bird

Well, Levi, I'm an old man who spent decades reviewing evidence for a living. What I discovered is that not all evidence is statistical, and in fact the most reliable evidence of quality, which is what this thread was discussing, is qualitative evidence. Another thing I learned over the years is that no one has a corner on objectivity and the most sure-fire way to promote a non-objective stance is through the use of statistics, not that you're guilty of this yourself. I'm not arrogant enough to think I don't suffer from some bias, however. I'm not 100% objective of course! But I'd caution you to not conflate your statistics and your opinions based on them with some superior level of objectivity. You are not more objective, Levi, sorry.

Happy now?

Finding it funny and ironic that after a 20-6 victory last night, I'm watching today's game and see this sequence: bunt hit by Nunez, hit and run single by Escobar, HBP by Fryer, bases-clearing triple by Schaefer. There's not a single TD member that would describe any of these four as "plus", although Escobar might get a little love. None of us are confused about bad baseball and "plus" players. We all know that if those guys played every day we'd see a lot of bad baseball. But that sure was some good baseball right there.

We're not at an impasse either. We've reached an understanding is all. You see a forest of bad trees with only a few trees of good when you look at the product on the field. I see a forest with many many good trees, the buckthorn being cut down rapidly, and only a few bad trees left when I look at the product on the field. You're not wrong in having your perspective and neither am I.

Hogwash, my friend. Look back, and you'll see I have repeatedly argued that the product on the field today is better than how you describe it. And my second point has been about how so many of you love to talk about the obvious.

The pipeline is filled with young guys with huge upside. More than all but maybe five other teams in all of baseball. If what you're saying is that the 25-man roster is not filled with young guys with huge upside, you're stating the obvious of course. The glass is half full, not half empty. If this team is meh for you, mike, is it because you are "meh" about Hughes, Gibson, May, Arcia, Santana, Vargas, Mauer, Dozier, Perkins, and Fien? Plouffe, Pressly, Escobar, Suzuki, Thielbar, Nolasco, Milone, Nunez, Burton, and Parmelee are "meh", I agree. The glass is half full, not half empty.

And I think the same about your viewpoint, Levi. Is it based more on reality or more on some desire to be a tad pessimistic? I'm not conflating hope and reality. The Twins have six prospects ranked among the best 40 in all of baseball!! Probably a dozen prospects in the top 100 or so over the last two years. Detroit currently has none. Incredibly, Vargas and Santana aren't even a part of that group of a dozen or so. They have payroll flexibility in spades, and for the first time in many years, they can trade from surplus. Prospect depth (and more important, numerous high-ceiling prospects) is NOT a hope thing. It's a significant reality. So Levi, it's hard not to see you conflating pessimism and reality when you cite these few dim spots.

Wow, wasn't this the scoop of the year! In Sid's mind, even before he became the complete doddering fool he is today, he's been the one to break the big news. I'm trying to remember a single big story broken by Sir Sidney in the past 20 years...hmmm, can't think of one.

No, no, S., I don't think you're being negative at all.

There was a time there two years ago and beyond where we just kept replacing lousy players with different lousy players, and let's hope we don't go there again for a dozen years or so. I think that's how Ryan is trying to execute the strategy: building a system that can sustain a certain level of quality because it has its own well (the farm system) from which to draw.

Do you suppose those smart people at Fangraphs will ever discover there's such a thing as managing a clubhouse, and find a way to measure it? Of course, Gardy won't have any use for that, since he's about as good as it gets at that.

Interesting, isn't it, that two passionate and informed fans can look at the same thing, see the same thing, even understand the same thing, and then describe the thing so very differently. Two good people, neither more "right" than the other. I see the intersection of increasing hope and increasing quality of play right now. In every game now. Now. And I'm not at all confused by the two ideas, not in the least. Sickles ranked 14 other prospects higher than the C+ grades he gave to Vargas and Santana, both of whom are improving the quality of baseball right now. So, here's how I describe the same things you've described above: 1. Mauer's having a crappy year. He's at serious risk of a bounce-back year, maybe an enormous one. 2. I see a few regression candidates, and not necessarily for enormous regression. Suzuki, Hughes, Escobar, maybe Santana. I wouldn't describe that as "many", and it certainly fits in a normal range for any ball club. But history tells me that only a percentage of regression candidates actually regress. 3. Hicks lit up AA, is doing very well in AAA. His floor may be 4th OF, not the end of the world. Here's hoping Ryan doesn't make the mistake of counting on him again, even if he's matured and improved his attitude and work ethic. If Ryan fails to get us a corner OF this winter, usually an easy FA fix, that'll make me nervous. 4. Arcia's taken his lumps, but he's been crushing it in August. Here's hoping Vargas can mentor him a bit. . 5. Nolasco fared poorly and is overcoming an injury. There's some hope and we saw a few positive signs in his last outing. Sure wouldn't mind him in 2015 as my #4-5 starter. 6. Finally cut bait on some of those base-clogging dullards like Morales and Willingham. So you see, we don't disagree at all.

Tell you what. friends, Ryan needs to find external solutions to a couple of problems this winter, IMO. If he gets us a decent corner OF and a top-of-the-rotation arm, maybe a young Travis D'Arneaud-type catcher, wouldn't that make 2015 a fun year for us? Most were surprised by the Nolasco/Hughes deals, but I wasn't, because the budget was there. This winter, not only is the budget there, but for the first time in about a decade, we have a few trade chips..not many yet, but a few. So, if Ryan doesn't make any significant moves to fill the gaping holes that can't be filled internally, I'll be right there with you, saying we have a long, long way to go to contend. Maybe this clarifies why I'm a bit more optimistic, huh?

Not a strawman, Ox. My main point, from the start, was that it couldn't be more obvious that we're still seeing some bad baseball. I am pushing back on the argument that anyone here is confused about that, and saying that perhaps some should be less begrudging in acknowledging the clear reality that the baseball is already better and not always bad, and hardly ever really bad anymore. So, to them I say quit your damn whining and quit stating the obvious. You just described the rotation as terrible. I completely disagree!! It's not terrible, it's just pretty bad, my friend, but on TD, it often gets described as terrible. My Lord, how many teams would be happy to insert Hughes, Gibson, or probably a healthy Nolasco into their rotation? How many teams would pass on taking May off our hands? So let's be fairer, shall we? The results in 2014 have been terrible, but we don't have a "terrible" rotation now. It lacks a #1-2 caliber starter, and that of course is once again stating the obvious. We can all agree that, absent a #1-2 starter, it will probably continue to be a pretty bad rotation. So, that's my point, you see. No pollyanna, no cherry-picking. Oh, and I also believe the improvement will be more rapid than you. We are not a long, long way from being in contention. Depending on what Ryan does this winter with all the shekels at his disposal ( and again I admit to optimism here), we could very well win the division in 2016, and in the meantime, 2015 should be great fun to watch, probably even involving some "good baseball".

As Levi has so competently pointed out, the answer is that it takes awhile for new talent to dry off their wings at this level. Gaetti, Hrbek, Puckett and gang were involved in bad baseball in 1980.

Very succinct and clear illustration, Parker. Thank you, and it's nice to have another example that helps dispel the silly narrative about Gardy and others trying to take the power out of hitters' games. Arcia seems to be responding to coachng instead of doing the coaching. Good thing Vargas isn't heeding Ozzie's advice to try to yank the ball. Kennys drove a homer and double yesterday to the opposite field. I wonder if Arcia has a chance to be a total beast once he calms himself and his swing down just a bit more and begins to hit more like he did throughout his minor league career. Without doing any research, I'm guessing he hit the ball to all fields with some authority.

One last point: the Sano/Buxton injuries have profoundly affected the timetable. Had they been healthy this year, the more optimistic view would have been much more "realistic". Tough break for all.

That's simply not true, Levi. I'm picking out a whole friggin' slew of trees. Hughes, Gibson, Perkins, Arcia, Nolasco, About a dozen seriously talented bullpen arms that are practically interchangeable between AAA and MLB, such as Oliveros, Tonkin; Santana, Vargas, Sano, Buxton; Dozier, Mauer, Meyer, May... I could go on, listing even more "trees" that are likely to at least emerge as contributors in 2015. This is more than a few trees, so let's talk about this forest that's in such tough shape. You may be right about 2015 being a bit early for .500. I may be thinking a tad wishfully on that.

Most of the time when I find myself at odds perspective-wise with those of you who tend towards being less optimistic than I am, it's a function of these two things: 1) just how much better things are, and 2) just how far away from "good" we are. This is year #3 of the rebuild. I have vivid recollections of the nature of the comments on TD from just two years ago, and I'm 100% certain that we're much much closer to being "good" than a vast majority of commenters were predicting back then. One frequent contributor described the glass as not half-empty, but shattered on the floor. Another was constantly describing the farm system as having zero legit prospects. This was not two years ago. And I really think the general consensus on TD is still a bit pessimistic. And maybe I'm a bit overly optimistic, but my experience tells me my optimism is well-founded and based on realistic insights. Levi, you and I most likely disagree on how far we are from being "good". I predicted 74 wins for 2014, .500 in 2015, and "good" by 2016. Well, good if we avoid Thrylos's standards. . How far apart are we?

Perhaps it's a question of what one views as "good baseball". If one defines things pretty much as all bad because of a poor W-L record, or a shabby team ERA, fine. It's bad baseball. There's not a member on TD that thinks our team ERA is good. To be blunt, I find it tiresome to be bludgeoned by one recital of numbers after another to demonstrate just how bad things are. I puttered around my garden today, listening to the game. At the end of the game, we were in last place, about 13 games below .500, with the world's worst team ERA in the history of mankind I think. Vargas homers, Arcia scoots home from first on a Plouffe double, and Hughes excels. But who gives a crap about that? Just look at the numbers. We're at risk of a 4th straight 90 loss.... Geez. God, that was good baseball today.

I spent my entire career in the asset management business, so I appreciate the fact that numbers play an important (albeit secondary) role in evaluating an enterprise. I guess my advice to most of you would be to put your pencils down and stop counting for a minute, and really observe what's going on with this club. Last year, once again, many games were simply unwatchable. This year, those games have been far less common. I suppose if you can't wean yourself from statistics you might look at things like run differential or quality starts and crap like that, but here's where I find joy: Gibson learning his craft, Santana surprising, Vargas making me look up from my book whenever his name is announced ( takes me back to my childhood and Killebrew), Arcia taking his lumps, Plouffe growing up, Hughes as a savvy pickup, a solid bullpen and Perkins as a solid citizen.... oh, and dozens- not a few but dozens- of really outstanding performances coming now from every level of competition in the minors. So much talent percolating up that we're liking what we see from Vargas and Santana, who weren't ranked among out ten best prospects! So yeah, I'd be suicidal if I got all myopic looking at pythagorean this and "plus" that, or if I tunneled my vision such that all I saw was 14 games under .500 at this very moment and fixated on what's going as only this statistical nothingness that is today's snapshot. My Lord, people, things are not just GETTING better, they ARE better already! Why give a flying puck about whether or not the team ERA is better? Can you really not see that the pitching staff is better? I for one am joyful. I'd rather smile about Gibson than complain about Pelfrey. So no, I think any sense you might have that people are confused about mediocrity versus good comes from being muddled up in your own arithmetic.

Those offensive numbers support the decision to send him back to AAA. But I think it's at least somewhat encouraging that Pinto is catching in Rochester, an indication that they're hardly giving up on him as a catcher despite this being his 9th year at it as a pro. My hunch though is he'll always be a bad catcher. Hopefully more Ryan Doumit than Matty.

No, spycake, it's just you they don't like at the catcher position.

Probably someone a lot better than Pinto.

The way teams get in trouble is to count on one or two prospects to come through. In our case, we're not talking about a bunch of non-prospects. And you would have described Santana and Vargas as suspects this spring, maybe Arcia too. The Twins have exceptionally strong MI depth now. SD Buhr has been watching Vielma all season, and the Twins are treating him like he's an equally intriguing talent to what Polanco and Santana were the previous year. So, I think it's fair to classify all these guys as higher-ceiling, higher probability prospects, Michael excepted because of his performance and injury history. The caveat on all this is the question of who among them can play adequately at SS. I'll bet you the majority of us would have given Escobar a thumbs down to that question in April.