Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Mr. Brooks

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,256

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

 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 Mr. Brooks

  1. Mr. Brooks
    Yep, that's what I get for jumping the gun and not reading through.
  2. Mr. Brooks
    The post you respond to was.
  3. Mr. Brooks
    Someday TD will give us that sarcasm emoji...
  4. Mr. Brooks
    I feel sorry for Odor with that defense.
  5. Mr. Brooks
    Marwin isn't eligible to return until Saturday.
  6. Mr. Brooks
    No they are not. She is proposing retroactively amending the tax returns of married same sex couples to give them the same tax breaks as straight couples. It's not reparations in any way, shape, or form. There may be others discussing gay reparations, but Elizabeth Warren is not. The problem is not your choice of words. It's that you described something that doesn't exist (Warren proposing gay reparations), then cited sources that have nothing to do with Warren, and acted like your initial claim is somehow validated just because you found *someone* who wants reparations for gays. Then you have the audacity to act like people are simply nitpicking your original post. Honestly Ewen, people here patiently attempt to have honest discussions with you, but you continually decline to do so, instead jumping all over the map and twisting your arguments like a seasoned contortionist.
  7. Mr. Brooks
    MLB pipeline has Raley at a 55 fielding tool, versus a 40 for Rooker. I think you are significantly underselling Raley's defense. I have to imagine that 55 is pretty close to what Kepler and/or Rosario would have graded when they were prospects.
  8. Mr. Brooks
    There is a difference between possible and likely. Anything is possible, but Arraez being top 57 all time in OBP is incredibly far from likely. If it is likely, he's (IMO) the best prospect of all time, a near lock hall of Famer, and shouldn't be traded for anyone in baseball.
  9. Mr. Brooks
    I'm not sure what #1 even means. "Appears"? The Twins will have eyes on him, and all the analytics. They'll know if he's pitching well or not. We might have to rely on appearance, but not them. As for #2, I just can't see them calling him up if he's not fixed. You can disagree, of course, but I disagree that this is even a possibility. And #3 seems quite far fetched. The FO isn't going to stand pat. They are going to acquire legitimate quality bullpen pieces before the deadline. They have the payroll flexibility, prospect capital, and a clear need.
  10. Mr. Brooks
    Tax refunds are not reparations.
  11. Mr. Brooks
    In the entire history of MLB, only 56 players have posted career OBP of .400 or higher. Even Joe Mauer failed to come close. And you think it's not only LIKELY that Arraez will do this, but that he'll have WELL OVER it? If that was indeed likely, he'd be the #1 overall prospect in baseball.
  12. Mr. Brooks
    Large sample size across all levels of competition: Sano- 3943 PA: .877 OPS Arraez- 2027 PA: .802 OPS
  13. Mr. Brooks
    He's pitching far better than an "average" reliever right now though. Did you read the article?
  14. Mr. Brooks
    I meant great over large sample sizes. If you were to look at Golden State's last 5 regular seasons, for example, I'd wager that you'd find a team that's more or less a .500 team in close games. They win 65 to 70 games a year because they blow out teams far more often than they get blown out. Of course, it is possible to have something that gives you an advantage in close games- a great bullpen in baseball, a clutch kicker in football, etc. But in general, I think being exceptional in close games in more often than not a fluke.
  15. Mr. Brooks
    I didn't suggest that it was the managers fault. There are many more direct causes than just randomness. Typically in sports, teams, even great ones, should roughly split the close games. The great teams are great because they beat teams convincingly.
  16. Mr. Brooks
    I doubt they'd call him up if they haven't fixed his issues.
  17. Mr. Brooks
    I think you have that backwards, at least where probability theory is typically concerned. In general, the more standard deviations you get away from the expected result, the more likely it is that there is a direct cause, and the less likely that it's just randomness. It's the first thing that casinos look for to spot possible cheating.
  18. Mr. Brooks
    I don't think Rooker will play the outfield in a MLB game.
  19. Mr. Brooks
    Certified by whom? NSF? Because they are the only certification company that MLB recommends it's players use. I'd like to read any links you have regarding NSF Certified supplements being tainted.
  20. Mr. Brooks
    If this lineup can't beat up on this "pitcher", then it will be time to panic. This guy reminds me of some of the guys the Twins were running out there during the early to mid 2010's.
  21. Mr. Brooks
    Players are responsible for what they put in their body. If they choose to use supplements that are not NSF Certified, then this is the risk they take.
  22. Mr. Brooks
    Because the sample size of his leverage stats for this season are far too small to even come close to stabilize.
  23. Mr. Brooks
    I didn't say no expectations. I said not #2 starter expectations. They paid him $2 million last year to recover, and $8 million this year. On the open market, that's #4 money, at best.
  24. Mr. Brooks
    Hey, it worked for Sara Lee.
  25. Mr. Brooks
    #2 pitchers get $100 million+ when they hit free agency, not $10 million. There is no way that #2 was ever a reasonable expectation of Pineda.
×
×
  • Create New...