Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Mark G

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,153

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 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

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Mark G

  1. Mark G
    Something else comes to mind along this subject, or at least to me. It wasn't that long ago that Sano was playing 3rd, and to make room for Donaldson we moved him to 1st (2020 if I remember right) In '21 we started to play Kirilloff at 1st and he took to it well; well enough that a lot of people thought he would be the long term 1st baseman of the future. Now, in only the 3rd year since moving Sano, we find both Sano and Kiriloff on the IL and...............who is our first baseman? Miranda and Arraez? What it has brought to light is the lack of depth at 1st we have in the organization as a whole if there is not one true first baseman we feel we can bring up and fill in even short term. Curtis Terry is the only one I could find on the Saints roster. For all our great prospects we have coming up through the system, we have no 1st basemen and Jose Godoy as our fall back catcher? And let us not forget how many people are wondering if Sano's days here are numbered, this being the last year of his contract, and not knowing if Sanchez will be here next year as well. If Kirilloff is not well soon, these are two positions we may want to address in free agency in the near future. Or the trade deadline?
  2. Mark G
    I have heard so much about the starting staff and how it is right up there with the best so far this season. They have done well within the leash they are on, but is it possible that Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, KC, and Oakland would make a lot of staffs look good? Three straight bad starts in three days suddenly? And go back to the Dodgers. It will be interesting to watch the next month or two to see if the pattern continues.
  3. Mark G
    I have heard so much about the starting staff and how it is right up there with the best so far this season. They have done well within the leash they are on, but is it possible that Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, KC, and Oakland would make a lot of staffs look good? Three straight bad starts in three days suddenly? And go back to the Dodgers. It will be interesting to watch the next month or two to see if the pattern continues.
  4. Mark G
    YES!
  5. Mark G
    You bring up a very interesting point (at least to me). Pitch to contact, hit to the opposite field, sacrificing runners along, stealing bases and using the hit and run,,,,,,,,,,,,,vs..........., power pitching (leading to more arm injuries and huge pitching staffs), launch angles for more power hitting (leading to lower averages and more strike outs), refusing to bunt for sacrifices or hits, fewer walks and, basically, waiting for the home run to win the game. We link Ryan/Smith to the first style and Falvey/Levine to the second. I know I am going to be a minority of one on this page, but give me A over B every day of the year.
  6. Mark G
    Before I get in too much trouble here, I'm looking at the Twins stats so far this year and Celestino has 8 strike outs in 39 at bats, while Arraez has 6 strike outs in 73 at bats. What about Miranda? Not getting hits much, but only 1 strike out in 30 at bats. I guess the "King of contact" concept is based on what? Advanced analytics? What does that mean if it still results in a strike out every 5 at bats (so far - that might improve)? I like Celestino so far, and I hope he is for real, but what do they mean by contact? Do foul balls count? Or only balls put in play?
  7. Mark G
    Good point. And we also have to remember that Bundy was our first toe in the pool, so to speak, when we started to rebuild the pitching staff. Gray, Paddock, and Archer all came after, leaving Bundy as the 6th man. Winder is a pleasant surprise, giving us 7 possible starters which is nice, considering all the injuries this team has every year, but it will come time eventually to fish or cut bait, and Bundy will likely be the one cut.
  8. Mark G
    If this teams history is an indicator of things to come there will be at least one pitcher on the IL much, if not most, of the season so we are going to need all 7 of them at one point or another just as we have through the first 27 games. We may want to put him in long relief, but I would wait to DFA him until closer to the trade deadline and maybe we can buy this year. In the meantime, The Mad King just might be right and being ill made him weak and we will see better days. I would go for a handful of more starts and go to long relief if it doesn't get any better. Just my extremely humble opinion.
  9. Mark G
    "He was in command of all his pitches. He probably could've gone longer." So why didn't he? Maybe this isn't just a Rocco thing after all. It is starting to look like an organizational edict. When your starter is clearly firing on all cylinders, why leave it to 3 or 4 different relievers to win it for you? On second thought, maybe Rocco is managing by Zoom and no one knows it.
  10. Mark G
    "Miranda's hit was the second of his young MLB career. In a world of quick judgment, it should be applauded that Miranda has two hits in his first three MLB games. " Now, I know this is going to be somewhat nitpicky, and I know I will catch a fair amount of flak, but it is his 4th game and he is 2 for 17 with one of those being a little blooper. 1 bloop single, 1 double, and no walks is not what a lot of us expected. The good news is he has only struck out once, meaning he is at least making contact. Overall, I wonder if part of it is the mental part of the game playing in a position he doesn't have a lot of time at in his career. I wonder if maybe DHing him a few games might let him concentrate on his at bats, talking with the hitting coach in between plate appearances. Or is he only here at all because of injuries, and he will be sent back when Kirilloff gets back? I would really like to see more of him, but I am not sure if first is where. One more guy you want to give at bats to, but no position open that he excels at.
  11. Mark G
    Couldn't have said it better myself. I tried saying this last year and got chewed out, albeit somewhat mildly. Last year only Donaldson, Simmons, and Buxton (and we all know how many games he played) played the same (and only) position they are designed to play. Even Sano saw a day or two at 3rd. Now, having said that, I don't count catchers in this mix, although if they play 1st, as Garver was known to do once in a while, or DH, that is playing out of position as well. This year the names have changed, but the positions haven't. This is just who Rocco was, is, and always will be. The same for the pitching changes (or lack thereof?). We overcame him in '19 with 307 homeruns. We couldn't overcome him last year, and the jury is out right now for '22. He believes that everyone needs to play as regularly as possible, and he will find a spot for them somewhere. I have said forever that you need to find where a player excels, or at least is as good as he can be, and put him there. Yes, I know, that means regular players and reserves; not exactly the thinking today it appears. I have also been a proponent of starters and relievers playing their roles, and some of you might remember where that has gotten me as well (you may be the ones who tried educating me). Regulars and reserves, starters and relievers. Put players where they play the best, and find a lineup where hitters strengths and weaknesses are where you want them. Too old fashioned? Apparently. Instead we get a musical chairs lineup in the field, at the plate, and on the mound. Rocco's computer likes it that way. Personally, it makes my head spin. I hope we have a mix of players who can make it work. I will be the first to congratulate them if they do.
  12. Mark G
    I know I got caught up in the euphoria of the win streak, I'm sure a lot of people did, but the reality is it was against 2 teams playing extremely poorly right now literally throwing 2 of those games away with errors. We may have relaxed a little bit after such a good homestand that we weren't quite as sharp. The weekend against a good team will show us a lot more about where we are right now. Hopefully they will turn it around.
  13. Mark G
    Well, shut my mouth! Jeffers has a double and a HR so far this game and hammered both. Maybe he is turning around??
  14. Mark G
    When I was a kid in the '60's I would put a transistor radio under my pillow at night with the ballgame on so my parents wouldn't know what I was doing (though I have a hunch my dad did ). I would listen to Herb Carneal tell me how the game was going until I fell asleep to it. Man, did I go through batteries some summers. He was the best! Dick reminds me of him a lot, and I still fall asleep at times to games with Dick, now, telling me about the game. I wouldn't trade either one of them for anyone in the game, but that is just me. As for partners, Kaat is by far the best, but I liked Bert too. Having him explain to Dick what a duque phart was cracked me up, and it never got old when they would say "fouled back just beneath us..........and, believe me folks, there isn't a whole lot beneath us.
  15. Mark G
    What kind of sad shape do you have to be in to have Jeffers get his first extra base hit of any kind all season, to "raise" his average to a whopping .152, and have it celebrated as a turnaround? I am not criticizing the writer for the headline, I am just wondering if we have really sunk that low. (The headline was probably referring to Jeffers helping to turn the game around, it just came across as turning himself around) But then, again sadly, .152 isn't the low mark on the team so we can't do anything but turn around, right? Let's hope it does while the pitching is going good.
  16. Mark G
    Got it! Makes sense now!
  17. Mark G
    Wild enough for Jeffers to go to 3rd, but not wild enough for Arraez to go to 2nd? I miss so much at work.
  18. Mark G
    I have kind of a dumb question: I missed that part of the game, so I watched the clip here. Jeffers got a ground rule double and Arraez worked a walk. Correa hits the ball into the hole and Jeffers scores from................3rd? It never explains how he got to 3rd. How did he get to 3rd?
  19. Mark G
    Because you cannot expect a major league pitcher to throw more than 85 pitches a game or more than 140 or so innings in a season. He might blow out his arm if he does. Will someone please, please tell me how pitchers for a century managed to pitch in a 4 man rotation, pitching over 100 pitches (well over 100?) a game, and 200-300 innings in a season? How?? How could they do it and no one today can? How did Bert Blyleven throw 242 complete games? Isn't that impossible? No one alive today can, so how did he? Because he didn't throw 100mph? If that is the reason, then STOP throwing 100mph!! Never mind, I know I am on the losing end of this debate. I am old enough to have seen him pitch (multiple times, even the game he flipped the bird to the fans as he left the field because he knew he was being traded). And many more like him. And I would take a few like him over anyone in the game today. And the sad part is, it isn't their fault!1 If you would let them pitch from the early stages on, they would be the Blyleven's of today. Instead, they are held back because we are afraid of hurting them. And what happens? They get hurt because they DON'T stretch themselves out. So why............oh, what the @#$%? I am going to lose this debate anyway. Ryan is 25 years old, and in the prime of his life. If he can't pitch a 3rd (or 4th.......no, not a 4th.....) time through a line up without throwing his arm out, or getting lit up, then who can?? Who knows how many more Blyleven's we may have missed because we are terrified of hurting their arm? I guess we will never know, huh, because we are the smartest guys baseball has ever produced. There! My vent for the day. Let the yelling begin.
  20. Mark G
    A mea culpa here, perhaps. The article here said there were 65 pitches, but looking at the newspaper they say it was 85 pitches. Anyone know which is correct? If it is 85 I would change my tone above, at least a little. I still believe he should have been allowed to own his game, especially on a day like yesterday weather wise, but 85 is different than 65. If so, I stand corrected.
  21. Mark G
    One more time: Ryan had a 2 hit shutout going with only 65 pitches on a perfect day to pitch and was pulled after 6. How much more proof do we need that Rocco simply does not believe in 3rd and 4th times through a lineup. Plan A will always be what we saw yesterday; good start and 3 RP's all having to be on. Damnit, Rocco, let the man pitch!! If not now, when?? Or, if nothing else, come out and own it: I will never let a starter take charge of their game as long as I am manager of this team. At least then pitchers will know where they stand (if they don't already). Sorry about the venting.
  22. Mark G
    I can make the math do anything I want it to if I bring up enough AAA (AA maybe?) players during a season. The math doesn't work with a 13 man staff, only if you add numbers might be the argument. ?? Just wondering.
  23. Mark G
    If you have a couple of minutes, would you humor me in this area? In my lifetime (I am in my 60's and have watched closely since the latter 1960's) baseball has gone from 20 teams to 30, from a 25 man roster to 26, from 4 man starting rotation to a 5 man, and from a 10 man pitching staff and a 6 man bench to a 13 man pitching staff and a 4 man bench. And with minor league option available players in the minors, there is literally no end to the number of pitchers that will take a major league mound in a given season. So.......50 or so years ago there were 200 major league roster spots set aside by most clubs for pitchers; teams valued a good bench as much as they did a bullpen because their starters pitched their games..............but I digress. We now hold 390 or so roster spots for pitchers with probably close to 100 more minor leaguers pitching at times for........I'm sorry, I don't know what. Velo and spin rates? To be able to say I have more than 10 strikeouts per 9 innings pitched, even though I have never pitched 9 innings at a time in my career? And while I know this is purely anecdotal, the pitching overall has not improved much, if any, because there simply aren't 400-500 pitchers in the world who are of the caliber of the previous 200. The top 200 today are as good or better pitchers as any other era, but they pitch less and less, leaving the bulk of the innings to the other 200-300 who would never have made a major league roster in the past. And there are as many, or more, injuries today than at any other time. And let us not forget that teams used to have scheduled double headers (not the day/night ones) several times a year. They didn't get to call up extra pitchers just to play 2 games in one day. So why do we cling to the idea that this is good for the pitchers themselves, or the game in general? Because the analytics tell us to? Or have we become an all or nothing fan base that wants home runs and strikeouts, not ground balls, fly balls, and singles and doubles? You know, old fashioned contact hitting. There is a reason that there are 7 players behind the pitcher to catch the ball (or track it down). The game was designed to pitch, hit, and catch, not a game of catch between the pitcher and catcher until someone connects and hits a home run. Trust me when I tell you, the game was a crap ton more fun to watch then, than it is today. If you actually read this, thanks for humoring me.
  24. Mark G
    Now you have really lost me. Exactly how many starters would it take to do this 4 and 4ish that you are talking about? If we did this on a regular basis it would take.........8 starters? 10? And that, apparently, means a shuttle bus from Target to St. Paul until they run out of options? What is so wrong with a starter going 6-8 innings? When did that become so outlandish? I will bid farewell to you all as I repeat one more time.........let the starters own their game. Relievers relieve the starters, not take over the start. When did we lose that concept?
  25. Mark G
    Please, doctor, no........I don't want to rely on long relief and Piggy backing, and a reliance on the BP to carry the load. I want to rely on the starters, with the PB as a plan B, not a plan A. Go all the way back to little league, then high school, then college, then low level pro ball. Who were your best pitchers? The starters, or the relievers? Where does that change? In upper lever pro ball? Why? Your starters are still your best pitchers, so why not let them pitch? Rotating AAA pitchers in so your best major league pitchers don't strain themselves...............how has that worked out so far? I think this is a debate mostly between older guys and younger guys who never saw starters own their games. And I don't know if it will ever end.............but it sure is fun.
×
×
  • Create New...