just the people who pay the bills. We don't count.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. Best post I have seen in a while. There are times when I wouldn't let Rocco coach my neighborhood little league team.
  13. 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?
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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!
  19. A pitcher whose sinker and changeup breaks down makes hitters swing and miss even at slower speeds. A pitcher whose fastball rises as it comes into the zone may make a hitter miss in the same fashion, even at modest speeds for a fastball. He will, though, need another pitch or two that makes hitters nervous so they can't sit on the fastball (which would make it even sneakier fast). In my day, that is what they paid pitching coaches for. We are supposed to have a good one; time for him to earn his money.
  20. I am kind of a rookie here; let me check this out. Love the thought.
  21. With all due respect, the Rays didn't beat up the Twins pitching staff, they beat up Albers. And why he was left in as long as he was to take said beating is not only confusing, it is distasteful. I could write a short story right now on Baldelli and some of the things he does with the pitching and the lineups, but I don't think I want the carpel tunnel that would go with it, so I will pass and leave it to cooler heads than mine right now. Looking forward to reading you all instead.
  22. Agreed! I know some home town official scorers like to give hits to their guys instead of errors to the other guys for the home team stats, but a fielders choice goes against a batting average just as much as an error does. And it sticks the pitcher with an earned run he doesn't deserve. Maybe they should give one challenge per game on the official scorer, too.
  23. 4 runs in 7 innings (as my own official score keeper I refuse to charge him with Sano's brain fart) will keep us in most games. We would be happy with this out of most other starters on this club; I am going to be happy with it in September of a lost season. Funny, isn't it, that when Ryan gives up 3 in 5, we give kudos but when Dobnak gives up 4 in 7 (again, Sano gets the 5th) we hesitate. Both had a bad inning and otherwise did great, but one is judged differently. I suspect there is no right or wrong here, just what each person sees for themselves. I love reading the folks here; keeps things in perspective.
  • Create New...