Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Otto von Ballpark

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    20,669

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    74

 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 Otto von Ballpark

  1. Otto von Ballpark
    These sound like good talking points, but I'm not sure if they really hold up to scrutiny. Have the Democrats really been ignoring rural areas, as compared to Republicans? NAFTA was bipartisan, and it helped farmers even if it hurt some blue collar workers (although blue collar jobs were drying up well before NAFTA came along). Democrats have generally restricted income tax increases to higher income earners, who are much more likely to live near urban centers. With the "rural voters" I know, virtually all of the difference comes down to social issues. And I'm really not sure what Democrats could do to bridge that gap, other than overturning Roe v Wade. EDIT: I'd say the Democrats have often lost the optics battle with Republicans in regards to rural voters, but that's not the same thing as actually ignoring them, withholding entitlements, etc.
  2. Otto von Ballpark
    Pretty darn close. Using the data from this site: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?ev=1&vot=1&sort=&fips=0&search=&search_name=&datatype=national&f=0&off=0&year=2016&sort_dir=&submit=Submit I get the following results for your plan: EV Clinton 47.524% Trump 46.767% margin: 0.562% Popular Clinton 47.546% Trump 46.985% margin: 0.757% The next election that's within 0.2%, we'd be wondering why we did it this way.
  3. Otto von Ballpark
    Mathematically, this is exactly the same as just using the popular vote (unless you do rounding). It just changes the denominator to 538 instead of the total number of votes cast. It would actually be bad to do this, and still keep the requirement for 270 electoral votes, because that would effectively require a candidate to get 50.2% of the total popular vote or else throw the election to the House of Representatives. That would mean 4 of the last 7 elections would have been decided by the House, plus 1976, 1968, 1960, 1948, etc.
  4. Otto von Ballpark
    And, the president doesn't have much direct power on policy. That's the legislative branch, where there's already a big powerful chamber explicitly designed to ensure state equality. In fact, I know a lot of voters actually like to have government divided between the two parties, but the electoral college effectively takes that option off the ballot for many in regards to the executive branch.
  5. Otto von Ballpark
    Martinez was brought into a tie game for a trivial upgrade defensively over Coco Crisp, when Francona knew that Martinez was his last bench player. That was silly. The Indians still needed to score to win, and putting Martinez in the lineup hurt that chance far more than he upgraded the defense over Crisp.
  6. Otto von Ballpark
    Personally, I think Francona made the bigger mistakes in game 7. The eventual winning run was an intentional walk! The last out was Michael Martinez with a career 37 OPS+. Kluber didn't strike out a single batter, struggled mightily in the fourth, yet came out to start the fifth. Bryan Shaw was hit hard but allowed to keep pitching with the game on the line (and given two extra baserunners by IBB to boot).
  7. Otto von Ballpark
    Good riddance -- he never got out of A-ball anyway. http://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.cgi?id=elway-001joh
  8. Otto von Ballpark
    Actually, in 2016 and 2015, every first-round pick signed (well, into the comp picks anyway -- the top 40 and 34 selections signed those years, respectively).
  9. Otto von Ballpark
    Sad that you never got to see the fastballs of Sean Gilmartin or Andrew Albers start a MLB playoff game? Well, you might be in luck tonight with Ryan Merritt: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/everything-you-need-to-know-about-ryan-merritt/
  10. Otto von Ballpark
    Agreed. Most of baseball history involves zero or limited TV broadcasts, or present-day media saturation. Unless the theory is that children of the 1990s possess a special knowledge of baseball preparation and strategy, it's probably bunk. (Indeed, the author of the article and Seth seem to projecting from their own youth experience. I am sure some older folks have written screeds about too *much* televised baseball causing children not to properly learn the nuances of the game...)
  11. Otto von Ballpark
    The silly thing is that I had no problem with not using Britton through 10 innings. They gave their starter an appropriate amount of rope, and they had a bunch of good short relievers to use instead of Britton through that point. I wonder if Showalter didn't get a little cocky after his relievers turned a couple key double plays, and thought Jimenez could magically do the same...
  12. Otto von Ballpark
    This was far from Showalter's first rodeo, though. My explanation wouldn't be fear. I think he was getting too cute, and more or less responded by going to his "second starter" right after the Jays. And thinking he had an advantage by keeping his ace up his sleeve. Of course, the Duensing interlude suggests he didn't have enough confidence in Jimenez to make that move, otherwise presumably he would have let Jimenez start the inning by facing the #9 hitter. Which also would have given him more time to judge Jimenez and turn to his ace if necessary, although it doesn't sound like he had any intention of doing so that inning.
  13. Otto von Ballpark
    But Jimenez was arguably the bigger "just in case I need it" option, I think he was the only Oriole reliever who could conceivably pitch 5 innings. (I guess Bundy was also on the roster, not sure what his status was, he's probably past his innings limit, etc.) The fear of Jimenez struggling, and needing bailing out by Britton, and then being forced to run Britton and/or Bundy into the ground would seem to be just as big as the fear of simply using Britton.
  14. Otto von Ballpark
    Also, everyone knew that Jimenez was the Orioles emergency long reliever in this game. Wouldn't there by a "pain of loss" in using him and depleting that resource before absolutely necessary? It's really not clear to me that the "pain of loss" of using Britton is enough to override logic.
  15. Otto von Ballpark
    Seems a little wanting as an explanation. Couldn't the "pain of loss" be applied just the same to the decision to watch Jimenez blow the game?
  16. Otto von Ballpark
    Can't say that I really understand that "defense." Yeah, Showalter didn't want to use his best weapon in Britton -- but why? Because he thought he would need him later. As silly as that was by the 11th inning, it was completely nonsensical once Jimenez started blowing the game. That's apparently the situation Showalter was saving him for, right? Furthermore, it sounds like Britton warmed up during the game, so Showalter was perhaps actively wasting the asset he was apparently scared to lose? It doesn't make a lick of sense no matter how you slice it. Add to that, Showalter used Britton for the 9th and 10th innings in a tie game (and eventual Orioles win) in Toronto on July 31: http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/TOR/TOR201607310.shtml It boggles the mind to think that the more important game, the postseason elimination game, you would deviate from the strategy to the point of inserting Duensing then Jiminez into the game before Britton.
  17. Otto von Ballpark
    On a related note, I wonder how many guys have driven in a run in the postseason, after zero MLB RBI in the regular season? Obviously it would be a guy who didn't play the full MLB season like Joseph. I am sure a few pitchers have done it, just wondering about position players. None of 3 guys I found who made their MLB debuts in the postseason (Bug Holliday, Mark Kiger, Raul Adalberto Mondesi) drove in a run. Guess I have to root for Joseph to do it now, so I can get an answer to this trivia question!
  18. Otto von Ballpark
    Or, had the Orioles been required to play a tiebreaking game 163, Joseph could have driven in a run there and squandered his dubious "record"!
  19. Otto von Ballpark
    I think Anthropolous or his agent could have been asked about it, and given an honest answer of disinterest, even if they weren't on the list. Or Reusse could be mistaken about the details -- maybe Anthropolous didn't make the "interview list" because he declined Korn Ferry before the Twins even got involved making their list. Jon Morosi reported that Anthropolous was a "confirmed candidate" at one point, maybe that report was erroneous but prompted the press to ask him about his interest anyway. I don't think we know nearly enough to judge Anthropolous or his agent here.
  20. Otto von Ballpark
    I know this is facetious, but -- I'd rather not have our new hire come straight from a Twins circa 2003-2010 quick playoff exit...
  21. Otto von Ballpark
    But if you're saying they can't sign ANY free agents, that's not comparing them to the Twins, or almost any team in MLB. That's comparing them to the Rays, or the A's. Every team in MLB has a spending power advantage over those clubs. The reason I am leaving out Heyward and Lester is because they haven't contributed much to their turnaround so far. The Cubs turnaround to a playoff caliber roster was largely complete when they brought those two aboard, especially Heyward. Maybe they or a future FA will put them over the top, but that wasn't the context of the discussion, it was the turnaround that I think you attributed too much to their FA spending power.
  22. Otto von Ballpark
    If you subtract ALL of their FA signings, they were a $74 mil payroll team on opening day. That's not a valid baseline for showing their dependence on free agency above an average team. The average MLB payroll on opening day this year was $131 mil. Subtract Lester and Heyward, and the Cubs were right around that figure, with plenty of WAR remaining to clear the playoff threshold both this year and last year. (And I think they've only added about $9-10 mil in salary this summer in trades -- the remaining 2016 salaries for Chapman, Coughlan, and Joe Smith.)
  23. Otto von Ballpark
    The controversial part is implying their spending is an equivalent part of their turnaround as their other moves. They got to be a 90 win team with a great core basically without any great spending.
  24. Otto von Ballpark
    The Cubs have awesome spending power. But the fact is, the Cubs flexed relatively little of it under Epstein, with the exceptions of Lester and Heyward relatively recently and to relatively minor effect so far. No matter how many times you keep citing David Ross as one of "8 free agents with 1+ WAR" doesn't change that. The bulk of the Cubs plan to date is absolutely something the Twins could try to emulate if they wanted. I think we will see the Cubs financial power come into play more the next few years, as they maintain and build further on their success thus far.
  25. Otto von Ballpark
    Again, I think "another, and another" exaggerates. Outside of Lester and Heyward, they've made exactly two $50 million signings -- Zobrist and Edwin Jackson. If you want to combine Lackey and Hammel into one $52 mil signing, fine, but that puts them at 3 which is basically no different than the three the Twins have signed in the same period (Nolasco, Santana, and extending Hughes). Twins were probably around $125 mil in 2011, adjusted for a few years of inflation. I think we'd be thrilled with ~$125 mil payroll and back to back playoff appearances, which is where the Cubs would be at right now even without Lester and Heyward. I have no doubt the Cubs have an ability to buy, and it will help them, but it hasn't helped them a ton yet. Lester is about it, and as has been noted, they still have a great starting staff without him. The value will come if Lester puts them over the top, or if they can still make more moves even if Heyward remains a dud, etc.
×
×
  • Create New...