Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Otto von Ballpark

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    20,662

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    74

 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 Otto von Ballpark

  1. Otto von Ballpark
    Good question! But I don't think that's true. Here's an article on Cody Stanley from a few years ago, who got suspended in September 2015 and the Cardinals non-tendered him a few months later, during his suspension, and he did not re-sign with any club: https://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/cody-stanley-162-game-ped-suspension-turinabol-ken-rosenthal-070916 The JDA doesn't explicitly say what happens in these circumstances. All it seems to say is: A Player whose suspension begins during (or extends into) the off-season shall begin (or resume) serving his suspension with the next “game” for which he otherwise would have been eligible to play. Perhaps the player can't retire like Manny Ramirez tried a few years back, but otherwise, I don't think release or free agency pauses the suspension. If it was determined that Stanley "otherwise would have been eligible to play" for the Cardinals on opening day 2016, even though he was no longer under contract, then the same would apply to Pineda in 2020. But it's an interesting question, and I'll see if I can dig up some more info. Examples of late-season suspensions are pretty scarce!
  2. Otto von Ballpark
    Because of the remaining suspension, it would be easier for Pineda to decline the QO and wait until June to sign. Also, the Fangraphs dollar value is based on something like $8 mil per WAR, which isn't necessarily a great deal for a team with the Twins payroll. (Isn't necessarily bad either.)
  3. Otto von Ballpark
    This kind of stuff is near useless as evidence of anything, and is going to get your arguments dismissed as sour grapes. There's luck and randomness all over in baseball. What kind of ball allowed Mark Lemke to achieve his 1991 World Series results, or Lonnie Smith to hit 3 HR vs Ron Gant's zero? And your language is over-the-top: Darvish was effective but hardly a savior in LA, and hasn't it been thoroughly shown that the Astros figured out he was tipping his pitches? The same thing just happened to Glasnow. Here's two pitchers who were convinced the 2002 World Series ball was juiced too: http://static.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stark_jayson/1449183.html (Also, as an aside, I'm pretty sure I could get more than two players to talk about the performance-enhancing effects of their necklaces, but it doesn't make it true. ) That said, the ball could be very well different now, but that's not evidence of an intentional act to do so. I'd say MLB needs to be more aggressive and transparent about quality control in production, transportation, and storage of the ball, and that's probably where the fan focus should be, rather than ramping up the rhetoric of conspiracies and accusations.
  4. Otto von Ballpark
    Obviously there are still secrets everywhere, but the scope of Kapler's secret, or even Skaggs' secret, was pretty narrow at the time it occurred. That's not the case with changing the ball, which is in plain sight affecting everyone, all the time. The previously mentioned Japanese juiced ball of 2013 didn't last 3 months before the "conspiracy" came tumbling down. Meanwhile, this journalist (Rob Arthur) has apparently suggested repeated changes to the MLB baseball (juicing, de-juicing, repeat) starting in 2015. So if it was intentional, Manfred's apparently kept it all under his hat for 5 seasons and counting. And of course, Arthur is better able to discern these changes now thanks to Statcast data, which coincidentally MLB started providing free to the public in 2015 -- which would be a silly thing to do, if one was trying to surreptitiously and simultaneously change the properties of the baseball! https://apnews.com/89a4cc0c0e97431f8ac34ebc13311bf6 I'm starting to wonder if there have always been variations in these properties of the ball, just due to the vagaries of manufacture and storage, but they just weren't detectable before now. Maybe the 2019 ball is still an outlier, but just not an intentional one.
  5. Otto von Ballpark
    Pineda will be eligible for the 2020 postseason. In fact, since his suspension was reduced on appeal, he would have even been eligible for the 2019 postseason if he had been able to serve the full 60 games before the postseason started. But normally, for suspensions which aren't reduced on appeal, the special postseason ban only applies to the season in which the suspension began. I linked/quoted the official documentation here: http://twinsdaily.com/topic/34800-front-page-michael-pineda-suspended-60-games-for-banned-substance/?p=912047
  6. Otto von Ballpark
    The Japanese "juiced ball" saga had more complicated origins than simply trying to boost offense, though -- the ball had been changed a few years prior to bring it in line with the North American ball, which suppressed offense too much. And then they asked the manufacturer to make it springier. I don't know why they kept it secret, though, but there's obviously many factors of Japanese baseball that are beyond my understanding. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1847398-how-good-is-the-japanese-professional-baseball-league And the commissioner may have just been a fall guy -- he was actually a diplomat (ambassador to the US from 2001-2008) and only fairly recently had been named to the post. It makes sense that these were decisions he may not have been involved in (and his resignation over them may have been the product of very different cultural expectations rather than a sign of how significant the "scandal" was). By comparison, Manfred is a baseball lifer (20-30 years now) and MLB probably doesn't have the same kind of silent, behind-the-curtain committee controlling things behind him. Not to mention the difference in size/scope of MLB and NPB, or the USA and Japan. I'm not sure if this example tells us much about the likelihood of a conspiracy in US baseball, to juice the ball (and now de-juice it?) for more esoteric reasons.
  7. Otto von Ballpark
    Here's another interesting tweet from the author: That would seem to support the explanation that postseason balls are produced/stored differently, rather than any intentional change being made just for the 2019 postseason.
  8. Otto von Ballpark
    But that's assuming it was a known, intentional change to the ball that they made before the season. Maybe they were just cutting costs in ball production and this was an unintended side effect. And subsequent denials would be more to save face about their carelessness than hide any conspiracy.
  9. Otto von Ballpark
    Here's another possible explanation, from the article's author: So playoff baseballs are produced separately (they probably have a special logo or something). It's possible they do sit longer in storage, under different conditions, than other balls. If you click the embedded tweet, there's more to this interesting exchange.
  10. Otto von Ballpark
    I'm intrigued by the data and the discussion, but does anyone really think MLB could keep a lid on something like this? It's not quite JFK conspiracy level, but the MLB central office isn't exactly staffed by trained agents of espionage either. Enough people would be involved to make me skeptical. It's not like Manfred personally goes into a storage facility alone and emerges with the box of baseballs to use for each game.
  11. Otto von Ballpark
    From the Peanuts Wiki: https://peanuts.fandom.com/wiki/Football_gag I guess that's equivalent to the Twins assorted regular-season wins over the Yankees -- considered non-canonical.
  12. Otto von Ballpark
    I'm not sure players would entirely agree? I mean, they play postseason games for a reason, and they're pretty important. Postseason failure doesn't completely invalidate regular season success, of course, but back to my original point, there are different levels of postseason failure, and the Twins hit just about the worst one this year. Which probably makes a bigger dent than whatever the remaining teams to be eliminated will experience.
  13. Otto von Ballpark
    Thanks. I found a direct link, from https://baseball.theater/game/20191004/599342 https://cuts.diamond.mlb.com/FORGE/2019/2019-10/04/d87e7d97-1fb84cd4-bd85a0f3-csvm-diamondx64-asset_1280x720_59_4000K.mp4 It was a pretty quick play, and Arraez is no speed demon -- I wouldn't expect it to be that close. If he seems to be running gingerly, it's mostly after he's stretched to touch the bag. In any case, I don't think I would have expected anything meaningfully better from Schoop there. And Garver was due up next and didn't get the ball out of the infield all night. At least Arraez used the experience to double and score a run off Paxton his next time up, so it wasn't a complete loss.
  14. Otto von Ballpark
    May I ask why? Postseason game 1 seems like the most pointless time to try to extend your starting pitcher. Your full pen is the most rested it will ever be. Berrios was already at 88 pitches. Last 2 months of the season his average was 96 with a high of 101. Judge was leading off, with Encarnacion (2 doubles already) due up third. With as patient as the Yankees were, does he even get more than a batter or two in the inning? FWIW, Berrios this season goes from .675 OPS the first two times through the order up to .750 the third time. OPS .850 from 76-100 pitches, .960 at 101+. It seems like people are putting a lot of stock into his smooth 4th inning, but it was the bottom of the order, only 2nd time though, and he started two of them with balls and didn't have a swinging strike in the inning. Letting Littell start a clean inning in the 5th, with Duffey ready in case of trouble, was a reasonable alternative. (Things start getting murkier with Stashak and Gibson, and Duffey again the next day...) Again, not saying sending Berrios out for the 5th would have been a mistake, but pulling him doesn't seem like much of a mistake either. At least not comparable to the game 2 Duffey move.
  15. Otto von Ballpark
    Well, we've disagreed about calling it a "routine popup" before. It was more of a looper that went pretty deep into the outfield. If it had actually reached popup height, it's Rosario's catch given where it landed. And Berrios followed it up by allowing a single, a deep fly (advancing the runner), a hard-hit double, and a walk before the Cron play, so I have a hard time absolving him of too much responsibility for the inning.
  16. Otto von Ballpark
    Was there a good camera shot of Arraez running down the line? I don't recall one, but I might have to go back and look. Although it isn't a permanent binary condition either. Maybe he ran fine the day before or in warm-ups, but landed on it weird coming out of the box on that particular play. The defensive play seemed less of an issue with a limp and more of an issue with trying to judge a looping ball behind him. I think it's fair to question the decision, but a lot of people are putting this firmly in the "mistake" column, even above the Duffey game 2 thing. I just don't see that.
  17. Otto von Ballpark
    Does not covering 2nd have anything to do with his ankle? Arraez did ground into a DP in his first PA, but you know what? Schoop had a higher GIDP rate vs LHP this season anyway. I'm not saying Schoop would have been the wrong choice, but I don't think Arraez was necessarily either. And the evidence we have from the series doesn't really suggest otherwise -- even if you dock Arraez in the field for game 1, he was 5-for-11 with four doubles in the series. Schoop got carved up in his two PAs, including one vs the lefty Happ.
  18. Otto von Ballpark
    Game 1 was competitive, for quite a while. It was 3-3 in the 5th with a full pen, and still 5-4 in the 6th with the same pen minus only Littell and Duffey. The bats certainly disappeared after that, for most of the rest of the series. (Although it certainly didn't help matters that manager decisions put that game out of reach in the 6th and 7th, and the next one in the 3rd.)
  19. Otto von Ballpark
    I guess in a long view, no, an absolute measure of the 2019 Twins talent doesn't really change between an uncompetitive sweep and any other series-losing outcome. But by that logic, a series win or even a World Series run might not have changed it either. The playoffs aren't about long-term absolute measures. If you don't think a single Twins win would have mattered this postseason, you either have to be oblivious to a lot of real-world context or you just don't care about the playoffs.
  20. Otto von Ballpark
    Not all bad moves are created equal. This one was bad from conception -- is there any valid argument to lean on Duffey again there? -- and it completely gave the game away in the 3rd inning, putting us in 0-2 series hole. (Plus the trickle-down effect, that using Duffey again in that spot largely contradicts/invalidates the Stashak/Gibson strategy of game 1, maybe even the Dobnak decision too.) Compared to something like the Arraez vs Schoop decision -- even if one disagrees, I think one can see a valid argument for the other side. For all we know, Arraez's ankle was indeed fine and he simply misread the looper in game 1. And of course, that misplay alone wasn't all that meaningful, and was only magnified by the single, deep fly (advancing runner), double, and walk that Berrios surrendered to the subsequent 4 batters (the same 4 batters folks seem to want Berrios to have faced a third time, at 88 pitches, in the 5th inning), even before the Cron misplay on the potential double play. Not to mention that Arraez provided a run at the plate in the same game too.
  21. Otto von Ballpark
    What do you mean, it didn't make a huge difference? It took the game from 1-0 to 8-0. We had Rogers, Romo, and May *fully rested*, and we turn first to our most-taxed reliever from game 1. Did you read the link? Duffey's velo was down from game 1 (not surprising). And Gregorious specifically said he was seeing his pitches better, having already seen him in game 1 (not surprising). I totally get Littell/Duffey in game 1. I'm not crazy about the Stashak/Gibson moves in game 1, but I can see a justification for that too -- but not if you're just going to go to Duffey again like that in game 2. The point of using Stashak/Gibson was to save Rogers/May/Romo so you wouldn't *have* to use Duffey like that again in game 2.
  22. Otto von Ballpark
    How could you not be strongly opposed to Duffey being the 1st guy out of the pen, in a jam, in game 2? See the evidence from Fangraphs here: http://twinsdaily.com/topic/35173-front-page-twins-alds-game-2-recap-nothing-works-twins-lose-12th-straight-to-yankees/?p=929648 That mistake was so obvious, it goes beyond "rookie manager learning the ropes" to me.
  23. Otto von Ballpark
    Not true -- 11 teams ended their season with a victory already. I guess among playoff teams, only 1 will end with a victory, but how many will end with 3 straight (one-sided) postseason losses?
  24. Otto von Ballpark
    Yes, tickets for unplayed postseason games will be refunded. See here: https://www.mlb.com/twins/tickets/postseason-refund#targetText=MINNESOTA%20TWINS%20NON%2DPLAYED%20POSTSEASON%20TICKET%20REFUND%20POLICY&targetText=Allow%204%2D6%20weeks%20for,for%20any%20unplayed%20postseason%20games. It's a fair question, though -- I've heard of teams only giving refunds in the form of credit on season tickets the following year (NFL?).
  25. Otto von Ballpark
    On the Schoop/Arraez thing, I posted elsewhere, but I don't get that criticism either. Even as a "lefty masher" Schoop had basically the same AVG and a lower OBP vs LHP than Arraez this season, and Schoop's profile (power, strikeouts) was also largely redundant with several other pieces in our lineup. Arraez turned out to be one of our few effective bats this postseason, and perhaps his unique profile was a contributing factor -- the Yankees didn't seem to have an effective approach for him. (Schoop struck out in both of his pinch hit ABs, suggesting the general Yankee approach was working on him too.) Furthermore, it looks like perhaps Schoop is exploitable in the postseason / pressure spots? Career postseason OPS of .346 before 2019. Others have noted he wasn't exactly "clutch" this year either (-1.10 WPA, -0.58 WPA/LI, both worst on the team, with career negative marks too). Last October the Brewers only started him 1 time, and used him as a pinch hitter 3 times, over 10 postseason games. He shouldn't be an automatic start in the postseason vs a LHP, or anyone, really. I'm sure there's a point where Arraez's health may have warranted Schoop starting, but it's not clear to me that we were at that point, despite that looper dropping in the outfield in game 1.
×
×
  • Create New...