SDTwinkie

Really like this podcast--would love a way to subscribe and download to a mobile device.

Exactly. Is the original poster trying to argue that his smaller sample size is more representative than the current larger sample? Stop trying to sound smarter than everyone else and enjoy some wins already people!

Also--isn't it a little early for run differential to be predicting trouble? Definitely too small of a sample size. Take out one game (April 12) and the Twins would have a positive run differential.

General comment related to this article: Is it just me, or does it seem like it is "cool" or even "smart" now to rip the Twins, even though they are playing well. Count me as one that is getting a little tired of this. The jaded group within the fanbase is expecting the Twins to crash any day now, but until it does I am going to enjoy it. It is all we can do, as the current 8-7 record is real and the future truly is unknown.

Oh Gosh, I do sound like this, don’t I?!? Ouch. Please don’t count me in this camp. I guess all I am attempting to say is that baseball outcomes are predictable and random at the same time—and sometimes human factors and performance in critical situations (e.g., Parmalee at bat yesterday) are important. I am not ant-stats, just am sometimes put off when some individuals (no one in this discussion) overemphasize them in an arrogant manner. OK, I am quitting now--thanks for the respectful discussion everyone. Go Twins.

No one is arguing that Mauer shouldn't have more at-bats than Dozier. I think the point John was trying to make, and I agree, is that some people take on too strict of a "Joe Mauer batting second leads to x number of at bats leading to x runs leading to x wins" assumption, which implicitly suggests that anyone who understands the basics of sabermetrics is smarter than a major league manager and anyone else who dares to have another opinion.

And really, that's all sabermetrics are... I've never seen anyone claim them to be infallible. All they are is a tool to improve the mean and maximize the talent you have available as a team. This is my perspective as well--one that we can all agree upon. It is overemphasis and dismissiveness that I have a problem with.

"Stating that having your better hitters get more AB's than your worse hitters should lead to more runs and more wins isn't really sabermetrics, its common sense." Completely agree.

Sorry everyone, that last post came off a little more half-cocked than I intended. I am just arguing for a little more perspective and balance than a strict adherence to a "this many runs equals this many wins", especially since this is theoretical and cannot be played out in real life. The Twins had a higher team WAR than the Orioles last year---in light of this variability in the accuracy of WAR I find it hard to get too worked up about the theoretical discussion about how many runs it is costing us to have Mauer bat 2nd or 3rd. Critical, game determining at-bats happen at all points of the batting lineup throughout a season (e.g.., Parmalee's at bat yesterday). FWIW, I would've rather had Mauer batting in Parmalee's slot yesterday.

(Edited and Deleted this Post)

Regarding the “discussion” at about 30 minutes into the podcast: I really get tired of so-called sabremetricians taking a stronger “I know more about this so I am the smarter baseball fan” attitude than they should. In reality, smart baseball fans THINK CRITICALLY and thoughtfully digest different lines of baseball thought. Anyone who largely sees every run and every at bat as equally important across a season (i.e., the Pythagorean) has decreased credibility with me. A two run go-ahead single in the top of the 8th is just not equivalent to a single in a 12-2 game. If you argue that with me I might have to start “checking my email.” Let’s not forget that the pythag is based on CORRELATION, not causation. That is, there is a RELATIONSHIP between runs scored/given up and wins—that not all that surprising if you think about it. There is also a relationship between ice cream sales and temperature—does that mean if people would have bought more ice cream in Minneapolis we could’ve had a warmer opening day? To overemphasize the “hard core smart person” side of sabremetrics and de-emphasize its correlational nature that inherently includes varying levels of imprecision (i.e., the third place Angels had the highest WAR in their division last year) signals a higher level of critical thought is needed. Make no mistake sabremetric analysis contributes to our knowledge of the great game, but I would appreciate it if some people could broaden their perspective and reduce their sabremetric elitism. Blast away all of you that are smarter than me.

Thanks, John. I am sure it is a difficult balance---obviously, you can't please everyone and I admire the both of you for taking on this endeavor.

I love this podcast, guys, I really do. Wonderful Twins discussion for hard-core fans and a great contribution to Twins Territory. Hope you don't mind a little constructive observation: Almost all, if not all, podcast listeners begin as listeners to GaG for one reason: Smart Twins Talk. While I wish you both the best in your personal lives, I don't listen to know more about two guys in Minneapolis and their non-baseball life opinions. I get plenty of that in my own world. You are both excellent writers, and know that conciseness and focus is valued in written publication. Others may disagree, but personally I fast forward the non-Twins stuff, and would welcome a more Twins-focused podcast (even if it is shorter) consistent with your earlier episodes. I guess I am saying stick with what makes the podcast unique (Smart Twins Talk) and include less of the ordinary (small talk and social conversation). As I said, love the podcast and will continue to listen, just a suggestion.